The Big Question: Are there too many dangerous dogs in Britain, and what can we do about it?

Why are we asking this question now?

The savaging of two young children by Rottweilers in five days has raised serious concerns about how best to protect the public from dangerous dogs.

Related articles

• Mother of boy in rottweiler attack issues warning to dog owners

About 3,000 people in the UK are injured by dogs every year. And many people are now questioning the current laws governing dog control.

In the first attack, five-month-old Cadey-Lee Deacon was killed by two Rottweilers in Leicester last weekend; the second left two-year-old Harvey Lawrence in hospital with serious injuries after he was savaged by a Rottweiler owned by his grandmother's partner.

Doesn't the Dangerous Dogs Act already tackle this problem?

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was introduced after a public outcry over a series of dog attacks on children and fears about new types of fighting dogs being imported into the country. But it was drafted at speed and is commonly cited as a warning to ministers not to rush through flawed legislation.

The Act banned the breeding and sale or exchange of four types of dog: pitbull terriers, Japanese tosas - which can grow to 17 stones in weight - Dogo Argentinos and Filo Brazilieros. It also required these dogs to be kept muzzled and on a lead at all times in public places.

Controversially, these rules also applied to any other dog "appearing... to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose". This wording led to major disputes about "innocent dogs on death row", usually involving disputed pitbull terriers or dogs whose muzzles had been removed for what their owners argued were legitimate reasons.

In addition, the Act covers any dog which is "dangerously out of control", but only on public property or where it is not allowed to be. It does not cover dogs who attack in their own homes.

Aren't irresponsible dog owners the real problem?

There are more than six million dogs in the UK and most have been well trained by responsible owners. However, too many people own dogs they are not able to control. The Kennel Club, the 133-year-old dog owners' association, says the Dangerous Dogs Act is "flawed" because it blacklists particular breeds of dogs rather than making all owners more responsible for their dogs' behaviour. "Blame the deed, not the breed," says a spokesman.

They argue that all dog owners should attend training and must be able to control their animal at all times. No dog is "perfectly safe" and they should always be kept under supervision when young children are around, argues Ryan O'Meara editor of K9 magazine. "They're animals and it is very hard to gauge how they will react while you are not there," he said. "I don't blame the breed, I blame anyone who leaves their child alone with any dog of kind."

So is it nature or nurture that should be blamed?

Although some breeds may tend to be more aggressive than others, a dog's behaviour is usually the result of how it has been treated by people. Rottweilers have come under fire this week because the breed was responsible for both attacks on children. But Chris Window, from the Rottweiler Breed Council, said although there are about 50,000 Rottweilers in the UK, it was rare for the breed to attack anyone.

"They are strong, powerful dogs but they are intrinsically good-natured," he said. "It is not in their character to be aggressive. In the past they were used as herding dogs, but in recent years they have become more popular as guard dogs. It really comes down to the owners. A Rottweiler should be happy and sociable. It should be used to having people, including children, around it all the time. You shouldn't keep dogs on ropes and chains where you restrict their movement. If you're confining it to an area, its guard dog instincts will come into play."

But even placid breeds, with good owners, can suddenly turn savage. Attacks have been carried out by breeds which are normally assumed to be gentle - such as Labradors. One high-profile mauling was revealed last November when French mother Isabelle Dinoire received the world's first face transplant. She lost her nose, lips and chin during the attack by her pet Labrador while she slept.

Would dog licences and training for owners help?

Campaigners argue that it is absurd that people need licences to drive a car or watch television, but not to own a dog. They would like the reintroduction of licences costing a substantial amount, so the revenue could be used to fund dog wardens to clamp down on problem dogs and owners, by patrolling the streets and parks; and following up on worries expressed by the public.

The dog licence was abolished in 1987, by the then Conservative government. A dog licence cost just 37.5p and was held by only about half of dog owners. It was argued that it was no longer economic to collect such small sums and an increase would have been unpopular with dog owners. When Labour was in opposition it promised to introduce a dog registration scheme. But it shelved the idea once it got into power.

It has been suggested that licences should be granted only to owners who have been trained in how to handle dogs. But would any government ban children getting puppies for Christmas? In any case, it is argued that you can train an owner but can you be sure they will follow the training when they get back home.

Could the law prevent children being attacked?

Campaigners argue that there are major loopholes in the law - particularly because it does not cover attacks by dogs in their own homes. Patricia Hewitt, the Secretary of State for Health and also the MP for the Leicester constituency where Cadey-Lee Deacon was killed, has said she would discuss with other ministers the possibility of introducing a training and licensing system for dog owners.

However, she warned: "Unless we're going to take the step of saying that a family with a child isn't allowed to own a dog, it seems to me the law is unlikely to be able to rule out every possible tragedy of this kind."

Would more legislation protect the public from dangerous dogs?

Yes...

* As it is unacceptable that 3,000 people are injured by dogs every year, the Government has a duty to act

* Dog behaviour could be improved if owners were required to ensure that their pets were properly trained

* Current laws do not cover dangerous dogs in the home, where mandatory supervision could protect children from sudden attacks

No...

* Terrible accidents will always happen no matter what laws are introduced

* Owners should be allowed to use their judgement at home, and dangerous dogs in public places are already covered by the law

* It would be wrong to burden all dog owners with regulation just because of an irresponsible minority