Insurance for all dogs... Will it make a difference?

Today the government have announced that they may introduce new laws to force all dog owners to insure their pets, just in case they bite a human or another animal. They have also talked about putting microchips in dogs, and making every owner register their dog.
Will this make any difference? It is probably a good idea for people to register their dogs; a benefit is that victims of dog attacks can claim compensation, which is a good thing. My neighbour and her dog were attacked by a Staffordshire Bull Terrier a few weeks ago. The Staffy almost killed her dog, and it re-fractured her broken arm. She believes that the bill is a step in the right direction, because if it were in force now she would be able to claim compensation.
However, forcing people to insure their dogs will not stop dog attacks occurring which is the issue that ultimately needs to be addressed. Instead, this law will just protect the owner if a dog attack occurs and the victim wishes to sue. If anything, we should be thinking about harsher ways to deal with people who own dangerous dogs and do nothing about it, or those who continue to breed illegal dogs. We should also try to stop incapable people owning dogs by having official licenses, where authorities can analyse homes and see whether people are fit to own a dog. This would probably stop countless cases of cruelty to animals too. Having a dog is not a right, as far as I’m concerned. It is a privilege.
If the owner is worried that their dog may attack, they should probably have insurance anyway, for the sake of their pet, in case they become ill and face a hefty vet bill. Also, if someone knows that their dog is aggressive with other dogs or people, they should keep their dog on a lead or make it wear a muzzle. If they choose not to, they will have to face the repercussions, which should be very serious.
This news item corresponds to a television feature I am currently working on, where I am looking at dangerous dogs. Having researched the topic, Staffordshire Bull Terriers do have a reputation as being vicious, however the nature/nurture argument comes in to play here.
A notoriously dangerous dog which is brought up well can be a happy, loving pet. I spoke to a lady from Wimborne today who has owned a Staffy for nine years. She told me that her dog has never bitten anyone, and was a lovely pet. We carried out the interview with the dog sat on my lap and I can vouch that it was a friendly pooch.
Yet at a dog class I attended this evening, a couple who were trying to train their Staffy were failing miserably because he was just too aggressive. Is this proof that all Staffy's are inherently aggressive? There is a lot of controversy over this.
Staffys are increasingly being used as status symbols by gangs, and a new trend is emerging which sees dogs being used as weapons, or in underground fighting clubs, which is making the problem worse. The government needs to tackle this issue, and forcing insurance upon dog owners seems like a pathetic attempt which will not get to the root of the problem, that the wrong people are getting hold of these dogs.
Additionally, those careless people who do not have insurance are unlikely to suddenly pay for insurance under the new law. So although this law is a step in the right direction, it doesn’t go nearly far enough in tackling the issue.