Tag Archives: Microchipping

Parliamentary Veterinary Intern Diary: January – Vet Record

Read Hannah’s last  column for the Vet Record on their website:

Advertisements

Draft Dog Microchipping Regulations

Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2014

On Thursday afternoon the new Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations were considered in Grand Committee. Lord De Mauley (C), Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD), Lord Trees (CB) and Lord Grantchester (L) all contributed to the discussion around the Regulations. Links to HOL Hansard online and the Parliament TV coverage of the discussion are provided below.

Lord Trees speaking in Grand Committee
Lord Trees speaking in Grand Committee

Lord Trees welcomed the legislation, but warned that it would not be a silver bullet for all canine-related animal welfare issues. After scrutinising the legislation there were a number of areas where we felt the wording left things unclear, but the Minister respectfully disagreed. In Regulation 9, the term ‘veterinary nurse’ was used in the manner of a legally and professionally protected term when it is not. We suggested that the term ‘registered veterinary nurse’ be substituted because this will become a professionally protected term under the new Charter of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, which is likely to be granted in February. We await an answer on this point.

We were surprised to note that it was not considered appropriate to legislate on the site of implantation, despite the existence of a specific ISO-standard, but that the legislation does provide for the notification of the Secretary of State on migration of a microchip – which seems entirely unnecessary.

LordDeMauley_Microchipping_220115Last, but not least, the legislation around transfer of ownership seemed unclear (Regulation 8). Lord De Mauley clarified that the the new keeper must update the database where there is a change of keeper. However, and somewhat confusingly, not to do so is not listed as an offence. The Noble Lord the Minister intends to write to us on any points he had not addressed or wished to address further.

APGAW: Enforcement of animal welfare legislation

Animal welfare legislation: Does it work and is it effective?

On Tuesday, the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare met to discuss ‘Enforcement of Animal Welfare Legislation’. The very packed room listened to a Metropolitan Police Status Dogs unit Officer, an RSPCA Chief Inspector and an Environmental Health Officer (EHO) share their alarmingly similar views on the subject.

Inspector O’Hara, for the Metropolitan Police Status Dogs unit, highlighted that he and his colleagues receive enhanced training  when compared to most police forces. Whilst the police had historically relied on the RSPCA to lead on animal welfare law, he said ‘the sands are shifting’ and this was no longer the case. Elaborating further, he outlined several cases of interest and clarified that his unit have a good re-homing policy, with 118 dogs re-homed this year, where sensible and possible to their original home.

Mark Berry, a Local Authority EHO and member of the Companion Animal Welfare Forum, outlined the structure of service at his Local Authority, Stockton on Tees. He stipulated that his Local Authority (LA) provide a greater service than most LAs and are lucky to operate as a unitary body, rather than being spread across several departments. Mr Berry told us that statutory provision only covers stray dogs and animal licensing covering boarding, pet shops and breeding. Stockton on Tees also offer non-statutory services relating to dog-fouling, non-canine strays, unwanted animal handover, animal welfare issues including cruelty, abandonment, offences, nuisance complaints for all species, dangerous dogs, attacks on people/animals, microchipping, neutering and the promotion of responsible pet ownership. He re-iterated that many councils will only perform the first two statutory duties, yet the demand across the services in his LA is going up year on year since 2008. He believed that lack of suitably trained/qualified staff, facilities and resources, and the cost of instigating prosecutions were equally important factors behind the lack of effective animal welfare enforcement.

Dermot Murphy, for the RSPCA, stated that the three big costs for the charity and its finite resources were examination by a vet, boarding kennel fees and the cost of engaging a solicitor. He agreed with the previous two speakers that the enforcement across the country was patchwork and varied considerably from once LA and police force to another. Consequently, he felt there were currently substantial gaps in animal welfare enforcement.

In summary, all of the speakers felt that animal welfare enforcement could be improved if there were better guidance on precisely who is responsible for enforcement of the various different services outlined by Mr Berry. Furthermore, the provision of adequate resources, funding and experienced staff are key – none of which are likely to be a priority whilst the bulk of animal welfare services remain non-statutory. The question, posed by the RSPCA, of who ‘owns’ the Animal Welfare Act remains unanswered and until it is we will likely struggle on with the current patchwork cover.

Dogs Trust Reception

On Tuesday 28th the VPRF was present alongside numerous MPs and Lords for the annual Dogs Trust Parliamentary Reception.

neil_parish_dogs_trust_oct_14
The Rt. Hon. Neil Parish MP climbed into the Dogs Trust Chip Van to serve up some free microchips.

During the reception the Minister Lord De Mauley announced that the new regulations on dog microchipping, due to come into force in 2016, would be laid before Parliament the very same day. You can read the draft legislation on the legislation.gov.uk website: The Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2014.

In addition to the news regarding the new legislation, it was announced that Camilla Baldwin OBE, who first joined Dogs Trust in 1974, will be stepping down as CEO to be replaced by Adrian Burder.