The sharpest voice in the room was a No voter warning of “a disgusting scam of an industry”, not a triumphal Yes campaign. Compulsory cover nevertheless carried the vote, revealing a chamber more persuaded by the promise of compensation than by fears about the insurance market.
The winning Yes case was practical rather than sentimental: if a dog can cause harm, its owner should pool the risk. The floor’s most-respected Yes voice called third-party insurance “a no brainer”, while another framed ownership plainly: “Dogs are fun but they're a solemn responsibility.”
No voters argued that insurance would soften responsibility rather than enforce it. One of the side’s strongest contributions said, “Insurance is simply shifting the blame and deterrence”, while others preferred licences, a register of banned owners, prosecution and a faster justice system; the dispute was over whether the priority was paying victims or preventing the harm.
The divide also ran through fairness and scope: several voters feared blanket costs for careful owners, questioned enforcement and asked why dogs should be singled out from other pets. Even a relatively open-minded No voice said, “I’m not convinced it is a blanket necessity for all dog owners”, while another preferred “Changes to legislation to make compensation easier” over imposing a new duty on everyone.
The result was a vote for shared financial responsibility, but the room’s most respected objection leaves the harder question intact: who controls the cost, and who makes the rule bite?
30 Opinions
In principle I think Yes, HOWEVER, voting No due to the disgusting scam of an industry that is the UK insurance industry. They will be so eager to enrich themselves from this that it will end in unjustifiable costs for certain breeds in the way that young people have to pay £10k a year to insure a £5k car
Dogs are extremely safe. Compulsory insurance is a ludicrous idea. More people are killed by cattle than dogs. We are talking half a dozen deaths and about 15 million dogs.
I voted no as I don't think all dog owners should suffer extra costs because of bad owners. Yes they need to bring back the dog licenses and have a list of those banned from owning pets but that's a separate issue. The owners are the problem not the dogs. I'd rather illegals be tagged than dogs insured!
If you are required to have a license to have a dog, then you should be required to have one to have children. Some children grow up to be far worse than these dangerous dogs. But we don't, so it would be inconsistent.
No, all insurances should be voluntary. Owners responsibility and quick and fair justice system is the solution here. We should focus on fixing our laws and justice system rather than expanding laws. And why just dogs? What about cats, or other dangerous pets (venomous snakes or spiders)?
Insurance is simply shifting the blame and deterrence. Far better to apply existing law: if something you are responsible for, such as a dog, causes harm or damage, then you should be prosecuted for that harm. If you don't want that risk, as a dog owner, then train your dog and control it properly.
As someone who has a dog I think this is perfectly reasonable. If you have an animal that is capable of causing harm (no matter how predictable you think it is), then third-party insurance should be a no brainer. It costs as little as £25 a year, so a fairly inconsequential cost...
Instead bring back the dog license and stop irresponsible ownership.
I have a dog, he's nice, I've trained him well. He's very unlikely to wreck things or attack anyone. I already pay for pet insurance for his health. My pet insurance already has a third party liability and I'm happy to pay it. Dogs are fun but they're a solemn responsibility. Making insurance a legal obligation ensures that less affluent dog owners are not indebted for life by the actions of their dog,
Changes to legislation to make compensation easier should be the objective here, rather than hitting so many people with added costs through no fault of their own.