Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 4 December 2021

Part 1: Summary of responses

Part 1 of this document provides a summary of responses to the government’s public consultation on cat and dog microchipping and scanning in England.

The purpose of the consultation was to seek views on the introduction of legislation to make cat microchipping compulsory in England. The consultation document included questions about specific criteria and exemptions, enforcement options and lead-in period for compliance. It also sought views on scanning of cats and dogs for the presence of a microchip in certain circumstances.

The consultation ran for 12 weeks, from 23 December 2020 to 17 February 2021.

Number of responses

In total, 33,423 responses to the consultation were received. 22,497 of these responses were part of a Cats Protection campaign. Not all respondents answered all questions.

Headline figures

• 99% (33,129) of respondents supported compulsory cat microchipping in England
• 92% (30,812) of respondents supported the proposal that only owned cats, and not feral cats with no owner, should be microchipped
• 95% (10,359) of respondents supported microchipping cats by the age of 16 weeks unless there is a certified health reason why they should be exempt
• 91% (9,702) of respondents supported mirroring the approach to enforcement contained in the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015 (‘the 2015 Regulations’)
• 99% (10,730) of respondents supported vets being required to scan cats and dogs prior to euthanasia
• 99% (10,749) of respondents supported vets being required to scan cats and dogs upon first presentation at a veterinary practice
• 99% (10,828) of respondents supported local authorities being required to scan dead cats and dogs that are brought to them

Responses by question: Compulsory cat microchipping

Q1. Would you like to see compulsory cat microchipping in England?

99% (33,129) of respondents supported compulsory cat microchipping in England and 0.5% (187) opposed compulsory cat microchipping in England.

Cats Protection ran a public campaign on this question which resulted in 22,497 responses. These responses were all in favour of compulsory cat microchipping.

Many of the respondents in favour of compulsory microchipping, including most sector organisations, supported microchipping on the grounds that it increases the chance of missing animals being reunited with their owner, providing benefits for cat welfare. It also enables a distinction to be made between a feral cat and a suspected stray that has an owner. In relation to stray cats, a microchip can support improved cat welfare by enabling quicker identification of their owner, enabling vets to carry out treatment in discussion with them, if required..

Some respondents who opposed compulsory microchipping commented that the rationale for introducing compulsory microchipping of dogs was to ensure public safety and prevent nuisance. They considered that these concerns do not apply to cats to the same degree, and compulsory cat microchipping should not be introduced. Other respondents considered that the operation of microchip database systems ought to be improved before compulsory cat microchipping was introduced.

Feral cats

Q2. Do you agree that a requirement for compulsory cat microchipping should be limited to owned cats?

92% (30,812) of respondents supported the proposal that only owned cats should be microchipped. 8% (2,546) opposed this.

Most sector organisations considered that limiting compulsory microchipping to owned cats would make it easier to identify feral cats, assisting with initiatives to manage their population and to reduce the public nuisance they may cause.

Age limit by which cats should be microchipped

Q3. Do you support the proposal that cats should be microchipped by 16 weeks of age unless there is an animal health reason certified by a vet?

95% (10,359) of respondents who answered this question agreed that cats should be microchipped by the age of 16 weeks unless there is a certified health reason why they should be exempt. 5% (507) of respondents opposed cats being microchipped by the age of 16 weeks.

There were a variety of suggestions from the 507 respondents who opposed the 16-week limit. Some of them commented that the age limit should be lower (with suggestions ranging from 6-15 weeks) and others suggested a higher age limit (with suggestions ranging from 18-52+ weeks). Some respondents recommended that microchipping should take place at the same time as neutering or as vaccinations.

Representatives from the veterinary professional bodies the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), British Veterinary Association (BVA), British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons (SPVS) and British Veterinary Nursing Association (BVNA) supported introducing an age range rather than an upper age limit. They suggested a range from 8 to 20 weeks unless an animal health reason justified otherwise. They highlighted that small, younger kittens might be injured due to the size of the needle required in the procedure, so a lower limit is necessary. An age range would allow for the age at which implantation occurs to be determined by a veterinary surgeon’s professional judgement, based on the individual kitten’s size, temperament, response to handling, and opportunities to implant alongside other healthcare interventions e.g., neutering and vaccination.

These veterinary professional bodies suggested that in some cases it may be beneficial if a cat is microchipped at the same time as being neutered, which takes place under general anaesthetic. Combining microchipping with neutering could avoid extra veterinary appointments, which can be stressful for the cat. They recommended an upper limit of 20 weeks, as neutering is generally carried out before that age.

Lead in period for compliance

Q4. If compulsory cat microchipping was introduced, how long a lead-in period do you suggest for the public, database operators, local authorities, veterinary practices, and animal welfare charities to comply?

53% (5799) of respondents commented that allowing one year for the lead-in period was appropriate. 39% (4191) of respondents considered six months to be appropriate, and 5% (558) considered that two years was appropriate.

The majority of the key sector organisations suggested a lead-in period of one year. This would be consistent with the lead-in period which applied when the compulsory microchipping of dogs was introduced.

Enforcement of compulsory microchipping

Q5. Which form of enforcement powers do you support for cat microchipping, and for what reason(s)?

91% (9702) of responses to this question supported mirroring the enforcement approach penalties set out in the 2015 Regulations which apply to dog microchipping. This would mean that in cases of non-compliance a notice could be served on the registered keeper requiring them to microchip their cat within 21 days. Failure to comply would leave the keeper open to criminal prosecution and a level 2 fine of up to £500 on conviction, only after a failure to comply with the notice.

9% (981) of respondents supported the introduction of a Fixed Monetary Penalty system instead. Fixed Monetary Penalties are a civil sanction which permit a fixed fine to be issued for non-compliance and which must be paid within a particular timeframe. This would differ from the current enforcement approach set out in the 2015 Regulations, as it would allow local authorities to enforce the requirement to microchip without first imposing an enforcement notice and without having to secure a successful prosecution. An appeals process would apply to these civil sanctions.

9% (948) of respondents answered an additional section asking what figure any Fixed Monetary Penalty should be set at:

• 761 respondents suggested a penalty of up to £500, with a minimum penalty of £100
• 79 respondents suggested a penalty of more than £500, with the most common suggestion being £1,000
• 22 respondents stated that these civil penalties should be means-tested or linked to the ability to pay
• 86 respondents suggested applying additional penalties, including confiscation of the cat and increased fines for multiple offences

Some sector organisations, including Blue Cross and the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA) were in support of applying the same enforcement approach as currently applies to dogs. Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) supported the use of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs), which are criminal sanctions, either instead of, or in addition to, the current enforcement measures. FPNs allow offenders to discharge their criminal liability through payment of a penalty, without the local authority having to secure a successful prosecution. They can result in cases being settled more quickly and efficiently and may, therefore, be less burdensome for local authorities. Battersea Dogs and Cats Home considered that it would be more difficult to issue notices to cat owners as they do not cause a public nuisance to the same extent, so are less likely to come to the attention of authorities. Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, therefore, considered that the use of FPNs would be valuable in supporting enforcement as they are used by local authorities for other offences and can be less burdensome.

Potential scanning reform

Q6. Do you think veterinarians and other bodies who legally euthanise should be required to scan cats and dogs prior to euthanasia?

99% (10,730) of respondents to this question agreed that vets and other bodies should be required to scan cats and dogs prior to euthanasia. 1% (154) of respondents disagreed.

Some sector organisations including Cats Protection, PDSA, RCVS and the veterinary professional bodies did not support a requirement to scan cats and dogs before euthanasia. These organisations highlighted that scanning in such circumstances is already best practice. In some instances, requiring compulsory scanning prior to euthanasia could have adverse effects on animal welfare. They felt it should be left to the professional judgement of each vet to decide when to scan, allowing for individual circumstances to be considered. In addition, the veterinary professional bodies highlighted that if vets were seen to be enforcers of compulsory microchipping, this could undermine trust in the veterinary profession, potentially deterring clients from bringing their pets for treatment. Veterinary professional bodies also highlighted that checking records on microchip databases can generate significant administrative burdens for vets, due to the number of databases and perceived complexity of the system.

Q7. If Yes, how should this requirement be enforced?

88% (9,512) of responses to this question considered that a requirement to scan cats and dogs prior to euthanasia should be a legal obligation. 11% (1,229) of responses considered that this should be enforced through strengthened best practice guidance. 1% (108) of respondents suggested other means of enforcement should be applied to ensure the scanning of cats and dogs prior to euthanasia.

Some organisations, including Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and the Kennel Club, considered that compulsory scanning before euthanasia should be enforced through a code of practice and should not be a legislative requirement.

Q8. Do you think veterinarians should be required to scan cats and dogs upon first presentation?

99% (10,749) of responses to this question agreed that it should be compulsory for vets to scan cats and dogs upon first presentation. 1% (141) of responses disagreed.

Although most veterinary professional bodies supported the principle, they opposed making this compulsory. Veterinary professional bodies stated that it is already good practice for vets to scan microchips on first presentation to make sure that the animal has been correctly identified. They outlined that each case is different, and that it is essential that vets can exercise their professional judgement in order to safeguard animal welfare and public safety. There were concerns from other sector organisations such as PDSA and Blue Cross that a legal obligation could result in vets appearing to act in an ‘enforcer’ role. This could damage the client-vet relationship, potentially deterring clients from visiting the practice.

Q9. If Yes, how should this requirement be enforced?

83% (8,987) of responses to this question considered that legal obligation should be imposed to ensure that cats and dogs are scanned at first presentation. 16% (1,747) of responses suggested that scanning upon first presentation should be addressed through non-legislative means such as a code of practice. This included some key sector organisations, such as Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and the Kennel Club.

Q10. Do you think local authorities should be required to scan dead cats and dogs that are brought to them?

99% (10,828) of responses to this question agreed that local authorities should be required to scan dead cats and dogs that are brought to them. 1% (64) of responses disagreed.

Most sector organisations supported this requirement, highlighting the importance of pet owners having closure by being informed if their pet has been killed in a road traffic accident.

Q11. If Yes, how should this be enforced?

89% (9,650) of responses to this question considered that a legal obligation should be introduced to ensure that dead cats and dogs that are brought to local authorities are scanned. 11% (1,174) of responses considered that this should be addressed through a code of practice.

Sector organisations including Blue Cross, Cats Protection, Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, PDSA and the Kennel Club considered that there should be a statutory obligation to scan dead cats and dogs found at the roadside. Several of these organisations commented that challenges with the current database system mean this could be time consuming. RSPCA did not suggest a legal obligation, but instead proposed that Defra works with local authorities to share best practice and develop effective guidance.

Q12. What costs would a requirement to scan for microchips in these circumstances generate to groups of organisations refenced above?

The question above generated 5,294 responses. The question was open-ended and provided respondents the opportunity to identify the associated costs of scanning.

• 26% (1,357) of respondents considered that the requirement to scan for microchips in the circumstances mentioned above should not generate additional costs and that no additional fees should be charged to the public
• 16% (833) of respondents considered that any additional costs should be minimal, with no figure specified
• 4% (207) of respondents suggested specific figures. 1.5% (69) considered that these scanning requirements would cost below £10 in each case. 2% (112) considered they would cost between £10-£30 in each case. 0.5% (15) considered that they would cost £50 in each case and 0.2% (11) considered that they would cost over £50 in each case

Some respondents referred to the source of these additional costs in their responses. For example, 24% (1,262) of respondents commented that this would include the scanner and other necessary equipment for vets and local authorities and 3.5% (178) mentioned the cost of training people how to operate these scanners. 15% (789) of respondents mentioned the costs of vets’ and local authorities’ time, including the procedure of scanning, logging the outcome and contacting owners. 4% (205) of respondents referred to the costs of holding deceased animals, of reuniting owners with pets, and of housing animals in shelters. 2% (94) of respondents referred to the costs of creating and monitoring a centralised database, which they thought should be introduced.

Some respondents referred to who should meet any additional costs. 4% (199) of respondents considered that costs should be passed on to the owners of each pet and 1% (61) of respondents considered that costs should be met by local or central government.

Many sector organisations highlighted that a key determinant of the scale of any additional costs would be the time taken to fulfil a requirement to scan and check keepership Whilst scanning a microchip in itself is quick, the associated processes are lengthier, such as checking and contacting databases, and holding ownership discussions. Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, RSPCA and the PDSA also noted that local authority costs would include the purchase of microchip scanners and staff training costs, and that local authorities would also need to put in place arrangements to store deceased pets. The Kennel Club considered that any additional costs from these proposed reforms should be weighed against the potential savings of stray animals being returned to their keepers in greater numbers and more quickly than would otherwise be the case.

Q13. Are there any impacts of requiring compulsory scanning in circumstances mentioned above that could affect animal health and/or welfare?

67% (7,062) of responses to this question considered that there could be a positive impact from compulsory scanning. 30% (3,189) of responses considered that there could be no impact on animal health or welfare. 3% (330) of responses to this question considered that compulsory scanning could have an adverse impact on animal health or welfare.

Respondents were invited to justify their views on this issue. 47% of the 10,581 total responses to this question provided reasoning:

Positive impacts: 4,597 respondents (43%):

• 31% (3,273) considered that compulsory scanning would enable quicker reunification of pets with their keepers and provide closure to owners of lost or deceased pets
• 6% (607) considered that compulsory scanning reduces the amount of unnecessary euthanasia of healthy or treatable animals
• 5% (543) considered that compulsory scanning would prevent pet theft and support the traceability of animals
• 4% (451) considered that compulsory scanning would improve overall animal welfare
• 3% (301) considered that compulsory scanning would provide vets and local authorities with medical history and contact information if the animal was to become lost, and therefore enable treatment to be administered more quickly
• 3% (287) considered that compulsory scanning would ensure owners have greater accountability for their actions when it comes to their pets

Sector organisations including Blue Cross, Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Kennel Club, PDSA and RSPCA also mentioned positive impacts of mandatory scanning. These included:

• keepers being offered other treatments for their pets as an alternative to euthanasia
• facilitating faster treatment
• reuniting lost and stolen animals with their owners more quickly
• informing keepers if details on the microchip database need updating
• ensuring good practice and providing closure to owners if their animal is deceased

Negative impacts: 280 respondents (3%):

• 1.5% (147) considered that compulsory scanning could cause delays in treatment
• 0.5% (56) suggested other negative impacts from compulsory scanning. These included the potential for adverse reactions from pets in response to being scanned, criminals removing microchips and any new requirements not being enforced

Other responses to this question highlighted the associated costs of compulsory scanning (0.5% (35) respondents) and the fact that the efficacy of compulsory scanning would be dependent on details on database records being kept up to date (0.5% (42) respondents).

Sector organisations including Blue Cross, Dogs Trust, BVA, BVNA, SPVS, BSAVA, RCVS, PDSA and RSPCA also mentioned adverse impacts of mandatory scanning. These included:

• the time taken to check records after scanning due to complexities in database systems
• potential delays in providing essential treatment
• delays due to microchip details not being kept up to date
• veterinary staff being seen as enforcers, discouraging owners from bringing pets to vet practice
• veterinary staff becoming involved in family disputes or in other ownership disputes

Part 2: Government response

The introduction of compulsory cat microchipping

The government committed in its manifesto and reaffirmed in the Action Plan for Animal Welfare, the intention to introduce compulsory cat microchipping. We have received overwhelming support for the introduction of compulsory cat microchipping, with 99% of respondents in both our call for evidence and public consultation in support of legislation in this area. Based on this strong public support and sufficient evidence to indicate the potential benefits, Defra intends to introduce legislation in 2022 to make microchipping of cats compulsory in England.

Most respondents agreed that introducing compulsory cat microchipping would enhance traceability and increase reunification rates of cats, resulting in benefits for cat welfare. More cats would be reunited with their owners, increasing the likelihood that their health and welfare needs would be met. Many sector organisations also highlighted that there could be reduced costs to animal shelters, as there would be a reduction in the number of cats left unclaimed and reductions in the cat’s length of stay.

Some respondents commented that stray cats do not cause a public nuisance in the same way as dogs, and that this reduces the benefit to the public from this policy compared to compulsory dog microchipping. It was also mentioned that enforcing compulsory microchipping may present more challenges for cats than for dogs. We acknowledge that stray cats do not pose the same public safety issues as dogs, but feral cat populations still cause concern. Any reduction in stray cats could benefit the management of the feral cat population.

Some respondents commented that the operation of the database system should be improved before compulsory cat microchipping was introduced. We are reviewing the database system to identify practical measures which could improve its operation.

The microchipping of dogs was made compulsory under the 2015 Regulations. There is evidence to suggest that the introduction of these regulations has increased the number of dogs microchipped and has increased the number of lost dogs that have been reunited with their keepers. We will be publishing the post-implementation review of these regulations, which demonstrates their effectiveness and highlights where refinements would be beneficial.

We have considered the most appropriate legislative vehicle for implementing compulsory cat microchipping. Given the similarity in objectives to the 2015 Regulations, we are planning to introduce new secondary legislation next year, incorporating measures for both dogs and cats in a single set of regulations. We acknowledge there will be some differences in the requirements for cats and these will be specified in the new legislation. We will publicly consult on improvements to the existing microchipping system, including the operation of databases, before introducing secondary legislation covering both cats and dogs.

Which cats this will apply to

In this public consultation, 92% (30,812) of responses supported the proposal that compulsory microchipping should be limited to owned cats. We defined an ‘owned cat’ as ‘cats which have an identifiable keeper i.e. a person with whom they normally reside, and who are under direct control or restriction by a person at a particular time’.

There is not sufficient evidence to suggest that the compulsory microchipping of feral cats would generate improvements to animal welfare. There are other programmes in place to support and manage the feral cat population, for example, Cats Protection and other charities have programmes of ‘Trap, Neuter, Release’ for feral cats. Limiting the legislation to owned cats would make it easier to identify unowned feral cats, assisting management of their population and reducing the public nuisance they may cause. Based on this, the government will introduce compulsory microchipping for owned cats only.

The required age for cat microchipping

95% (10,359) of respondents to the consultation question on the age limit supported the proposal that cats should be microchipped by the age of 16 weeks, unless there is an animal health reason as certified by a vet.

Most of the key sector organisations presented evidence to suggest a 16-week age limit may not be appropriate. Cats Protection highlighted that 60% of cats are neutered at five months or older (according to their 2020 survey), even though their recommended age for neutering is 16 weeks. In some circumstances, it would benefit cat welfare if cats were microchipped at the same time as neutering, which takes place under general anaesthetic, to reduce stress and unnecessary vet visits. Therefore, they suggested a maximum age of 20 weeks for microchipping a cat. Key veterinary bodies also suggested a 20-week upper limit, unless the vet considers on a case-by-case basis that microchipping should not take place due to health or welfare reasons.

We acknowledge that the age of the cat when microchipped should depend on the implanters professional judgement as many factors need to be considered, including kitten’s size and the timing of other healthcare interventions.

Veterinary bodies suggested a minimum age for microchipping. We acknowledge that microchipping a kitten when they are too small for the procedure could have negative welfare impacts in some cases. However, specifying a minimum age in legislation and creating an offence for microchipping cats under the age of 8 weeks would present significant enforcement challenges. An appropriate minimum age may also vary significantly, depending on a number of factors. A minimum age for microchipping a cat can be addressed through guidance that applies to vets and implanters, rather than specifying this in legislation.

We will, therefore, require that cats are microchipped by 20 weeks, unless there is an animal health or welfare reason certified by a vet. We will also consider how best practice regarding a minimum age for implantation can be addressed through relevant guidance for vets and other implanters.

The lead-in period

Most respondents to our public consultation were in support of a one-year lead-in period before the requirements come into effect. This would be consistent with the 2015 Regulations where a one-year lead-in period was applied. Some concerns were raised that in the case of COVID-19 restrictions still being in place, a one-year lead-in period may not be sufficient. Defra will take this account and will continue to review the situation in light of any COVID-19 restrictions.

The enforcement approach

91% (9,702) of respondents supported mirroring the enforcement regime set out in the 2015 Regulations to enforce compulsory cat microchipping, meaning an authorised person may issue an enforcement notice requiring the person served with the notice to microchip their cat within 21 days, with failure to comply being a criminal offence, subject to a maximum level 2 fine (£500) on conviction. This was supported by many sector organisations such as Blue Cross and PDSA. Some respondents supported the introduction of civil penalties in the form of Fixed Monetary Penalties, either instead of or alongside powers to issue enforcement notices and prosecute. Other respondents, including several key organisations, suggested the introduction of Fixed Penalty Notices as an alternative criminal sanction. The need for adequate enforcement to be funded sufficiently was mentioned, as were differences in the way that local authorities deal with stray cats.

The government supports applying the same enforcement regime for the compulsory microchipping of dogs to cats. We do not recommend the alternative of civil offences and accompanying Fixed Monetary Penalties, which only 9% of respondents supported. However, we acknowledge that the use of Fixed Penalty Notices could provide flexibility, reduce burdens on local authorities and could potentially improve compliance. The use of Fixed Penalty Notices in addition to the current enforcement mechanisms has also been considered as part of our review of the 2015 Regulations, which will be published this winter.

We do not currently have powers to introduce Fixed Penalty Notices via secondary legislation in relation to cat microchipping. However, Andrew Rosindell MP has introduced the Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill as a Private Member’s Bill in the current Parliamentary session which, if enacted, is able to provide powers to enable Fixed Penalty Notices to be introduced in future. If this Bill is enacted, we would consult further on granting enforcement bodies the power to issue Fixed Penalty Notices.

Scanning prior to euthanasia

In the Action Plan for Animal Welfare the government committed to providing greater assurance that alternatives to euthanasia are explored before a healthy dog is put down. Responses to the relevant questions in the consultation showed strong support for the principle of scanning of cats and dogs prior to euthanasia. There was, however, considerable divergence in opinion in relation to the preferred mechanism for implementing this requirement.

Defra has engaged closely with the veterinary profession and with key stakeholders to identify the best way of achieving this principle, taking all views into account in the process. Key non-legislative reforms have now been implemented by the veterinary profession and have been welcomed by stakeholders.

The principle of scanning before euthanasia is now set out more explicitly in the guidance that underpins the RCVS’ Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons. The updated guidance requires vets to scan for a microchip in dogs prior to euthanasia where, in their professional judgement, destruction of the dog is not necessary on animal health or welfare grounds. The guidance also requires the vet to check the relevant database if a microchip is found. These specific requirements will provide greater assurance that vets are identifying and taking account of whether anyone else has an interest in the animal, who might be able to provide an alternative to the animal being put down.

The new guidance came into force on 20 May 2021 and applies to all veterinary surgeons practising in the UK. Where a vet is suspected of not having adhered to the guidance, the RCVS has procedures in place to investigate this and, if necessary, take action.

Working with the veterinary profession and the Tuk’s Law campaign, we are monitoring the effectiveness of the new requirements that have already been put in place. They currently apply to dogs, and the introduction of compulsory cat microchipping will prompt consideration of whether it is appropriate to extend the requirements to cats.

In addition, we are due to publish the Post Implementation Review of the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015. This includes a review of how current database systems are working in practice and will consider improvements. These in turn may make it easier for vets to comply with the new RCVS requirements.

Scanning at first presentation

We recognise the emotional upset and trauma that the loss of a much-loved pet can cause. Vets already play a key role in helping to reunite animals with their owners.

One of the aims of compulsory microchipping of dogs was to reduce the number of dogs that need to be kennelled, re-homed or put down because their keepers cannot be traced. The routine scanning of strays by vets and other authorities helps meet this aim.

The majority of respondents (99%) agreed with having a requirement to scan cats and dogs at first presentation. 83% of responses to this question considered that this should be placed on a statutory footing, and 16% preferred a non-legislative approach. The latter included stakeholder organisations such as the Kennel Club and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home.

The veterinary professional bodies supported the principle of scanning on first presentation and were strongly against making it a statutory requirement. They explained that the circumstances applying to individual cases are not always clear, and vets must be able to exercise their professional judgement as to whether to scan on a case-by-case basis, informed by the information available to them. Scanning on first presentation is already regarded as best practice by the profession. There were concerns that a statutory requirement to scan could deter clients from bringing an animal to a vet, which could result in a poor welfare outcome by delaying or withholding necessary veterinary treatment. The veterinary profession also commented that, whilst scanning a microchip itself is relatively quick, subsequently checking the databases to find the keeper’s details may not be, placing an administrative burden on vets.

The government supports the principle of scanning at first presentation and considers that the most appropriate way of achieving this is to continue to engage with the veterinary profession, especially in relation to how the existing best practice is being applied in practice. We are also reviewing the operation of the microchip databases to consider what improvements can be made to make it easier to check the databases for microchip records, which will support vets in carrying out scanning at first presentation.

Scanning of dead cats and dogs found by the roadside

99% of respondents supported local authorities scanning dead dogs and cats found by the roadside, and 89% of responses to this question supported introducing a statutory obligation on local authorities to achieve this.

The government supports the principle of public authorities scanning dead dogs and cats found by the roadside. Highways England maintains motorways and major trunk roads in England, and all Highways England contracts already include a requirement to identify and inform the owner of any domesticated animal fatality, with keepers given the opportunity to come and collect their pet’s remains. We understand this system works effectively.

The rest of the road network is maintained by local authorities. The charity Cats Matter, which works closely with local authorities to encourage scanning of dead cats, has indicated that the vast majority of local authorities in England already have procedures in place for dead cats to be scanned, which has resulted in pet owners being contacted in many cases.

There are also occasions where contacting the animals’ keeper is not possible, for instance where the nature of the animal’s injuries affected the functionality of the microchip, or where microchip records are out of date. We are also aware that the standards and processes applied by local authorities vary, which may lead to different outcomes.

To address this issue, the government considers that the most effective approach is to work with local authorities and stakeholders to develop and promote best practice in this area.