My Lords, I have some general points to make and also some rather specific ones. I make it clear from the beginning as a veterinary surgeon that I very much welcome this legislation. It is a very progressive step and one that we have needed for a long time. I think I can say unreservedly that the entire veterinary world supports the proposals. As the Minister said, it will benefit animal welfare and assuage public concern by aiding the identification of strays and reuniting them with their owners. It will contribute to addressing the problem of dangerous dogs, provided
that their owners have had the dogs microchipped. In addition, reducing the problem of strays will save a lot of money for local authorities and charities.
Having made those positive comments, it is important to stress that this measure of itself will not at a stroke solve all the issues that occasionally surround dogs. Alone, it will not prevent dangerous dogs attacking people or the exploitation of breeding bitches, because the breeding history of bitches, for example, is not required to be recorded on the database of the microchip. I referred to that in an earlier debate in Grand Committee on the Deregulation Bill in November. Nor will it solve all the problems associated with the illegal importation of dogs. It is an extremely valuable tool in addressing these problems but it is not the definitive solution. Key to making it part of that solution is enforcement of these regulations. I urge the Government to consider very carefully and thoroughly all means to facilitate and enable their enforcement.
I have a number of technical and specific points, which I will go through quickly in the interests of time. I would appreciate a response to some of the more important ones but I am happy to receive a response in writing if that is appropriate.
First, the term “authorised person” is used in two different contexts in the regulations and I think that they should perhaps be differentiated. In Regulation 11 it is used in the context of those enforcing the regulations, whereas in Regulation 6 it is used in reference to persons reading the microchips and interrogating the database, which could include vets and others. Do these latter groups need to be authorised by a local authority or the Secretary of State? This seems unnecessary. Moreover—this is a very important point that concerns the veterinary profession—veterinary surgeons do not want to be put in the position of being enforcers of these regulations. Not only would this make client relations very difficult but it would have a negative consequence for animal welfare if people were reluctant to take their animals to veterinary surgeons.
Secondly, in Regulations 4, 16 and 17—this is a small technical point—the term “transponder” is used in a way which clearly refers to the microchip reader. I understand that the reader is technically a transceiver, whereas the transponder is part of the microchip. Perhaps those regulations need to be reworded to be clear.
Thirdly, and this is of some significance, the site of implantation is not referred to in the regulations. However, microchip readers have a relatively small sensitivity range of a few centimetres. There are ISO-defined standard sites of implantation that are internationally recognised, and in the UK we all use as convention a single site of implantation on the dog in the midline of the back between the scapulae—the shoulder blades—so perhaps the site of implantation should be defined in regulations.
Fourthly, with respect to Regulation 5, “Details to be recorded”, should there be provision to add the details of the dam which would ultimately help enforce the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 and the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999?
Fifthly, regarding Regulation 8, “Change of keeper”, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, I was a bit puzzled. While Regulation 8(1) refers to the fact that,
“the new keeper must, unless the previous keeper has already done so”,
change the record and so on. Not to do so is not an offence. The offence is committed by the former keeper if they have not had a microchip inserted. Perhaps there needs to be more clarity here as there will be confusion in the minds of the public in dog areas about who is responsible and what penalties might follow if they do or do not do certain things.
Sixthly, regarding Regulation 9, “Implanting of microchips”, the term “veterinary nurse” is used alongside “veterinary surgeon”. “Veterinary surgeon” is a legally and professionally protected term while “veterinary nurse” is not. It is used here in a context suggesting that these are both specifically professionally protected terms. However, given that a new charter is to be granted to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, probably in February, which will place all professionally accredited veterinary nurses on the register of veterinary nurses and the term “registered veterinary nurse” is a protected title, perhaps the word “registered” should be prefixed to “veterinary nurse” in this context.
Seventhly, Regulation 9(1)(c) and (d) deal with qualified persons other than veterinary surgeons or veterinary nurses implanting microchips. There is no objection in principle to such other suitably qualified people implanting microchips. Problems with incorrect implantation appear to be rare, although to be honest we have not had formal reporting systems in place for a few years. However, cases are recorded of serious effects from incorrect implantation leading to, for example, paraplegia. The requirement in Regulation 9(1)(c) for training on a course approved by the Secretary of State appears to be a very prudent and sensible measure which I welcome.
Regulation 10, “Adverse reactions”, includes a requirement in paragraph (2)(b) to notify the Secretary of State of migration of a microchip from the site of implantation. We are constantly in this House quite rightly concerned not to overburden people with regulation. I wonder if this regulation is necessary. Migration of microchips happens on occasion. It does not reflect incorrect implantation, nor is it likely to be of any health consequence to the animal. It is implied in the regulations that the chip has been found and read, so why should it be a requirement? It is an offence punishable by a fine not to report that to the Secretary of State?
Finally, there are a number of questions around databases, which have been in part referred to by the noble Baroness opposite and were brought to the attention of the Minister by the Microchipping Alliance and others. One important point that might bear repetition is that, given the number of databases that exist, the tracing of an animal would be facilitated if there were a single portal of entry for inquiries that could then be distributed to the relevant databases. In conclusion, I warmly welcome these regulations and strongly support them, but ask that the Minister and the department consider some of the points I have raised.