Far from being in any way repentant at introducing a piece of legislation that is cited by other politicians, lawyers and commentators as being one of the worst, most ill-thought out and badly drafted pieces of legislation in modern history, Lord Baker claims in a recent newspaper article the DDA is a good Act and needs strengthening, not weakening.

Writing in the Guardian newspaper last week, Lord Baker says: `The Dangerous Dogs Act which I introduced in 1991 had two purposes. The first was to remove from the UK the pit bull and pit bull-type dogs and to prevent the import of three other dogs which had been bred to fight. Secondly, to oblige all dog owners not to let their dogs get dangerously out of control in a public place.

Pit bull terriers were bred to fight - there were many illegal dog fights then as there are now. Some of them changed hands for thousands of pounds, being advertised in magazines as "heroic" or "very heroic". They were trained to be vicious and when their jaws clamped on an arm or leg it was impossible to prise them open until the dog was dead. There had been many attacks by pit bulls, not only on humans but on other dogs, and I had support for my proposals from the Kennel Club, the RSPCA and a body of vets.'

Lord Baker is correct in what he says, but the RSPCA soon disowned any responsibility for the Act and refused to allow its Inspectors to appear in DDA prosecution cases, whilst the Kennel Club under the control of the then Chairman John McDougal who derided "the class of person that keeps these dogs" simply felt no responsibility for saving Pit Bulls, which were not a KC-recognised breed. Since the late 1990s, the Kennel Club has opposed the DDA. The fact that there are many illegal dog fights now surely points to the failure of Baker's wonderful Act - it didn't wipe out Pit Bulls bred for fighting and simply pushed the barbaric `sport' of dog fighting further underground. Quite simply, if people want to break the law (and remember, dog fighting has been illegal since 1835), then they'll break the law - it doesn't matter what legislation is passed to outlaw an activity.

Baker continues: `The Act required an owner of a pit bull to register it, to plant a microchip under its skin, and to have it neutered which meant that in a number of years the breed would simply die out. There is no doubt that the Act has been a success in that the number of attacks by pit bulls declined dramatically - there was only one last year and it was not fatal - and so Britain has been a safer place as a result of the Dangerous Dogs Act.'

Baker is clearly referring to the two attacks which prompted the last Conservative Government, headed by John Major and of which he was Home Secretary, to panic and `be seen to be doing something'. The dogs that attacked 6 year-old Rukshana Khan and bakery worker Frank Tempest in the Spring of 1991 were never caught nor formally identified - no charges were ever brought against any owners. They were simply referred to as `Pit Bulls' by the media. Baker chose to target `pit bull `type' dogs as a catch-all; three other breeds were listed under the DDA, namely the Japanese Tosa of which there was only one specimen in the UK at the time (now long since deceased) and the Fila Brassiliero and Dogo Argentino - neither of which were present in the UK.

By classifying the dogs as Pit Bull `types', Section One of the Act saw thousands of crossbreeds and a large number of pedigree Staffordshire Bull Terriers - none of them vicious or in any way dangerous - seized simply for the way they looked. Many of these were destroyed, as the DDA reversed the burden of proof - the dogs were guilty until proven innocent; their owners had to prove they were not pit bull `type' dogs. In one infamous court case in which a pedigree Staffordshire Bull Terrier was on trial, a police officer `expert' gleefully told the court that `a Kennel Club pedigree isn't worth the paper it's written on'. The court ruled that although the dog was a pedigree Staffie it was also a Pit Bull `type' dog!

Baker adds: `Unfortunately the Act was watered-down in 1997 when the argument was put that it was the owners and not the dogs that were at fault - so dogs were given a second chance. This was a mistake. Also many people tried to evade the Act by crossing breeding pit bulls to produce pit bull-types. This encouraged certain determined owners, some with ulterior motives, to prolong the decision about the dogs for far too long. I think the Act needs strengthening and not weakening. I would now give to a committee of three, say two dog wardens and a vet, the decision as to the determination of whether a dog is a pit bull-type and their decision would be final.'

It's hard to begin to disseminate the gross idiocy of these remarks. First off, in early 1997 the Government was still that of which Baker was a serving member! Although by 1997 he was no longer Home Secretary, he was aware of the plans to amend the DDA and voiced no objection at the time. His comment that `certain determined owners, some with ulterior motives' try to evade the Act by `crossing Pit Bulls to produce put bull `types'' simply beggars belief and shows a distinct lack of understanding not only of his own legislation, but also the situation. Dog fighters just carried on breeding their fighting dogs further underground, whilst if `owners with ulterior motives' tried to delay court decisions about their dogs, it was simply to save innocent dogs' lives!

As to Baker's choice of an `expert committee', there are plenty of dog owners who would dispute the `expert knowledge' of just two dogs wardens and a vet. With all due respect to dog wardens and vets, why not include dog judges, people who have had years of experience in identifying breeds? Perhaps it should be remembered that a small number of vets made a very lucrative sideline by appearing as `expert witnesses' for the prosecution in DDA cases. One vet even claimed to have examined around 10,000 pit bulls at their surgery!

The good Lord writes on: `The recent tragic death of a five year old girl has shown yet again that there is no place in the dog-loving community of our country for pit bulls or pit bull-type dogs. Not all the pit bulls are worth the death of one little child. `I also think the Act could also be strengthened as regards certain other breeds. I believe the owners of Rottweilers - two Rottweilers killed a baby last year - and all types of bull terriers – Bill Sykes' dog in Oliver Twist - and German Shepherds should be registered so there is a record of who owns them and where they are based. Orders could then be made to ensure that when these breeds are in a public place, such as a park, they are muzzled. Children have a right to play in safety in our public spaces.'

Although one must agree that no child's life is worth that of a dog, these comments come as no surprise. In his autobiography `The Turbulent Years', Baker infamously writes of discussions about the scope of the DDA at the time it was being drafted, saying: `There was a danger of over-reaction, with demands to have all dogs muzzled and to put Rottweilers, Dobermans and Alsatians [sic] in the same category as pit bulls. This would have infuriated the `green welly' brigade. However, the `pit bull lobby' came to my aid by appearing in front of TV cameras with owners usually sporting tattoos and earrings while extolling the gentle nature of the dogs, whose names were invariably Tyson, Gripper, Killer or Sykes'

Even in dealing with so serious a subject, it seems that the Home Secretary and his advisors still found time to joke about pit bulls and their owners; `The issues we debated included whether to identify dogs by implanting microchips under the skin or by tattooing them. This led to humorous exchanges about exactly who would volunteer to tattoo a pit bull's inside leg and whether the tattoo should match that of the owner. Would pit bulls have `love' and `hate' inscribed on each knuckle'?

Lord Baker, architect of the DDA and Breed Specific legislation concludes his article: `Legislation on dogs is never easy because the relationship between a dog and its owner is very close and affectionate. In over 95% of cases there is no evidence of a dog being anything other than gentle. But one cannot escape the fact that over 4,000 people were admitted to hospital last year with dog bites, so there must be a much greater responsibility shown by dog owners to ensure the safety of the public.'

No argument there - but why should the good 95% be made to suffer for the actions of the irresponsible 5%? Once again, the former Home Secretary has a skewed view of dogs and dog owners - and also how a law should be implemented for the good of all citizens. By all means have tougher laws to punish irresponsible dog owners, but don't produce a law that punishes and penalises all dogs and all dog owners for the actions of the irresponsible few. No law should do this. No good law, that is.

The Dangerous Dogs Act was a badly drafted piece of legislation which presumed guilt, punished the innocent and caused far more problems than it ever solved. It does not need strengthening; it needs repealing and a better, more well considered law put in its place. And Kenneth Baker's input is not needed. His views should be consigned to history. Along with the DDA.

By Nick Mays

See website www.deednotbreed.org.uk