All dog owners in England and Wales would have to insure against their pet attacking someone, under Labour proposals to tackle dangerous breeds.

Police and local authorities could also be given powers to force owners of dangerous dogs to muzzle them or even get them neutered.

Ministers say the consultation responds to concerns about the use of animals to intimidate or threaten people.

But the Tories say Labour has allowed the problem to grow in recent years.

Each week, more than 100 people are admitted to hospital after dog attacks.

There has also been a reported rise in levels of dog fighting and illegal ownership, particularly by gangs who are using dangerous dogs as status symbols.

Compensation

Coming a few weeks before a general election is expected, the government has launched a consultation on amending the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act.

This legislation banned four types - the pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa, the dogo Argentino and the fila Brasileiro - from public places.

The government's consultation suggests also banning them from people's homes.

Ministers argue this will also protect postal workers, telecoms engineers and other people whose work takes them on to private land.

Should all dogs be insured?

Another proposal is to introduce compulsory third-party insurance for dog owners to ensure attack victims are compensated.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson said he was concerned that some owners were keeping dogs with the sole purpose of intimidating other people.

He told BBC News: "What most dog owners recognise is that what's going on is cruelty to animals.

"Other dogs are being treated abysmally because of this fashion for 'status dogs', which has been the main issue over the last five or six years."

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said: "There is a lot of public concern about dog attacks, including the recent tragic deaths of young children, and about the rise in the number of so-called status dogs used to intimidate or threaten people.

"This is a serious issue of public safety. The government wants to hear what people think about the law as it stands and what more we might do to protect people from dangerous dogs."

Serious debate

The CWU postal union welcomed the proposals as "long overdue", with general secretary Billy Hayes saying: "Thousands of our members are attacked at work every year. This reform cannot come soon enough."

The RSPCA said a serious debate on the issue was needed, concentrating on curbing irresponsible pet ownership.

Postman Paul Coleman describes how two dogs attacked him on his delivery round

The charity's government relations manager, Claire Robinson, said: "There is a real need for updated legislation that enables enforcers to tackle the problem effectively and prevent serious incidents from occurring rather than waiting till after a tragedy or penalising certain dogs just because of their breed or type."

The Conservatives said the government had allowed the problem to get worse, with the number of people convicted for allowing their dogs to cause injury more than doubling in the past decade.

Peter Tallack, a former Metropolitan Police dog handler, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that owners of dangerous dogs had "a lack of understanding of what potential they've got on their hands".

"It's become a major problem now. It's become a bit of a cult.

"It's very difficult for the police. With all the resources in the world we couldn't tackle the problem at the moment."

He added: "I don't think there's a choice other than dog registration over the next few years."

The proposed insurance plan would not apply in Scotland. However, a backbench bill proposed by the SNP's Christine Grahame is currently being examined by the Scottish Parliament.

The Control of Dogs Bill would allow councils to impose restrictions on owners who failed to control their pets.

The Dangerous Dogs Act, which was passed by Parliament in 1991 after a spate of attacks, brought in destruction orders for banned dogs in England and Wales.

In 1997, another parliamentary act amended the law, removing the compulsory destruction orders and giving courts discretion over the issue and the sentencing of owners.

Stupid idea. The only people who'll pay are responsible dog owners who currently control their pets. People who have illegal breeds or who don't control their dogs just wont pay. Yet again Labour have found a way to punish the innocent without punishing the guilty.

Sadly, you are right. I know a few responsible dog owners, and they no doubt will cough up. But there are many who have less than perfect control over their dogs who will not bother.

There are two elements to this story. One is law abiding dog owners and then you have the unlawful kind. Why should a law abiding dog owner whose dog is no trouble at all be treated like a gang member who trains their dog to attack people have to pay extra for the few who break the law.

You have to have personal liability insurance here, if you have a dog. Otherwise it is just strongly recommended, given that a friend's kids decided to draw on her ex-boyfriend's car, with sharp stones, it is probably a good thing to have insurance.


And your dog pulls the lead out of your hand and runs into the road, causing a multi-car pile up. How are you going to pay for that?

Or the dog kills the neighbour's cat as it runs across the garden?

Or you visit a friend and the dog knocks over that priceless Ming vase? (Or you knock it over for that matter.)

Violent dogs is one thing, but accidents are another.

Or the dog kills the neighbour's cat as it runs across the garden?

If they don't cough up then the police will have the power to do something about it. I imagine uninsured dogs could be impounded, much like uninsured cars. If they're chipped, then it would only take a moment to check.

Yer Right ! – I’m sure the police have more important things to do than go around asking to see your Dogs Papers

Like stopping photographers photographing landmarks?
The police will stop dog owners as it's an easy way to boost their numbers. Go to a park where people walk their dogs, stop every one, catch one of two out, that's two more crimes reported and solved. Much easier than catching burglars.