Call for evidence outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 23 December 2020

1. Introduction

This document provides a summary of responses to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ (Defra) call for evidence on compulsory cat microchipping in England. The call for evidence ran for 12 weeks from 12 October 2019 to 4 January 2020. This document provides a summary of the responses received and details the next steps for the proposals on compulsory cat microchipping.

2. Background

Compulsory dog microchipping was introduced in England through the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015 (the 2015 Regulations), to improve the welfare of dogs by helping lost and stray dogs to be reunited quickly with their owners, and also as a measure to improve public safety and reduce nuisance caused by stray dogs. However, it is not currently a legal requirement for owners to microchip their cats unless travelling under the EU Pet Travel Scheme where it is a requirement to be microchipped. Defra has received strong representations that cat microchipping should be a compulsory requirement for cat owners to increase the proportion of cats that are microchipped, for the sake of their welfare. The government has committed to bringing forward the microchipping of cats.

3. What is microchipping?

Microchipping involves the insertion of a microchip, generally about the size of a grain of rice, under the skin of an animal. The microchip has a unique serial number which can be read by a microchip scanner. In the UK, the serial number is held by a commercial database provider and when cross referenced, the details of the animal, the name and address and contact details of its keeper, and other information is available. When an animal strays or is lost, scanning the microchip can enable the registered keeper to be identified so that the animal can be reunited with them.

4. Summary of response statistics

Defra received 3,140 responses to the call for evidence. Responses were received from cat welfare organisations, rescue and rehoming centres, cat charities and members of the public.

The responses fell into three distinct groups. 3,004 (96%) were part of an online campaign organised by Cats Protection. Of the remaining 136 responses, 111 (3.5%) were from individual members of the public and 25 (0.5%) were from organisations or individuals associated with the microchipping sector, including the veterinary sector and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). 3,118 (99%) of respondents agreed with compulsory cat microchipping and 22 (1%) respondents disagreed.

Thirteen specific areas of evidence were requested. A range of views were received from respondents and not every respondent provided evidence or views against each question.

The 3,004 responses inspired by Cats Protection’s campaign were letters which called for compulsory microchipping of cats on the basis that it is more likely to reunite an owner with their displaced cat. The campaign pointed out that cats are more likely to roam than dogs and so more likely to get lost. They considered that microchipping is a safe, permanent and cost-effective method of identification that benefits cat welfare. These letters have been taken into account and show a general indication of support for this policy, but as they did not provide specific responses to the individual questions they have not been included in the numerical analysis below.

5. The call for evidence

5.1 Evidence question 1 – advantages & disadvantages of cat microchipping

Of the 136 responses from individual members of the public, microchipping sector, veterinary sector, and NGOs, 93 (68%) responded to this question.

Many public respondents noted that reunification was the biggest advantage to compulsory cat microchipping. In addition, microchipping provides peace of mind, and closure for owners whose cats are found injured or dead due to road traffic accidents. The public also noted that microchipping means that irresponsible owners are more traceable, and made more accountable for their animals, hopefully working to prevent further cruelty to cats and overall encouraging owners to be more responsible.

Some public respondents noted that a potential threat to the success of compulsory cat microchipping is that there is currently no requirement for veterinary surgeons to scan cats that come into their surgery as strays or at their first appointment. Respondents noted that mandatory scanning by veterinary professionals would benefit the reunification process. However, in their joint response the British Veterinary Association, the British Small Animal Veterinary Association and Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons were clear that they recommend as best practice that veterinary practices should scan for a microchip under the following circumstances: prior to microchip implantation; on presentation of a lost, stray or apparently unowned animal; on first presentation at the practice; before travelling abroad; before rabies vaccination or official certification; annually as routine; on admission for treatment or hospitalisation where appropriate and prior to euthanasia. This is also stated in the guidance to the code of professional veterinary conduct held by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

Most sector organisations also agreed that reunification was the biggest advantage to compulsory cat microchipping, noting the likely beneficial effect on the physical and mental welfare of the cats. In addition, the burden on rescue centres would likely be lessened with fewer cats being left unclaimed. Many sector respondents considered that the biggest challenge to the success of compulsory cat microchipping was likely to be enforcement of the legislation given local authority resource constraints. Elderly owners or those with a disability may also be disadvantaged in terms of accessing information on microchipping requirements. This could be mitigated by better communications to raise public awareness.

5.2 Evidence question 2 – the impact of stray cats

Of the 136 responses from the individual members of the public and the microchipping sector, 21 (15%) responded to this question.

Most public respondents agreed that stray cats are less of a nuisance than stray dogs as cats do not pose the same public safety risk. However, stray or abandoned cats can still cause a public nuisance, and they add to the feral cat population. These cats can cause welfare problems for other cats by interacting with them. Being able to identify owners quickly, if the cat has been abandoned, via a microchip would save time and resources. To help tackle these problems, public respondents felt that it would be beneficial to develop better educational programmes on responsible cat ownership, including encouraging owners to have their cats neutered.

Most sector organisation respondents agreed with the public respondents in that stray cats are less of a nuisance than stray dogs. The UK does not have a population of street dogs or feral dogs so to see a dog unaccompanied causes concern to the public. Conversely, cats roam freely, as is their nature, and this may include feral or community cats, fed and watered by various households. Data from the Blue Cross shows that it is not uncommon for owned cats to be presented as strays. In 2017, 24% of cats admitted to the Blue Cross were viewed as strays. Over a fifth of people surveyed by the Blue Cross said they had given food or water to a cat they believed to be a stray, while 11% had actually taken the cat in as their own. The Blue Cross believes these statistics on caring for strays will decrease if compulsory microchipping is introduced as some people may not want to take on the responsibility of caring for the cat.

5.3 Evidence question 3 – costs of compulsory microchipping

Of the 136 responses from individual members of the public and the microchipping sector, 27 (20%) responded to this question.

Cats Protection acknowledged the potential cost to owners of microchipping their cat and urged anyone considering getting a cat or having a litter of kittens to take these costs into account along with all the other requirements of responsible cat ownership. Cats Protection also identified three separate elements to microchipping costs: cost of the actual chip; cost of having it implanted and cost of registering and updating the details of the cat with a database company. The basic registration fee of microchip details is around £15 or less. If any changes need to be made such as transfer of ownership or change of address then an additional fee ranging from £6-£15 is often charged. Most databases offer a premium service allowing any changes to be made free of charge for the lifetime of the cat, ranging from £17 to £21.

Some public respondents felt that microchipping costs would be negligible compared to the overall costs of cat ownership. It was felt that those prospective cat owners who would struggle to meet the cost of microchipping, seen as a small cost in light of wider cat ownership costs, would think twice about wanting to own a cat in the first place. Most public respondents felt that pet owners should be fined for not microchipping their pets, including cats. However, it was also felt that the government should help with the costs where needed e.g. for those in financial hardship.

Some respondents felt that the fees microchip databases charge to update microchip details are excessive. Most sector organisation respondents felt that microchipping costs are reasonable when considered against the whole life time cost of cat ownership. However, they agreed that those in financial hardship should be offered help in meeting this cost.

Some sector organisation respondents felt that prospective cat owners should take into account the cost of getting their cat microchipped before purchasing a cat. A number of charities provide free microchipping for both dogs and cats and it would be useful to promote these schemes to owners who need support to meet the costs. The Blue Cross noted that recent research by them showed that 60% of cat owners had underestimated the cost of keeping a cat long term.

Petlog, one of the microchip database companies, supported the introduction of compulsory microchipping for cats but noted that a significant increase in the number of cats microchipped would have financial implications for database companies. Petlog already receives more enquiries relating to lost cats than dogs. The fact that many cats roam freely means that owners are more likely to report cats as missing. Cats can have more than one person who consider that they own them, and disputes over ownership could result in multiple registrations on different databases. Petlog said that there is a risk that databases could spend a considerable amount of time trying to resolve such disputes.

5.4 Evidence question 4 – feral cats

Of the 136 responses from the individual members of the public and the microchipping sector, 41 (30%) responded to this question.

Most public respondents felt that the requirements for microchipping should be restricted to ‘owned’ cats only, and not to feral cats. The view of many public respondents was that people who regularly feed stray/feral cats would not want to be responsible for microchipping them. Public respondents also suggested that the physical act of trapping a feral cat would be extremely challenging. Some respondents felt that the task of implanting a microchip and subsequently trying to scan the feral cat for its chip would be a challenge and could compromise the welfare of the cat. Some sector organisation respondents shared this view.

Cats Protection did not recommend requiring microchipping of unowned, free-roaming populations of cats. Cats Protection and other charities have programmes of ‘Trap, Neuter, Release’ (TNR) for community cats and feral cats. Cats that have been subject to TNR are ear tipped after neutering to identify that the cat has been neutered and is not owned. Cats Protection does not believe the microchipping of unowned, free roaming cats would benefit cat welfare.

5.5 Evidence question 5 – exemptions for non-resident cats

Of the 136 responses from the individual members of the public and the microchipping sector, 17 (12.5%) responded to this question.

Imported dogs remaining in England have to be registered on a microchip database compliant with the 2015 Regulations within 30 days of entering the country. Most public respondents felt that cats should have the same exemptions as dogs when entering the country i.e. they must be microchipped within 30 days unless a veterinary surgeon certifies that inserting a microchip would be detrimental to the cat’s health. Respondents considered that visiting animals should be logged on a temporary register as part of the compliance for admission into the UK, with a requirement for owners to keep details updated. Their view was that this would assist with tracking visiting animals and preventing illegal imports.

Most sector organisations also agreed. The campaign group Pet Theft Awareness noted that pets brought into the UK have to be microchipped in order to travel but that they are not automatically registered on a UK database, although it considers that the public generally believe this is automatically done.

5.6 Evidence question 6 – enforcement arrangements

Of the 136 responses from the individual members of the public and the microchipping sector, 31 (23%) responded to this question.

Most public respondents felt that local authorities would not be able to enforce cat microchipping effectively enough due to lack of resources, and many felt that there should be additional central government funding. Respondents felt that local authorities need to be better equipped and prepared to scan for microchips when dealing with stray or deceased cats. In addition, respondents felt that compulsory cat microchipping must be supported by the routine scanning of dogs and cats found by dog wardens, highways departments and, most importantly, veterinarians.

Sector organisation respondents also expressed concern that dog microchipping legislation is not enforced properly, and urged Defra and local authorities to take steps together to rectify this problem before introducing similar legislation for cats. There was some doubt that cats would be picked up by local authorities, unless injured or killed. In these cases respondents felt that issuing a fine would not be the best response. The sector expressed doubts as to how microchipping legislation could be properly enforced considering it is the nature of cats to roam and visit multiple homes. The Blue Cross suggested a £500 fine, in the form of a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN), for owners who do not comply with cat microchipping legislation. The Blue Cross see FPNs as an effective means of changing behaviour and encouraging compliance. Cats Protection also suggested a maximum fine of £500. They also suggested that anyone who is found not to have microchipped their cat should be given 21 days to do so before facing a possible fine, which is currently the case for dog microchipping, but they also supported the use of FPNs.

5.7 Evidence question 7 – should any scheme build on the existing legal requirements for dog microchipping

This question concerned additional legal requirements placed on database operators, the controls on who can implant microchips and the adverse reaction reporting procedure under the 2015 Regulations. Of the 136 responses from the individual members of the public and the microchipping sector, 17 (12.5%) responded to this question.

Most public respondents felt that in addition to the existing details required to be held by databases they should also record the name and contact details of the current veterinary practice used by the animal’s owner as well as the practice address and emergency contact numbers. Many felt that the current requirements placed on databases are minimal, and that this has led to too many database providers, with some not providing an acceptable level of service. Respondents felt that Defra should fully consider the requirements placed on database operators in order to ensure they are fit for purpose. Some felt that there should be stronger enforcement of the regulations in relation to database operators.

Cats Protection supported the same requirements for cat microchipping as set down in the legislation for dogs, in order to ensure chip implantation operates within the same regulatory framework. A fine of up to Level 2 on the standard scale (currently £500) should be introduced for anyone unauthorised found to be implanting microchips. The training of microchip implanters should include recognition of the minimum age at which a cat can be microchipped.

The AVID microchip database recommended a tightening of the dog microchipping legislation to ensure databases are meeting the existing standards. For example, it suggested that some databases accept a registration where the microchip is already registered with a different database. AVID would welcome increased inspection and random checks by Defra or a third party to ensure databases are complying with the regulations on an ongoing basis, and not just when they first apply.

The Canine and Feline Sector Group recommended the same requirements as those laid down for dog microchipping. Adverse reaction events should be reported to Defra’s Veterinary Medicines Directorate. Battersea Dogs and Cats Home recommended the use of existing databases to register cats, but that there needed to be a review of the requirements placed on databases.

5.8 Evidence question 8 – dealing with the database companies

Of the 136 responses from the individual members of the public and the microchipping sector, 39 (29%) responded to this question.

Most public respondents expressed concern that pet owners are not aware of non-compliant databases, and sometimes ended up registering their pets on one. Many felt that a single centralised database would offer the best solution and that this should also hold animal health and vaccination records. Respondents were concerned about the number of duplicate records on the databases. To help avoid this, they considered that there needs to be a process or technical ability in place to prevent the same microchip being registered with more than one database. One process to avoid duplicate records might be for databases to have to obtain the approval of the original keeper before changes can be made to an individual’s registration details. To help ensure databases are co-operating with each other all databases should be required to follow a code of practice.

Some respondents suggested that to help tackle stolen or misplaced pets, databases should contact the registered keeper before removing any “missing alert”. Many respondents commented on the rising costs of registration and considered that this was causing owners to be reluctant to update their details on databases, leading to a large number of out of date records. They considered that if the system was mandatory then owners needed to be able to update the database free of charge.

Many sector organisation respondents noted that the government should take a more active role in the compliance and the long term financial viability of existing databases. Respondents considered there are too many databases, which can lead to confusion and registration on multiple databases. Others considered there are ongoing issues around vets becoming involved in ownership disputes.

To help tackle the number of unregistered microchips caused by some owners/breeders failing to register their newly acquired dogs/puppies, the Microchip Trade Association (MTA) considered that the regulations need to clarify that a microchip could only be registered on one compliant database and that the implanter should be responsible for the initial registration. The MTA also considered that the databases had been given little guidance on complying with the 2015 Regulations and suggested changes need to be made to the dog microchipping legislation to rectify this.

The AVID database noted that competition in the database sector is a good thing as it drives a better service and competitive pricing. It did not feel that all databases were complying with the minimum requirements under the 2015 Regulations.

5.9 Evidence question 9 – transitional period for legislative compliance

Of the 136 responses from the individual members of the public and the microchipping sector, 17 (12.5%) responded to this question.

Most public and sector organisation respondents agreed that 12 months would be a suitable timescale, in line with the period when dog microchipping requirements was introduced. During this period there should be a campaign to educate and inform the public.

5.10 Evidence question 10 – figures for microchipping uptake

Of the 136 responses from the individual members of the public and the microchipping sector, 16 (12%) responded to this question.

The sector provided the following evidence:

The Blue Cross: Of the 5,760 cats that were admitted into their rehoming centres and hospitals across the country between May 2016 and May 2017, 4,517 (78%) were not microchipped.

Cats Protection: Using data from the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA), the estimated numbers of cats in England is 9.1 million pet cats in 2019. Of these 73% are microchipped which totals 6.6 million. This leaves 27% of owned cats not microchipped in England which is 2.5 million unchipped owned cats.

Canine and Feline Sector Group: An Ipsos Mori survey on behalf of Cats Protection found that one in five households have a cat and 71% have had their cat microchipped. The 2019 figures from the PDSA show that 73% of cats are chipped totalling 6.6 million.

RSPCA: From January to December 2018, its centres took in 5,171 cats, of those 861 (16.7%) were microchipped. 4,310 (83.3%) were not.

Battersea Dogs and Cats Home: Intake figures show that in 2016, 32% of cats that came into their centres were microchipped. This increased slightly to 38% in 2018.

5.11 Evidence question 11 – preferred vehicle for implementing new legislation

Of the 136 responses from the individual members of the public and the microchipping sector, 27 (20%) responded to this question.

Most public respondents want separate legislation for compulsory cat microchipping as in their view the requirements for cats need to differ from those for dogs.

Most sector organisation respondents want separate legislation for compulsory cat microchipping. They also suggested that the term ‘keeper’ should not be used in relation to cats in the same way as in the dog microchipping legislation. In their view, wording in the new cat microchipping legislation should refer to an ‘owner’, defined as the person the cat normally resides with. They also noted that the new legislation should only apply to ‘owned’ cats.

Most respondents want compulsory cat microchipping to take place at 16 weeks of age, unless there is a medical reason not to do so. This would allow kittens to be sufficiently well grown for the procedure, which would then most likely be carried out at the same time as neutering. For those cats handed in to rescue centres, respondents wanted a presumption of non-ownership to apply after seven days. The cats could then be rehomed quickly in order to avoid lengthy stays in catteries or rescue centres.

5.12 Evidence question 12 – possible exemptions

Of the 136 responses from the individual members of the public and the microchipping sector, 19 (14%) responded to this question.

Most public and sector organisation respondents agreed with the current health exemptions applying to dogs and felt the same should be applied to cats.

5.13 Evidence question 13 – funding sources for enforcement of new legislation

Of the 136 responses from the individual members of the public and the microchipping sector, 18 (13%) responded to this question.

Most public respondents noted that enforcement should be funded by the local authorities.

Most sector organisation respondents noted that enforcement should be funded by central government. Enforcement could also be funded by the income generated by FPNs. It was noted that an awareness campaign to bring the legislation to the attention of owners would also need to funded, and collaboration between Defra, veterinarians and the compliant databases was proposed to take forward this awareness campaign.

6. Next steps

The government has decided that given the overwhelming support for compulsory cat microchipping, with some 99% of respondents supporting the policy, it will proceed towards a full public consultation on the issue. In parallel with the consultation, Defra is already undertaking a Post Implementation Review (PIR) of the 2015 Regulations in England which will inform decisions on possible changes to the way dog microchipping is regulated. The PIR will report next year. This includes aspects relating to the operation of the microchip databases which would be relevant for both cat and dog microchipping.

Following the consultation exercise and the PIR, Defra will consider what changes will be required and how best to implement these.

7. Summary of abbreviations

2015 Regulations – The Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/108) BDCH – Battersea Dogs and Cats Home CFSG – Canine and Feline Sector Group Defra – Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs FPN – Fixed Penalty Notice PIR – Post Implementation Review TNR – Trap, Neuter, Release