Summary of responses and government response

Question 1

Summary of responses

Accepted Answer

Introduction

This consultation sought views on improvements to the operation of the cat and dog microchipping system. The consultation ran for 8 weeks from 22 March to 20 May 2022.

Number of responses

In total, 1,538 responses were received. Not all respondents answered all questions.

Most responses were submitted by individuals, but a range of sector organisations also submitted views. These included:

rescue, rehoming, and reunification organisations, including the RSPCA, Cats Protection, the Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and Blue Cross
11 microchip database operators
professional veterinary organisations, including the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and a joint response submitted by the British Veterinary Association (BVA), British Veterinary Nursing Association (BVNA), British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) and the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons (SPVS) (referred to in this summary as “the joint response submitted by the veterinary professional bodies”)
representatives from 17 local authorities in England
representatives from membership organisations such as the Microchip Trade Association and the Canine and Feline Sector Group

Headline findings

97% of respondents agreed that we should introduce a single point of search portal to improve access to microchip records for approved users
82% of respondents agreed that we should stop pets being registered on more than one database at a time
96% of respondents agreed that the existing keeper should have an opportunity to object before the microchip record is transferred to a new keeper
98% of respondents agreed that database operators must record whether a pet is ‘missing or stolen’

Question 2

Responses by question

Accepted Answer

Making it easier for approved users to access database records

Q1. To what extent do you agree that, subject to further technical work, a single point of access should be introduced that provides approved users with access to key information linked to the microchip number?

91% of respondents strongly agreed
6% of respondents somewhat agreed
fewer than 1% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents somewhat disagreed
1% of respondents strongly disagreed
1% of respondents did not answer the question

Q2. If you agree or strongly agree: who should be included in the definition of approved users that can access microchip records? (Note: this is in addition to local authorities and police constables or community support officers, who are already defined as authorised persons in current legislation)

94% of respondents selected veterinary practice employees
83% of respondents selected rescue, rehoming or pet reunification organisations that are registered charities
66% of respondents selected all rescue, rehoming or pet reunification organisations
12% of respondents selected ‘Other’
2% of respondents did not answer the question

Q3. What microchip record details should approved users be able to retrieve?

91% of respondents selected defining characteristics of the dog or cat including species, name, date of birth, breed, colour, and sex
95% of respondents selected the full name, address and contact details for current keeper
97% of respondents selected whether the cat or dog is recorded as ‘stolen or missing’
11% of respondents selected ‘Other’

Q4. How should the additional costs associated with establishing a new single point of contact be recovered?

27% of respondents selected ‘Approved users’
83% of respondents selected ‘Charge applied to the databases, and in effect then passed to people registering microchips on them’
12% of respondents selected ‘Other’

Requirements of databases and maintaining accuracy of records

Q5: To what extent do you agree that database operators should be required to send customers regular reminders, prompting them to review their registered details?

73% of respondents strongly agreed
19% of respondents somewhat agreed
5% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed
1% of respondents somewhat disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents strongly disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents did not answer the question

Q6. If you agree or strongly agree with the proposal, how often should these reminders be sent to customers, as a minimum?

73% of respondents selected once per year
20% of respondents selected once every 2 years
2% of respondents selected less often than once every 2 years
5% of respondents selected ‘Other’

Q7. Do you have any additional comments regarding how to make the process easier for customers to update their details recorded on the microchip database?

599 respondents provided additional comments to this question including:

database operators should offer various ways to update their records including online, via telephone, email, and or a mobile application
fees charged for changes were too high and should be lowered or removed entirely
more public awareness of the need to update information on the microchip record

Q8. Do you think that obligations and penalties should be introduced to ensure pet keepers update their records?

73% of respondents agreed with introducing obligations and penalties
25% of respondents disagreed with introducing obligations and penalties
2% of respondents did not answer the question

Strengthening processes around the transfer of keepership records

Q9. To what extent do you agree that database operators should be required to take reasonable steps to seek approval from the previous registered keeper, before the record is transferred to the new keeper?

81% of respondents strongly agreed
15% of respondents somewhat agreed
2% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents somewhat disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents strongly disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents did not answer the question

Q10. If you agree or strongly agree, how long do you think the previous keeper should be given to respond before the record is transferred to the new keeper?

7% of respondents thought that 1 week was sufficient
24% of respondents thought that 2 weeks was sufficient
10% of respondents thought that 3 weeks was sufficient
52% of respondents thought that 4 weeks was sufficient
7% of respondents specified ‘Other’
there is sufficient evidence that a bona fide transfer has taken place

Strengthening processes around the transfer of records between databases and preventing duplicate registrations

Q11. To what extent do you agree that provisions should be made to prevent the microchip of a cat or dog being registered on more than one compliant database at the same time?

70% of respondents strongly agreed
12% of respondents somewhat agreed
12% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed
2% of respondents somewhat disagreed
4% of respondents strongly disagreed
1% of respondents did not answer the question

Q12. To what extent do you agree that databases should be required to transfer a microchip record to another database within a specific timeframe following a request, subject to data retention requirements?

69% of respondents strongly agreed
18% of respondents somewhat agreed
10% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents somewhat disagreed
2% of respondents strongly disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents did not answer the question

Q13. If you agree or strongly agree with the above proposal, what should the required timeframe be?

17% of respondents selected 1 week
34% of respondents selected 2 weeks
27% of respondents selected 3 weeks
8% of respondents selected ‘Other’
14% of respondents did not answer the question

Data retention requirements

Q14. To what extent do you agree that database operators should be required to retain data for a minimum period of 30 years from the date of birth of the dog or cat?

43% of respondents strongly agreed
25% of respondents somewhat agreed
14% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed
13% of respondents somewhat disagreed
4% of respondents strongly disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents did not answer the question

Improving breeder traceability

Q15. To what extent do you agree that provisions should be made to ensure that any information recorded by a breeder is a permanent part of the database record, if the species of the pet is a dog? (if it is the case that the breeder is licensed, this will include the licence number and the name of the local authority that issued the licence)

87% of respondents strongly agreed
9% of respondents somewhat agreed
2% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents somewhat disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents strongly disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents did not answer the question

Q16. To what extent do you agree that a field for the microchip number of the puppy’s mother should be a permanent part of the database record, if the species of pet is a dog?

70% of respondents strongly agreed
17% of respondents somewhat agreed
10% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed
1% of respondents somewhat disagreed
1% of respondents strongly disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents did not answer the question

Q17. To what extent do you agree that these requirements should also apply to cats (which have an identified breeder)?

67% of respondents strongly agreed
16% of respondents somewhat agreed
12% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed
1% of respondents somewhat disagreed
1% of respondents strongly disagreed
1% of respondents did not answer the question

Q18. Do you have further comments in relation to improving breeder traceability?

There were 383 responses to this open text question including:

the proposals did not sufficiently address breeders who do not comply with the requirements to microchip
more could be done to monitor breeders via microchipping
concern regarding how making certain fields permanent parts of a record would comply with data protection law

Additional details to be included on database records

Q19. To what extent do you agree that database records must include a field for ‘back-up support’?

73% of respondents strongly agreed
17% of respondents somewhat agreed
7% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents somewhat disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents strongly disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents did not answer the question

Q20. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the ‘back-up support’ field should be a permanent part of the database record?

71% of respondents strongly agreed
17% of respondents somewhat agreed
9% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents somewhat disagreed
1% of respondents strongly disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents did not answer the question

Q21. Do you foresee any issues with introducing this requirement?

There were 616 responses to this open text question:

306 respondents did not foresee any issues (49.68%)
310 respondents foresaw at least one issue (50.32%)

Concerns included:

uncertainty over the legal basis for any requirements, considering back up support contact should be voluntary
not placing a legal duty on vets to scan for a back-up support in all circumstances as a delay in euthanasia may lead to animals suffering unnecessarily
clarification of who was responsible for submitting and maintaining the back-up support information
difficulties determining whether a back-up support contact was an appropriate rehoming candidate

Q22. To what extent do you agree that database records must include a field to record whether a pet is ‘missing or stolen’?

95% of respondents strongly agreed
3% of respondents somewhat agreed
fewer than 1% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents somewhat disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents strongly disagreed
1% of respondents did not answer the question

Q23. Do you have any further comments regarding additional details to be recorded on databases?

There were 357 responses to this open text question.

Responses suggested a number of additional details such as:

pet’s health record including medications, treatment history and veterinary practice
pet’s rescue status, including details of the rehoming organisation
pet’s country of origin
pet’s status, for example, recorded as deceased
pet’s Kennel Club registration number, where applicable
keeper’s email address
secondary contact in case the keeper is uncontactable
record of legal action taken against a keeper for welfare offences

Some respondents thought recording whether a pet is ‘stolen’ was problematic as it was not possible to determine if an animal had been stolen without being verified following a police investigation.

Some respondents also thought that the ‘missing or stolen’ status should be clearly visible to anyone who scans the microchip, and that this status should only be updated or removed with the registered keeper’s consent.

Ensuring effective processes and compliance with database conditions

Q24. To what extent do you agree that there should be a statutory code of practice for microchip database operators?

93% of respondents strongly agreed
5% of respondents somewhat agreed
fewer than 1% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents somewhat disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents strongly disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents did not answer the question

Powers of the Secretary of State

This section related to the powers of the Secretary of State in respect of database operators only.

Q25. To what extent to you agree that the current powers of the Secretary of State are sufficient?

9% of respondents strongly agreed
19% of respondents somewhat agreed
38% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed
20% of respondents somewhat disagreed
14% of respondents strongly disagreed
1% of respondents did not answer the question

Q26. If you think this is not sufficient, please provide further comments on how this can be strengthened

There were 412 responses to this open text question including:

the powers of the Secretary of State should be strengthened to ensure greater accountability, transparency and consistent standards across database operators including tougher initial checks and regular auditing
the existing powers were sufficient but not exercised frequently enough
database operators should provide greater assurance that they comply with data protection law
a designation similar to a kite mark should be introduced to give the public greater confidence that a database operator was meeting required standards
the £2,500 maximum fine on database operators was too low to act as an effective deterrent
the current regulations should provide clarity on how records held by a database operator that ceases to operate would be managed

Microchipping implanter requirements

Q27. To what extent do you agree that the requirements for implanter training courses should be strengthened?

56% of respondents strongly agreed
22% of respondents somewhat agreed
19% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed
1% of respondents somewhat disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents strongly disagreed
fewer than 1% of respondents did not answer the question

Q28. If relevant, please explain how these requirements should change and please provide any additional comments in relation to implanter training requirements

There were 378 responses to this open text question including:

concerns over the quality of existing implanter training courses, including the use of virtual training with no practical element
approved implanter training courses should be subject to on-going monitoring;
making a non-veterinary implanter who has completed an approved training course undertake a refresher course or complete ongoing professional development
only veterinary professionals should be able to implant, whilst others suggested this would lead to a shortage of qualified implanters and negatively impact animal welfare organisations who routinely implant animals in their care
the government should maintain a formal register of approved microchip implanters and should be able to trace each microchip to who implanted it
clearer guidance on identifying and reporting adverse reactions

Further comments

Q29. Do you have any additional comments on the proposals included in this consultation?

There were 502 responses to this open text question including:

the number of database operators was impacting the effectiveness of the microchip system, and a single, centralised microchip database, or a limit on the number of database operators would be preferable
proposals could go further to address pet theft including a requirement for vets to scan at first presentation
the government should encourage other forms of pet identification to further safeguard pets from theft, such as DNA identification or nose printing
the process by which authorised persons can access records when investigating suspected criminal activity should be simplified
local authorities to be legally required to scan the microchip of any deceased cat found by the roadside to identify and notify the registered keeper
additional requirements to enhance breeder traceability should be considered
local authorities should have the powers to serve penalty notices on people who fail to microchip their pets

Question 3

Government response

Accepted Answer

Section 1 - Making it easier for approved users to access database records

Single Point of Access

Since the introduction of compulsory microchipping of dogs, we have seen a significant rise in the number of microchip database operators. Whilst this offers choice for the consumer, it creates additional complexity for users who need to access the information, such as vets and local authorities. Once a user has located where a microchip record is held, they need to contact the database operator to retrieve the information. Every operator has different processes for accessing records and this makes it harder and more complicated to retrieve the information.

To address this, we sought views on creating a new single point of access (now to be referred to as a ‘single point of search’) which would enable authorised users to log into a central portal, input the microchip number and retrieve key information immediately without having to contact a database operator directly in many cases.

The vast majority of respondents supported the development of a single point of search portal and we, therefore, intend to introduce this.

We will ensure safeguards are in place to protect data appropriately, including preventing the display of restricted information, for example, to protect someone from an abusive partner.

We plan to support the development of a single point of search portal, working further with database operators and key user groups.

Approved users

We also asked who should be able to access the single point of search portal, in addition to the police and local authorities.

Veterinary practice employees are key users of the microchipping system as they account for around two-thirds of all microchip number search requests. Granting access to them was strongly supported by most respondents. We agree that this group should have access to the portal.

We support including veterinary practice employees as approved users of a single point of search portal.

Granting access to all rescues, rehoming or pet reunification organisations was supported by a majority of respondents. However, we recognise that this group is diverse, with a large number and variety of organisations. Database operators operate their own protocols to determine which of these organisations can access their records and there can be significant variation in approach.

Whilst we agree that the rescue, rehoming and pet reunification sector would benefit from access to the portal, we will need to work closely with database operators to explore how this can best be taken forward.

Retrievable record details

We asked what information should be available through the single point of search portal. There was very strong support for making available: defining characteristics of the dog or cat including species, name, date of birth, breed, colour, and sex; the full name, address and contact details for current keeper; and whether the cat or dog is recorded as missing.

We agree that this information is critical and should be made available (subject to any restrictions placed on individual records).

We intend for this information to be available to approved users through the single point of search portal .

Funding a Single Point of Search portal

We also asked how the costs of operating a Single Point of Search portal should be recovered. The majority of respondents considered that a charge should be applied to the database operators. There was a more varied response from database operators where a majority of those who responded favoured a charge on approved users.

We will explore this further with database operators. We will carry out an assessment of the financial impact on database operators before any charging model is finalised.

We will engage further with database operators about funding the ongoing operation of the single point of search portal.

Section 2: Requirements of databases and maintaining accuracy of records

Regular reminders to customers to update details

The effective operation of the microchipping system is dependent on accurate records. Stray dogs that are microchipped and have up-to-date microchip records are more than twice as likely to be reunited with their keepers than dogs without a microchip.

We asked whether database operators should regularly send customers reminders to ensure their details remain up to date. The majority of respondents agreed with this proposal.

We also asked how often database operators should send reminders to their customers as a minimum. The majority of respondents suggested at least once a year. We agree that a reminder at least every year is appropriate.

We will require database operators to send reminders to their customers at least once a year to ensure their information is up to date.

Making it easier to update records

We asked how to make it easier for keepers to update their records. The majority of respondents suggested that database operators should provide more ways to do this, including directly online. We support making it easier for keepers to update their records, as long as this does not compromise data protection principles or risk unauthorised keepership transfers. We will discuss these issues further with database operators.

Some respondents raised concerns over the cost of updating records. Respondents felt that the cost to update records was either too high or should be removed entirely. We recognise that each database operator sets its own charges for services based on its business model. Whilst we would not want to interfere in these commercial practices, we consider that any fee for updating records should be reasonable and not act as a disincentive. Fees for any additional services should also be clearly displayed on the database operator’s website to support consumer choice.

We will work with database operators to explore any changes which might make it easier for records to be updated and to ensure that fees are proportionate and transparent.

Obligations and penalties in respect of updating records

We asked whether we should introduce obligations and penalties on pet keepers to ensure their records are kept up to date. A majority of respondents supported this in principle. The veterinary profession, however, opposed introducing penalties at this stage, concerned that keepers should not be penalised until other changes were in place to make it easier to update records. 

After careful consideration, we are not going to introduce new penalties on pet keepers. We will work with stakeholders to monitor and review the effect of wider changes aimed at improving data accuracy and making it easier for pet keepers to update their records. We will also consider making it clearer to pet keepers that they are required to keep their microchip record up to date.

We will not introduce new penalties for keepers at this time.

Section 3: Strengthening processes around the transfer of keepership records

When a dog is moved to a new keeper, they are responsible for updating the contact details on the microchip database, unless the previous keeper has already done so.

The Pet Theft Taskforce considered the need for more robust processes around changes of keepership to prevent a new keeper’s details being registered where an animal is reported stolen. Whilst many database operators already have processes in place to reduce unauthorised transfers, we asked whether they should be required to check with the current registered keeper before details are updated to the new keeper.

The majority of respondents agreed with this proposal. Therefore, we will ensure database operators must inform the current registered keeper that a transfer of keepership has been requested and given an opportunity to object. This should apply unless sufficient supporting evidence on the legitimacy of the transfer is available.

We also asked how long the current keeper should have to raise an objection to a transfer. The majority of respondents said four weeks was appropriate, which we agree with.

We will work with the database operators to develop robust, proportionate processes, supported by guidance.

We will require database operators to have robust transfer of keepership processes in place and allow, where appropriate, the current registered keeper up to 28 days to object to the transfer.

Section 4: Strengthening processes around the transfer of records between database operators and preventing duplicate registrations

Duplicate registrations

A duplicate registration is where a microchip number is registered on more than one database at the same time. Duplicate registrations create complexity if each record has different keepership details and makes it harder to determine where the animal normally resides. Duplicate registrations also provide an opportunity for a stolen animal to be registered by a keeper without the current keeper’s knowledge or consent.

We asked whether databases should be prevented from creating duplicate registrations. The majority of respondents agreed with this.

We agree that database operators should not create duplicate registrations as they add complexity to the effective operation of the microchipping regime.

We will require database operators not to create duplicate registrations.

Timeframe for releasing records for keepers to transfer it to a new database

Keepers have a right to move their record to another database operator. We asked whether we should impose a specific timeframe by which database operators should release a record to allow the keeper to register this with a new database. The majority of respondents agreed with this.

We asked how long the database operator should have to complete such a request. The most popular option chosen was 14 days.

We will expect database operators to release a record within 14 days of receiving the request in most cases.

Section 5: Data retention requirements

Historical data held on databases may be needed by enforcement bodies investigating theft or illegal breeding. Currently, there is no requirement for database operators to retain historical data for any specified time, although dog microchipping legislation in Scotland requires databases to retain data for a minimum of 30 years from the date of birth of the dog.

We asked whether database operators should be required to hold data for a minimum of 30 years from the date of birth of the cat or dog. The majority of respondents agreed.

We agree that database operators should be required to hold data for a minimum of 30 years from the birth of a dog, which aligns with the legislation in Scotland, and for this to also apply to cats.

We intend to require database operators to retain certain data for a minimum of 30 years from the date of birth of the cat or dog, taking account of data protection principles.

Section 6: Improving breeder traceability

Breeder information

One of the objectives of the 2015 Regulations was to improve the traceability of breeders, which could help reduce poor breeding conditions. However, the review of the 2015 Regulations found no clear evidence that this objective had been achieved.

The 2023 Regulations, which superseded the 2015 Regulations, require the record held on the database to indicate whether the current keeper is also the breeder, their licence number, if applicable, and the local authority that issued any licence. However, there is no requirement for this information to remain permanently on the record if the dog is transferred to a new keeper or the record is moved to a new database operator. Several respondents to the review of the 2015 Regulations suggested that it would assist investigations into poor breeding practices if details of the breeder remained accessible on past records.

We consulted on whether information related to a breeder for a dog should be a permanent part of the record. The majority of respondents supported this proposal. We, therefore, propose that enforcement bodies should have access to this information.

We plan to require dog breeder information to remain as a permanently accessible part of the microchip record for enforcement purposes.

Recording details of a puppy’s mother

We also asked whether a field recording the microchip details of a puppy’s mother should become a permanent part of the record. This would allow enforcement bodies to check how many litters of pups a breeding dam has given birth to, helping to tackle low welfare breeding practices. The majority of respondents agreed to this proposal, and we, therefore, propose to take this forward.

We plan to require a dog’s first keeper to supply the microchip number of the puppy’s mother and for this information to remain permanently accessible for enforcement purposes.

We also asked whether these requirements should apply to cats which have an identified breeder. The majority of respondents agreed with this. However, there is currently no requirement for cat breeders to be licenced in the same way as certain dog breeders under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 (‘the 2018 Regulations’). We, therefore, do not intend to make the new requirements applicable to cats at this stage but will keep this under review in light of the current statutory review of the 2018 Regulations.

Section 7: Additional details to be included on database records

Back-up support

We consulted on whether database operators must provide a ‘back-up support’ field, to enable the contact details of a person who may offer the animal an alternative to euthanasia in certain circumstances to be recorded. This would assist vets to meet the new requirements contained in the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons’ Code of Conduct to scan dogs prior to euthanasia where, in their opinion, the procedure is unnecessary on health or welfare grounds.

In response to the consultation, the majority of respondents agreed with this.

We note that several database operators have made the commercial decision to offer ‘back-up support’. We, therefore, do not consider that it is appropriate for government to make all database operators offer this service. However, we recognise the value of ‘back-up support’ so where it is recorded on the microchip record, this should be clearly flagged on the information returned by a search in the Single Point of Search portal.

Where ‘back-up support’ is registered on a microchip record, this should be flagged on the information returned by a search in the Single Point of Search portal.

We also asked in the consultation whether a ‘back-up support’ field should be a permanently accessible part of a database record. Whilst the majority of respondents agreed, a number of people raised concerns that transferring this information to a new keeper or database could be in conflict with data protection requirements. We will consider this issue further in discussions with database operators.

We will consider further with database operators whether an approach that meets data protection requirements can be developed that allows ‘back-up support’ to remain a permanently accessible part of the record.

Recording an animal as missing

Whilst many database operators will record whether a pet is ‘missing or stolen’, this is not a requirement. Recording that a pet is ‘missing or stolen’ assists enforcement bodies, as well as immediately flagging concerns to a database operator if they receive a request to transfer keepership or release the record to another database. This aligns with a recommendation in the Pet Theft Taskforce report to enhance processes around changes of keepership.

In response to the consultation, the majority of respondents strongly agreed with this proposal and we propose to take this forward.

Some respondents considered that the field should simply refer to the animal being reported as ‘missing’ rather than ‘stolen’, as identifying an animal as stolen may require verification from the police. For the purposes of the operation of the microchipping regime, we consider that a reference simply to whether the animal is reported as ‘missing’ is sufficient as this can include situations in which an animal is stolen.

We will require databases to include a field indicating whether the animal has been reported as ‘missing’.

Section 8: Ensuring effective processes and compliance with database conditions

Code of practice

We asked whether we should introduce a statutory code of practice to help database operators meet their obligations.

We have considered the responses carefully and we have decided that it is more appropriate to set out the key requirements database operators must comply with in the legislation itself rather than in a statutory code of practice. However, we will produce guidance that will provide database operators with further detail on how they can meet their legal obligations.

We also consider it is important to give consumers confidence that database operators also operate in compliance with other relevant legislation, such as that relating to data protection. We will ensure that these requirements are contained within the legislation itself. This will enable the Secretary of State to take appropriate action against a database operator where these requirements have not been met.

We will strengthen obligations on database operators in legislation and provide further support through guidance.

Section 9: Powers of the Secretary of State

Regulating compliant database operators

We asked whether the current powers of the Secretary of State to regulate database operators were sufficient. The majority of respondents agreed that the current powers were sufficient.

Several respondents considered that new powers were necessary to ensure that database operators were effectively monitored through an independent auditing process, which should be made public to improve consumer transparency.

We agree that more should be done to ensure database operators are meeting their obligations and have committed to strengthening the requirements on them, as outlined above.

We also intend to engage further with database operators to explore how they can demonstrate that they are meeting obligations, which could involve a form of independent assessment.

We will use existing powers alongside the strengthened requirements set out in guidance to hold compliant database operators to account.

We will explore further with database operators how they can demonstrate that they comply with their regulatory obligations.

Several respondents considered that the maximum penalty of £2,500 that can be imposed on a database operator for a breach of the regulations was insufficient. However, after careful consideration, we consider that this current penalty is sufficient.

Proving greater assurance to consumers

Some respondents suggested that we should have the power to order a database operator to cease operating. We do not consider that this would be proportionate as the regulatory regime only currently extends to cats and dogs and not to other pets that could legitimately be microchipped. We currently maintain a list on GOV.UK of all databases operators that hold themselves out as compliant with the regulation. However, we would like to do more to signal to consumers which databases are considered compliant.

We will consider further how a database operator can demonstrate that it holds itself out as compliant.

Section 10: Microchipping implanter requirements

We asked whether the current requirements for implanter training courses should be strengthened. The majority of respondents agreed.

Currently, courses are approved by the Animal Plant Health Agency (APHA). Concerns were expressed about the quality of some of the courses that were offered and that they should be regularly assessed to ensure that they meet appropriate standards.

We consider that it would be appropriate to review the existing process for approving these courses including developing review arrangements.

We will review the existing processes for the approval of microchip implanter courses and develop an approach for regular review of the training courses.

Some respondents, including veterinary organisations, suggested that non-veterinary implanters should be required to complete ongoing professional development or re-certification. We understand this would be to have a similar system to veterinary continuous professional development requirements.

We understand the importance of ensuring implanters have the right skills and competency to prevent any harm to animals through the process of implantation. All adverse reactions must be reported to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. There are also general provisions under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 that enable anyone to report where an individual has acted in a way that impacts the welfare of an animal.

Based on reports of adverse reactions, or any other information provided, the Secretary of State may require a non-veterinary implanter to have further training or prohibit them from implanting entirely. We consider that an evidence-based approach focusing on addressing individual implanter’s failings remains the most proportionate approach.

We will, therefore, not be introducing a requirement for non-veterinary implanters to complete ongoing professional development or re-certification. However, we intend to review the process for reporting adverse reactions and, as part of this, will consider whether this should be strengthened. We will continue to require that all implanter training assessors and internal verifiers retain training records demonstrating their own continuous professional development.

Further comments

The final consultation question asked whether respondents wished to make any additional comments and we received over 500 responses.

Some respondents considered that the number of database operators was inhibiting the effectiveness of the microchip system and that a single, centralised database was preferable. Whilst we recognise that the recent increase in database operators adds complexity to the system, we want to address this though the creation of the single point of search portal. We do not support the creation of a single, centralised database. Database operators are commercial enterprises which offer a range of services and provide choice for pet owners.

We also received comments proposing that when a pet is first presented to a vet, they should be under a legal obligation to scan its microchip and check the details against the record held on the database, which would help address pet theft. We consulted on this in 2021 and responded that we support the principle that vets should scan at first presentation, and that the most appropriate way of achieving this is through continued engagement with the veterinary profession. The improvements that we are proposing to the operation of the microchipping regime, including the introduction of the new single point of search portal, will support vets.

Some respondents referred to the handling of deceased cats found by the roadside, suggesting that local authorities should be under a legal obligation to scan for any microchip and seek to unite the cat with its owner. We also consulted on this in 2021 and responded that we understand that the majority of local authorities have arrangements in place to scan dead cats and dogs found by the roadside. However, we are aware that procedures differ between them and that they may not always work effectively in practice. That is why we are encouraging local authorities to develop and share best practice in this area. The improvements to the operation of the microchipping regime that we are proposing will also support local authorities.

Finally, several respondents supported penalty notices as an additional way for local authorities to enforce the regulations and potentially reduce administrative burden. The Animals (Penalty Notices) Act 2022 provides powers to enable penalty notices to be used for certain offences relating to animals. The Animals (Penalty Notices) (England) 2023 regulations have already been introduced for some offences but we are considering enabling penalty notices for additional offences, including the offence of not microchipping a cat or dog.

Cookies on GOV.UK