Question follow-through · 14470
Dangerous Dogs: Insurance
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what the evidence base was for requiring third-party liability insurance for banned breeds, and what will be the impact of removing the requirement.
About this written question
A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.
- Answering body
- Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
- Tabled
- 30 Jun 2026
- Target answer date
- 2 Jul 2026
- Answer
- 3 Jul 2026 · 3 calendar days after tabling
Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.
Votes on this topic
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 5 · 1 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 4 · 1 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 2 · 1 Jul 2026
These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.
Recorded timeline
30 Jun 2026
Question tabled
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what the evidence base was for requiring third-party liability insurance for banned breeds, and what will be the impact of removing the requirement.
2 Jul 2026
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
3 Jul 2026
Answer published
Insurance formed part of the safeguards attached to Certificates of Exemption, providing financial protection for dog owners in the event of an incident. No alternative third-party public liability insurance product is currently available for banned breed...
Official data retrieved 28 Sept 2026.
Later records
Possible follow-up questions
Strong links require the same MP, department and exact heading. Other same-department questions are shown as unreviewed candidates, not as confirmed follow-ups. No debate link is asserted unless a stable source relationship exists.
No later same-department questions indexed.
This is an absence in covered public data, not evidence that no follow-up occurred elsewhere.