Micro Chipping and banning of certain breeds of dog is currently being put forward for debate. I have been asked my opinion and for the benefit of the readers I would like to give it.
My strong opinion is there are no dangerous dog breeds but there are, however, dangerous owners. For instance, in my work I have seen in the last year upwards of 300 hundred dogs on a one to one basis and been bitten three times and every time by a dog that would be classed as non dangerous but each one of these dogs would be capable of inflicting serious damage to a child.
The type of owner who the government is trying to target actually enjoy having a banned dangerous dog it gives them more street cred and the intimidation factor. “I own a dangerous banned dog” would be a boastful statement. As for getting insurance for a dog, many don't have a driving licence or insurance to drive so they certainly wouldn't bother to insure or licence a dog.
The question of micro chipping and insurance for ordinary law-abiding people is different this would benefit the dogs because micro chipping would help dog wardens identify stray dogs and through insurance dogs would have access to medical care should they be attacked by another dog, however, it may be difficult to apportion blame to a particular party.
I do, however, think everybody would benefit from some kind of scheme whereby a degree of understanding of a dogs welfare and instinctive behaviour is required before ownership of ANY dog whatever the breed. The education of the owner is the key, once that is done the dogs are easy. This should be followed up by a minimum obedience requirement.