By and large, governments’ efforts to neuter the menace posed by aggressive, dangerous and often terrifying canines have proved a dog’s breakfast. A classic example of such well-intentioned failure is the Dangerous Dogs Act — the bastard offspring that resulted from a union between the moral panic generated by a spate of maulings by savage dogs and too hastily drafted legislation.

But Kit Malthouse, the deputy mayor of London for policing, is right to argue that people feel their day-to-day lives are more obviously blighted by increasingly frequent encounters with ill-tempered and intimidating dogs than by the loftier issues that more commonly dominate political debate.

Carrying an illegal gun will get you a large prison sentence. Touting a vicious dog like a weapon might get you a small fine. Courts are clogged with cases pending against such “weapon dogs” as owners swear their pooch is as sweetly soppy as a Nora Ephron movie and quibble about their pet’s precise genetic composition. Nor are Britons alone in saying they’ve had enough. Denmark’s Prime Minister has pledged to ban aggressive breeds of dog, claiming: “We don’t want a society where you cannot go walking with your child or your poodle without risking an attack.” Germany has passed laws to curb fighting dogs. In Canada, Ontario’s new ban on bull breeds and derivatives has already cut the toll of dog-related injuries.

It is evident that the law introduced in Britain 18 years ago to end the use by gangs of dogs as weapons and to outlaw pitbull terrier type dogs is flawed and floundering. Ministers blame police for failure to enforce it. They would do better to find parliamentary time to revisit and refine it.