Hello and welcome to 4x4 Reports interactive. In the Deadly Dogs programme we examined why the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is failing to prevent attacks. With us in the studio to discuss the issues the programme raised are Anne Robinson the aunt of dog attack victim Leah Preston, David Levy the Kennel Club's liaison officer for Staffordshire Bull Terriers and in our central London studio is the MP Ken Purchase, whose Wolverhampton Northeast constituency last month witnessed two savage dog attacks on young girls. We've had lots of emails from all of you, international ones and ones from the UK. Anne, we've received lots of emails from the public who are concerned about Leah, how is she doing? Anne Robinson: I think she's coping reasonably well with it. Five-year-old children are very resilient aren't they? So she's back home now, she's running around and playing but there's a lot of emotional scars there. Newshost: And it's obviously brought up a lot of issues for you, as a family? Anne Robinson: It has yes. As a family we're devastated. Her mum, every time she looks at Leah, everyday, this attack is in her face and she's finding. Newshost: Is it ever been an issue that you've had to face as a family before? Anne Robinson: No never, never. Like I say Diane's - she's very distraught, she's coping very well with it but she finds it very hard. One minute she'd got a lovely five-year-old girl and now she's scarred for the rest of her life. The injuries are horrific. Newshost: Well I know there are lots of points that you'd like to raise. Kenneth if I can just turn to you as the MP. The attack on Leah what's that prompted you to do? Ken Purchase: Well I think there's been a generally disturbed view by people about the workings of the Dangerous Dog Act. And let me say straightaway that these attacks in my constituency, both of them, were absolutely horrific and it does call, in my opinion, for action to be taken to look again at the act of parliament. Passed in similar circumstances in 1991 in response to similar matters and inevitably the workings of that act, 10, 11years on, perhaps need reviewing. It's certainly not working, the purpose of law is firstly to deter and secondly to offer a remedy to those who are sinned against and in both cases it seems to me the '91 Act is not fulfilling its primary duties to people to protect them. Newshost: David, I'd just like to turn to you. We've had a question actually from Alan Hughes, the father of Nicky Hughes, the victim of the Rottweiler attack that we saw. What he says is there's a lot of information on the internet concerning the anti-breeds specific legislation, so this is the campaign saying that in fact if you have breed-specific legislation it's not good enough, but nowhere, he says, have I seen any realistic or practical suggestions on how to solve the problems of dog attacks if you don't have breed- specific legislation. He says, he has no wish to see any breed banned but something needs to be done before more children or vulnerable people are injured or killed. What are you doing, David, to promote safe and responsible dog ownership given that in fact you say that the breed-specific legislation isn't working or won't work if it was introduced? David Levy: Well let me begin by saying I totally agree with him and I totally agree with Mr Purchase who said that the Dangerous Dog Act isn't working. The problem with the Act, although it has two separate sections, is that the media attention has always been targeted at the breed-specific nature of it and the banning effectively of the Pitbull Terrier. This has given the public the view that Pitbull Terriers are dangerous and that all other dogs are fine and that is just false. Scientific tests and evidence all round the world - all the veterinarian associations and behavioural organisations all say that the most significant issue is actually the background of the owners and how the dogs are being brought up, how early they were taken from the nest with their mother. These are the factors that actually seem to be more telling on whether a dog is going to attack. And the problem, as I say, is the media is kind of diverting us away from finding out more about that because whenever there's an attack - whether it's Leah, Nicky or whoever - the media seems to go straight for which breed did it. And inevitably gets it wrong anyway. Newshost: There are a lot of attacks though that are made by Pitbull Terriers and maybe there is a generalisation. I mean Anne you're concerned about the fact that there isn't any legislation? Anne Robinson: No. I mean any dog can attack at any time. I'm not against any particular breed, I just think that dog owners should have some form of insurance, they should be made accountable, not the dogs, the owners of these animals should be made accountable. They should have some form of insurance so the victims can be redressed and they should be made accountable for the dog's actions. Newshost: We'll perhaps come onto insurance. I mean a lot of owners have e-mailed us from all parts of the world actually - we've got somebody from the Netherlands, owner of two [dog breed] saying they're excellent family dogs and in fact you shouldn't blame the breed you have to blame the deed, most people are saying that to dog owners of these types of dogs. Somebody from the USA, Mr Squirt, says he owns Pitbulls and they do a lot of rescue work and also Jessica you've written in saying that you think there's enough bad press on Pitbulls and you shouldn't actually blame that breed. But in order to have some kind of compensation for victims like Leah, David, I mean what can you possibly do? David Levy: Well again, I have to totally agree with Anne that every dog owner should have third party insurance. Most insurance policies, most household insurance policies, actually offer that for just literally a few pence a week and that will cover you whether it's a dog attack or whether the dog just gets out and causes a road accident, the owner is insured and the victim can be compensated. Newshost: In Leah's case Anne there's no compensation at all really? Anne Robinson: In Leah's case unfortunately the owner of the dogs has got no assets so there's no one to take out a private prosecution on. Whether we'll get any form of criminal injuries compensation yet I'm not sure about but that in itself is not much really. Leah's injuries were so bad that the 4x4 Report could not show specific pictures and she's got to live with this for the rest of her life, she's got to have her leg reconstructed and there's no real form of address for that. Newshost: Ken, what about the idea that legislation should cover owners and that in fact covering the dogs isn't sufficient? Ken Purchase: Yes, I think we're all broadly speaking agreeing with one another. I just want to emphasis the need for prevention rather than any other measure. It seems to me that whilst third party insurance is a splendid idea and perhaps there is room to do something about that, prevention is always the better option. And we really do now have to think in terms of who owns the dogs, in what circumstances are the dogs kept, is it appropriate to have dogs in certain circumstances, are we sure that the owners are fit and proper people for the purposes of owning dogs? And I just want to level all of that by saying obviously millions of households enjoy the company of their dogs, lovely relationships, the dogs never cause a problem to anyone but we do nonetheless have to recognise that there have been over 2,000 prosecutions in the three years I was able to study in parliament, 2,000 prosecutions, over a thousand people were actually convicted and yet this menace continues. We have to find a way of preventing the attacks from continuing. Muzzling is clearly one option but it does seem to me that the fitness to own a dog must be now our prime consideration. Newshost: David, responsibility of owners of dogs that we say are dangerous what can be done? We've got cases of owners even cross-breeding, it's a very difficult area to police and yet something has to be done, there has to be some sort of responsibility doesn't there? David Levy: Well indeed I mean the Kennel Club is primarily responsible for pedigree dogs and the difference between a pedigree dog and a cross-breed is that you should know what your going to get from a mating between one and another, with a cross-breed you're going to get the temperament of Chihuahua with the power of a Rottweiler or the other way round, you don't know. With pedigree dogs the idea is that 99 times out of 100 you'll know what you're going to get. If I can just go back to something that Mr Purchase said, we do definitely need to do something to prevent - this is the important issue - my big concern, I go back to it again, is that because of the way the media directs us only to look at breed all the time - what breed was it, what breed was it, what breed was it? - we never actually really investigate - put the money behind finding out what the causes of these attacks are so that we can learn to prevent them, so that we can pass laws that prevent the causes of dogs attacking. Newshost: Well I'd just like to move onto some other e-mails that we've had. This e-mail is in fact anonymous but it's the way that dogs are bred and this e-mail says the breed isn't the problem, many owners should have the test rather than the dog because in fact that's where the issue is. I mean I know that in 4x4 we looked at testing dogs and looking how dangerous they are but maybe there should be something like that for owners, I mean would you agree with that David or Anne? Anne Robinson: Why can't all owners have their dogs registered with a local council for instance, why can't there be a register of every dog in the local council? David Levy: The problem with registration, just pure and simple, it raises revenues, so councils and governments are often interested in it. But in practice a dog that's registered is no less likely to bite than a dog that's not registered - it doesn't actually address the problem. If a dog gets out in the street and it's registered and it's micro chipped or tattooed okay it's a bit easier to get it home, but if the dog doesn't go home it's never going to escape again. If it does go home the owner says it's mine, you didn't need the evidence of a micro chip or registration to prove that that's where it belongs. Anne Robinson: If it's registered then the owner would be responsible for it. David Levy: The owner's responsible anyway. Newshost: Well we had an e-mail on that very issue from Anne, because your dog is micro chipped and insured but you say that alone isn't sufficient really, it's the environment. Ken I know that you're wanting to say something on that - legislation on this? Ken Purchase: Yes I absolutely agree with the point that micro chipping, whatever we want to do, will not necessarily prevent an attack. Newshost: Well what about Anne's point then about registering the dog… Ken Purchase: Well I think it would probably fill the town hall coffers but I don't think it would achieve much else. I think we have to return, again and again, to the ownership of the dog and the way in which the dog is controlled and the environment in which it is kept. In that way I believe that we can reassure ourselves to an extent that we will minimise the number of attacks by dogs particularly on children. Newshost: What about the tougher legislation, as in Germany? I mean Grace Stephenson in Hull, you want to know about tougher dog testing laws and you want to know more about the laws in Germany. David is that not something that's worthwhile? David Levy: Well there are just so many issues about the laws in Germany. I mean in Germany they banned the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the Bull Terrier, two British breeds that are popular pet dogs over here and have rarely been involved in these sorts of incidents. But the reason they've banned them is because the name sounds similar to American Staffordshire Terrier that was involved in an incident over there. Newshost: But they banned them because there was a death, I mean because it was so serious. I mean Anne you must feel, with Leah's attack, that you know what does it take? Anne Robinson: It could have been totally different, the outcome of Leah's attack could have been totally different. And I did ask the policeman in charge of the case - had that attack gone on for another second and we were looking at a death here what would the charge have been? And he said quite possibly manslaughter. To me that's not good enough. A five-year-old child comes home from school, goes out in the garden, it's wrong. Newshost: Are the penalties tough enough do you think David? David Levy: No is the very simple answer. Newshost: You're in agreement with that? David Levy: Yeah, I mean in Germany they have something called Schutzhound, which is training dogs to actually attack people, it's a sport in Germany. In this country the Kennel Club does not back it at all - it's banned from anyone who wants to belong to the Kennel Club. But also in this country we have this constant situation where people don't know what dog they actually have, they buy a dog from a couple down in the pub or a chap in the pub, he says it's a nice small so and so, they get it home and eight months later, having played with it in the house, the dog is now 20" tall, weighing 40lbs and still growing but they've had no training on it, they've had no experience of these breeds before, they've suddenly got a dog that they've not trained as a normal owner would or an experienced owner would from perhaps six weeks onwards you'd be starting to train those dogs properly. Newshost: It's an interesting point that you raise there and I'd like to bring Ken in but Martin Hodgson from Cambridge you want to raise the issue of dangerous dogs that end up in homes because the owners just are unable to cope with them. The homes find them new owners who can be equally irresponsible and there's a vicious circle if you like. Ken is there nothing that can be done about dogs in homes? I mean maybe in your constituency with two savage dog attacks? Ken Purchase: Yes, let me just deal firstly with the point of the adequacy or otherwise of the punishments for allowing your dog to cause an attack or to run wild in a public place. You can go to prison, you can be fined up to £1,000. Now that seems to me a pretty stiff penalty but as I've mentioned thousands of attacks still take place and a thousand or more prosecutions and convictions follow. Now how do we deal with this? We really do have to say, just as in the case of the firearm laws, and it's just as deadly, in the case of firearms or airguns or whatever, we need an inspection of the person who is to be the owner. Now it's not an easy job, it's probably costly and very time consuming but if we want to cut down on this huge number of attacks that take place every year then we have to inspect and have to be sure that owners are fit for that job. Newshost: Well I'm sure Amanda Roberts will agree with that, Amanda you've just e-mailed us and say that dog owners must be made responsible for their dog's actions. Last night a dog owner stood by laughing while a dog killed your cat and there's nothing that you can do about it, it's very frustrating. Is there anything that you think could be introduced David that would stop this kind of thing happening? David Levy: Well the first thing is to implement the laws we already have. In most high streets or main roads whatever, dogs have to be on a lead yet we still think it's funny to let dogs run around on their own. There's still the latch key dog situation in many towns. In London, in my area, I haven't seen very many recently, but certainly there are cities and towns in England where the laws just aren't really implemented. If someone lets their dog out take the dog away from them, simple as that, they can't do it again tomorrow if they haven't got the dog anymore. Newshost: We're hearing now from people wanting to know why is there a need to have a dangerous dog in the first place? There are plenty of dogs that aren't dangerous. David Levy: Well very few people go out to buy a dangerous dog, people go out to buy a breed. If you look at some of the people who own - in Germany the Bull Terrier is banned, Princess Anne has a Bull Terrier. In Germany the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is banned, Lennox Lewis has a Staffordshire Terrier, many MP's have Staffordshire Bull Terriers. Newshost: It doesn't mean the dog isn't dangerous. Anne what would you say about that? Anne Robinson: Why do people need dangerous dogs? These dangerous dogs can't possibly be pets. David Levy: Well 750,000 Staffordshire Bull Terriers are pets in this country, they're the seventh most popular breed and that's about one per cent of the population. If we are saying that one per cent of the population are actively out there trying to cause trouble for other people - these are wonderful pet dogs, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is actually one of only two breeds in the Kennel Club breed standards that is a requirement of the breed to be especially good with children. Newshost: But is the breeding getting out of hand? I mean just going back to Martin Hodgson's e-mail about them ending up in homes and there's a vicious circle where somebody will then get one and then try and perhaps tame it and it's just not effective is it that? David Levy: I guess not. I mean one needs to be sure that if you're going to re-home any dog, I mean if I breed a litter of puppies, which I don't do very often but if I do, and one of them was extremely aggressive then I wouldn't probably re-home it, I'd have it put down, even at that age. And so rescue homes should be being sensible about whether a dog is or is not aggressive, if it's overly aggressive. I mean I know for example Battersea Dogs Home has a temperament test that they give to every dog that comes through if a dog fails it, it is not passed on for re-homing. Anne Robinson: But there's also a lot of irresponsible breeders out there that are just breeding dogs purely for making money and this is where these attacks are coming from. So may be we need to clamp down on the irresponsible breeders. Ken Purchase: Just on this point of people wanting dangerous dogs. There is you know just a little tendency, it's growing, for certain people to want to show off a very large or angry looking dog and I'm afraid that that is a growing tendency. I see it in my own constituency and it's very, very worrying. And I wouldn't let some of these people own a dog if it was up to me, I'll tell you bluntly and straight from the shoulder, and that's why I think it's important that responsible ownership is at the heart of any new act of parliament that we might have on this matter. Newshost: Well I'm sure Ben from Belgium would agree with you. Ben you've just e-mailed us, you were attacked six years ago by a German Shepherd Pitbull Cross, obviously it's the owner that's done that, it savaged your chest badly and you're recovered now but you really want to prevent this type of thing from happening and what you're recommending is the same legislation that they have in Germany. That's all we've probably got time for I think. Just on that note thank you very much for taking part Anne Robinson, Ken Purchase and David Levy in this 4x4 Reports Forum and thanks especially to everyone of you who has sent us e-mails. If you'd like more information on the issues raised on this week's 4x4 Reports don't forget there's further information on the website www.bbc.co.uk/4x4reports. We're back next week with a 4x4 Reports investigation into cosmetic surgery, but for now from me Marcia Hughes on behalf of the 4x4 Reports team, goodbye.