In the UK dog licences were abolished in 1987 as they were thought to be ineffective. Recently the RSPCA and Dogs Trust looked at the costs associated with dog control across the UK and explored the possible re-introduction of dog licences to offset these costs. 

Why might we need to re-introduce dog licences?

Currently there are around 15.5 million pet dogs in the UK. The incident of out-of-control dogs causing an injury has risen by 80% since 2020, from 16,040 in 2020 to 29,400 in 2025. There were 31,398 dog attacks in 2023 and 32,568 in 2024 at which point XL Bully dogs were banned, but the number of attacks is still alarmingly high. 

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and NHS England reported that 12,423 people needed hospital treatment for dog bites in 2023/24. Fatalities from dog attacks used to be very low with perhaps 3 or 4 deaths annually. In recent years deaths caused by dog bites surged in 2023 to 20 deaths according to the Office for National Statistics.  Clearly these figures are alarming and the cost of dealing with dangerous dogs and treating injuries, is high. 

In the light of this situation, the RSPCA and Dogs Trust wanted to look at ways in which the costs of dealing with dangerous dogs could be covered They asked the York Health Economics Consortium to investigate if there would be public support for the re-introduction of the dog licence. Dogs already have to be micro-chipped, but this fee is not used to offset the costs of dealing with wayward pets, so what are the arguments for, and against, dog licences?    

Arguments for the reintroduction of dog licences

• Promotes Responsible Ownership: It is suggested that a licensing system, particularly if it includes a "dog owner's test" or requires basic training, would force potential owners to consider the seriousness of owning a pet.
• Safety and Traceability: A central, modernised database linked to microchipping could make it easier to track owners of abandoned or dangerous dogs, addressing the surge in pet abandonment and dog attacks.
• Funding for Infrastructure: Fees from the licence could be used to fund dog wardens, animal welfare initiatives and the cleaning of public spaces from dog poo fouling.
• Reducing Attacks, and Cruelty: Supporters hope that stricter, monitored ownership could help alleviate problems with puppy farm breeding and reduce the increasing number of livestock attacks by dogs.
• Improved Accountability: A legal requirement for a licence, possibly paired with mandatory insurance, would offer greater recourse to victims of dog attacks. 

Arguments Against Reintroducing dog licences

• Ineffectiveness on Irresponsible Owners: Critics argue that those who do not train their dogs or clean up after them now are unlikely to purchase a licence, rendering the scheme useless, as seen in the pre-1987 system.
• "Tax" on Responsible Owners: It is viewed by many as a financial penalty for responsible owners, while not stopping the irresponsible owners.
• Increased Abandonment: There are fears that if a licence fee is too expensive, it could lead to an increase in people abandoning their dogs rather than paying, in the short term.
• Enforcement Challenges: Policing the system would be complex and likely expensive, perhaps costing more than the income generated.
• Existing Regulations: Critics argue that the current mandatory microchipping regulations are sufficient if properly enforced, and a new licence is merely redundant, especially if not paired with training or education.

There’s no doubt that the number of dog attacks on people, and livestock, is alarming and costly. In addition irresponsible breeding and dog abandonment is also still a huge problem. Blue Cross recently reported an 122% increase in dogs abandoned to their shelters between 2022 and 2025. While many dogs are given up for valid but unforeseen reasons a dog licence might reduce the number of dogs bred in puppy farms or taken on without thorough thought. 

While introducing dog licences is not universally supported, it is proactive of RSPCA and Dogs Trust to research the options and lobby for change. We would support some form of greater control to protect pets, livestock and owners but what the answer is, remains to be seen. 

Meanwhile, most pet insurers offer Third Party Liability cover, so if your dog does cause damage to someone else’s property you are protected from any financial claim made as a result. 

If you are considering pet insurance, please check out our reviews and insurers to help you make the right choice for you and your pets.