Promoting Responsible Dog Ownership in Scotland: Microchipping and other Measures. An Analysis of Consultation Responses

5. Potential Challenges of Compulsory Microchipping

5.1 The consultation document stated that, before the Scottish Government can consider introducing compulsory microchipping for dogs in Scotland, it would be necessary to identify and carefully consider the potential challenges - particularly in relation to effective enforcement. Seven questions were posed about these potential challenges:

Question 9: In the long term, the compulsory microchipping of dogs may require all owners to pay to microchip their dog and to update their details on the commercial database that their dog is registered on. Do you think that this would be an unfair burden on any particular sectors? [Yes / No / Don't know] [If yes: Rehoming/sanctuary charities / Individuals in receipt of benefits / Other] Please explain.

Question 10: When a microchipped animal changes ownership, the registration details on the database must be updated for microchipping to be effective. If microchipping was to be made compulsory, with whom should this responsibility lie: The seller, the buyer, or both? [Seller / Buyer / Both / Don't know] Please explain why and how you consider that the requirement could be enforced.

Question 11: Are you aware of any difficulties due to different microchip companies using different technical specifications regarding scanners etc.? [Yes / No / Don't know] Please explain.

Question 12: Do you think that any regulation being introduced on microchipping should set minimum standards for commercial databases? [Yes / No / Don't know] Why and if so what should they be?

Question 13: Presently, the dog owner, the microchip implanter, and some animal welfare organisations are able to access current database records, but only enforcement authorities are able to see previous records. Do you think this should remain the same? [Yes / No / Don't know] Please explain.

Question 14: Do you believe that compulsory microchipping would be easy or difficult to enforce effectively? [Easy / Difficult / Don't know] Why? Can you suggest what approach to enforcement would be most appropriate?

Question 15: Do you have any concerns that microchipping could cause health problems in dogs? [Yes / No / Don't know] Please explain.

Q9 Would compulsory microchipping result in an unfair burden on any sectors?

5.2 Question 9 asked about whether compulsory microchipping might result in an unfair burden on certain sectors. If respondents ticked "yes", they were then asked to indicate which sectors might be unfairly burdened: "rehoming/sanctuary charities", "individuals in receipt of benefits" or "other". Space was provided for further comment.

5.3 Altogether, 1,486 respondents replied to the first part of Question 9. Table 5.1 shows that 37% of respondents thought that compulsory microchipping would put an unfair burden on certain sectors, while 58% thought it would not.

5.4 Respondents with professional qualifications (such as veterinarians, veterinary nurses and behaviourists) and organisations representing these groups were more likely than other respondents to say that microchipping would not put an unfair burden on any sectors. Two-thirds of this group ticked "no" as compared with 58% of respondents overall.

Table 5.1: Question 9: Do you think that compulsory microchipping would result in an unfair burden on any particular sectors?

	Group / organisational respondents		Individual respondents		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	31	32%	526	38%	557	37%
No	60	61%	799	58%	859	58%
Don't know	7	7%	63	5%	70	5%
Total	98	100%	1,388	100%	1,486	100%

Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.

5.5 In total, 363 respondents ticked a box to indicate one or more sectors which they believed would be unfairly burdened by compulsory microchipping. However, quantitative analysis of this data is not shown because of an inconsistency in the way different respondents completed the consultation questionnaire. Those who submitted the questionnaire by email / post could indicate multiple sectors at Question 9, whereas those who submitted comments on-line were able to select one sector only (i.e., either rehoming / sanctuary charities or individuals in receipt of benefits). At the same time, some on-line respondents made comments to the effect that they had wished to indicate multiple sectors. Because of this inconsistency, the views about which sectors would bear an unfair burden are not presented in a table, but rather are discussed in the qualitative analysis below.

5.6 Altogether, 972 respondents made additional comments at Question 9. Regardless of the inconsistencies noted above, the themes raised by respondents in their comments were similar, and there was a great deal of overlap in the views among those who ticked "yes" and those who ticked "no".

5.7 Among both groups, the primary concern was that compulsory microchipping could put an unfair burden on rehoming / sanctuary charities. Rehoming charities were seen to play a key role in dealing with the problem of irresponsible dog ownership (e.g. through their work in rescuing abandoned or neglected dogs). These organisations were perceived to be already "overwhelmed" and "cash-strapped". Some respondents suggested that a subsidy or discount should be given to rescue and rehoming charities to limit any additional costs. Others commented that many rescue services already have a policy of microchipping all dogs that pass through their doors, and it was assumed that this cost was passed on to new owners as part of a rehoming fee. It was also noted that rehoming charities often had their own microchipping facilities in-house, which would also minimise additional costs resulting from a legal requirement to microchip. Indeed, respondents from some rehoming charities commented that a policy of compulsory microchipping could actually result in savings to these organisations, since the cost of kennelling dogs would be reduced as lost dogs would be reunited with their owners more quickly.

5.8 Many of those offering comments at Question 9 focused on the impacts for individual dog owners (in addition to, or instead of, the impacts on rescue / rehoming organisations). Such respondents often expressed the view that microchipping was integral to responsible dog ownership, and that any related cost should therefore also be regarded as integral to the cost of ownership. They argued that owning a dog is a responsibility, not a right; that microchipping is just one of many costs associated with owning a dog; and if an individual cannot afford the relatively small cost of microchipping their dog, then they probably cannot afford to have - and therefore should not own - a dog at all.

Groups unfairly burdened by compulsory microchipping

5.9 Among the 37% of respondents who thought compulsory microchipping would result in an unfair burden on certain groups of dog owners, the groups most commonly identified were those on low incomes. This included: those in receipt of benefits; the elderly; the disabled; people living in rented accommodation; and homeless people. Some respondents highlighted the health benefits (mental and physical) of dog ownership - particularly for older people, the unemployed and those living alone. Others emphasised that dog ownership "should not become the preserve of the rich", and suggested means testing, or a system of reduced fees or exemptions as ways of mitigating the financial impact on those on low incomes.

5.10 However, as noted in paragraph 5.8 above, there was not universal agreement among respondents that microchipping would result in an unfair burden on people on low incomes.

5.11 Five other groups were identified, much less often, as being unfairly burdened by a policy of compulsory microchipping. These were: responsible dog owners; assistance dog owners; owners of working dogs / multiple dog owners; "the taxpayer", and breeders.

5.12 However, in relation to the latter group mentioned above (breeders), some respondents expressed the contrary view that breeders should bear the cost of compulsory microchipping.

5.13 Among respondents who ticked "yes" to Question 9, some suggested that there could be unintended consequences of a policy of compulsory microchipping. In particular:

• It could lead to abandonment of dogs, and greater difficulties in rehoming dogs if people feel they cannot afford the cost of microchipping.
• Those who cannot afford to chip their dogs may not take their dogs to the vet (or to PDSA) when they should, for fear of getting caught with an unchipped dog.
• Companies may charge high prices to keep information up-to-date. There were also data protection concerns about commercial companies having details of dog owners and their dogs, which could potentially be stolen or sold on to third parties.

5.14 In relation to the latter point, some respondents argued that a policy of compulsory microchipping should not become "a revenue-generating exercise"; that sensible, affordable fees should be implemented (£5-10 was thought to be reasonable); and that database companies and vets should not be allowed to levy annual changes for maintaining records. It was also suggested that people should not have to pay to update their dog's records if they moved house. This was seen to be an unfair burden, especially for people living in rented accommodation, who move frequently.

Q10 Who should have responsibility for updating registration details?

5.15 Question 10 asked whether the seller or buyer of a dog, or both, should have responsibility for updating registration details on the microchipping database. Views were also sought on how the requirement could be enforced.

5.16 Altogether, 1,485 respondents ticked one of the boxes at Question 10. The majority, 68%, thought that both the seller and buyer should be responsible for updating a dog's registration details, while most of the remaining respondents were evenly split between thinking the seller, or the buyer should have responsibility. See Table 5.2.

Table 5.2: Question 10: If microchipping was to be made compulsory, with whom should the responsibility lie of updating registration details: seller, buyer or both?

	Group / organisational respondents		Individual respondents		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Both	73	72%	942	68%	1,015	68%
Seller	13	13%	186	13%	199	13%
Buyer	7	7%	176	13%	183	12%
Don't know	8	8%	80	6%	88	6%
Total	101	100%	1,384	100%	1,485	100%

Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.

5.17 In total, 950 respondents made a comment at Question 10. It should be noted that comments offered by respondents did not always clearly align with the tick-box preferences they indicated. In particular, some of those ticking "buyer" or "seller" then went on to express support for joint responsibility for updating details.

5.18 In setting out their arguments, respondents frequently referred to other situations where animals, or objects, are bought and sold. In particular, the model of buying and selling a car whereby the seller notifies the DVLA that the car has changed ownership, and the new owner registers it in their name, was regarded as a simple, easily managed system. This same analogy was often used to support respondents' arguments irrespective of whether they favoured the "buyer", "seller" or "both" having responsibility for updating the dog's microchip details.

5.19 Those advocating seller notification thought this had the benefit of absolving them of responsibility should future problems arise concerning the dog. Those advocating buyer notification thought it was in the new owner's interests to ensure details were up-to-date.

5.20 Other models thought to work well included: registration systems for sheep and cattle; the Kennel Club's registration process for pedigree dogs; systems relating to the sale and purchase of firearms. On the other hand, the horse passport system was referred to as a system did not work well and was not "fit for purpose". The difficulties with this model were perceived to be that it is based on single notification (notification by the current owner only), with many different agencies holding details about horses.

Arguments for BOTH seller and buyer having responsibility

5.21 Those who wanted both the seller and buyer to have responsibility for updating the microchip registration cited a number of benefits of this arrangement:

• It ensures that the change in registration is done, since if one party fails to change the registration, the other will do it.
• It would deter dog theft, since the new owner of the dog would not be able to change the dog's details without the agreement of the former owner.
• It would protect a former owner from being implicated regarding any future behavioural problems with a dog they are no longer are responsible for.
• It would protect a buyer from purchasing a stolen dog as both the existing registered owner and new owner would need to authorise the change of ownership.
• It would ensure greater accuracy of registration details - as it would be in the interests of both parties to record the new details correctly.

5.22 However, as with buying and selling a car, respondents believed that such a process would only work if there were active enforcement and stiff financial penalties for non-compliance. It was suggested that if a change in ownership was not notified within a certain period (suggestions ranged from 14-30 days), there should be penalties for both parties, and these should increase over time.

5.23 Respondents also offered views on who should pay in a system where both buyer and seller shared responsibilities for re-registration. While some thought "the seller and buyer should pay an equal share" others thought the buyer alone should pay. Others thought re-registration "should be free" (seen to encourage responsible ownership). Some specifically sought exemption for people handing dogs in to rescue centres, as these individuals may not have the means to pay for transfer of ownership.

Arguments for seller having responsibility

5.24 Among the 199 respondents who advocated the seller having responsibility, the main argument was that the seller has most to gain from ensuring that the details are up-to-date, as they would not want to be held responsible for the behaviour of a dog they no longer own.

Arguments for buyer having responsibility

5.25 In general, the 183 respondents who favoured the buyer having responsibility for updating the microchip details, said that, since the buyer is assuming overall responsibility for the dog, this should include ensuring that the dog's chip is up-to-date.

5.26 Respondents who advocated the buyer having responsibility also thought that it was in the buyer's interest to make sure that the details are correct, so that if their dog is lost or stolen, it can be returned to them.

5.27 It was noted that there were practical reasons why the buyer should have the main responsibility for updating microchip details. For example, it may not be possible to microchip a puppy before it is rehomed (because the pup is too small). There may also be situations where the new owner was taking ownership of a dog from an individual who had died, or who had a physical or mental incapacity.

Enforcement

5.28 Irrespective of who respondents thought should have responsibility for updating details, or whether they offered a view on this, they often commented that the process would be very difficult or even impossible to enforce. Respondents identified several potential problems, including those of a buyer giving a seller false contact details, and a seller "disappearing" after the sale of a dog. In addition, respondents generally thought that puppy farmers and anyone wanting a cheap dog would simply not bother with microchipping.

5.29 Some respondents suggested that having both the buyer and seller involved in the re-registration of the dog could be relatively straightforward to enforce so long as there was a single agency responsible for holding the information, and non-compliance was dealt with robustly.

Q11 Are you aware of any difficulties due to different technical specifications?

5.30 Question 11 asked whether respondents were aware of any difficulties with microchipping, due to different microchip companies using different technical specifications regarding scanners, etc.

5.31 In total, 1,477 respondents replied to Question 11 with 14% saying they were aware of difficulties. There was a clear difference between organisational and individual responses to this question with more than a third of organisations (36%) answering "yes" compared to 13% of individuals. See Table 5.3.

Table 5.3: Question 11: Are you aware of any difficulties due to different microchip companies using different technical specifications regarding scanners, etc.?

	Group / organisational respondents		Individual respondents		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	35	36%	173	13%	208	14%
No	36	37%	640	46%	676	46%
Don't know	27	28%	566	41%	593	40%
Total	98	100%	1,379	100%	1,477	100%

Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.

5.32 Altogether, 366 respondents offered comments at Question 11, with around half of these saying they were unaware of any difficulties with microchipping technology. However, the other half highlighted difficulties that they were aware of directly, or had heard / read about. These included: microchips failing or becoming damaged after being implanted and microchips being difficult to locate because they had moved within the animal's body. Respondents also recounted experiences of microchips not being recognised by some scanners - including scanners operated by local authority dog wardens and rescue centres.

5.33 Although not directly related to technical difficulties with microchipping, respondents also commented that they had found it difficult to contact certain companies, and that they were not always sure which company should be contacted about a change of address. Companies were also reported not to be very efficient in making changes when requested, and in some cases, to not keep adequate records. Examples were also given of companies changing their names, or going out of business and their database being sold on to another company.

5.34 The following quotes illustrate some of the issues noted above:

"In my job, I have scanned for chips in many dogs over the years but our office scanner never ever picked up a chip! It never crossed my mind it could've been due to the scanner and chip being incompatible!" (Individual respondent)

"We have experienced issues in detecting chips but it is known that some chips stop working or have never worked particularly well. It is also known that chips can sometimes move to an area in the dog which is harder to detect. Scanners must be maintained and replaced regularly, or calibrated. If these measures are taken, then issues around this matter are limited to faulty chips." (Local authority respondent)

"But it was a little inconvenient when we moved house to find our dogs are registered under two different companies and one of those had changed its name. So it was a bit of a challenge to get our details updated." (Individual respondent)

5.35 As many respondents pointed out, these issues are problematic, since they can result in a microchipped dog failing to be reunited with its owner. There are also implications for any proposals to introduce - and enforce - mandatory microchipping if scanners do not reliably recognise the chips.

5.36 In general, respondents called for one national database held by a single, non-profit-making organisation, and chips and scanners that comply with common, agreed standards. Some organisational respondents (including the British Veterinary Association, the Dogs Trust, the Dog Advisory Council, Cats Protection and others) provided detailed information about microchip standards, and suggested that any legislation should ensure compliance with agreed ISO standards. Any legislation would also need to set out the action to be taken if an animal was microchipped in a country (e.g., USA or some European countries) that did not use the same standards as those in Scotland:

"We are aware of animals that have been imported which have microchips that are not compliant with the scanners commonly used in the UK. The Microchip Advisory Group developed a Code of Practice for microchips which stated that all microchips intended for companion animal and equine markets should meet ISO standards 11784 and 11785, FDX-B type. It is important that microchips comply with these standards and must operate at 134.2KHz. The readers used for companion animals in the UK read FDX-B microchips as described in the standards. However it will be necessary for the authorities to consider what action will be taken if an animal is presented with a non-FDX-B chip." (British Veterinary Association and British Small Animal Veterinary Association)

5.37 There were also calls for greater control over, and compulsory training and licensing of, those permitted to implant microchips, not only to ensure the security of data, but also to safeguard the health of the dog. It was also suggested that a routine check of the microchip could be incorporated into annual vaccination appointments.

Q12 Is there a requirement for minimum standards for commercial databases?

5.38 Question 12 asked whether any regulation being introduced on microchipping should set minimum standards for commercial databases. Respondents were asked to give the reason(s) for their view and, if they were in favour of setting minimum standards for commercial databases, say what they thought those standards should be.

5.39 In total, 1,468 respondents answered Question 12. Table 5.4 shows that over half of respondents (53%) thought that there should be minimum standards, while just 4% did not. The remaining respondents did not know. There was a clear difference in the views of organisational and individual respondents. Most organisational respondents (79%) thought there should be minimum standards for commercial databases, with just 16% of organisational respondents expressing uncertainty on this question. By contrast, almost half of individual respondents (45%) said "don't know".

Table 5.4: Question 12: Do you think that any regulation being introduced on microchipping should set minimum standards for commercial databases?

	Group / organisational respondents		Individual respondents		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	78	79%	700	51%	778	53%
No	5	5%	51	4%	56	4%
Don't know	16	16%	618	45%	634	43%
Total	99	100%	1,369	100%	1,468	100%

5.40 Altogether, 572 respondents made a comment at Question 12. Among those who ticked "no" or "don't know", 54 respondents made any further comments. The comments among this group included two main themes:

• Some respondents said they did not understand the question. This group included respondents who said they had no experience or knowledge of this subject, and who thought the question was not appropriate for members of the public.
• A larger group of respondents challenged the underlying premise of the question. This group disagreed that commercial databases should be used in the implementation of mandatory microchipping, with concerns expressed about data protection, and about the fees that commercial companies might charge. They argued for a single database held by a government department or the police. Such concerns were similar to the points raised by those who supported minimum standards (see below).

5.41 Those who ticked "yes" (i.e., those who wanted to see minimum standards) offered a wide range of comments on the standards that should be introduced, as presented in the sections below.

Reasons for having minimum standards

5.42 Those who were in favour of minimum standards felt that this was essential to ensure consistency and accuracy of the information. Respondents argued that without agreed minimum standards, compulsory microchipping would result in: poor customer service standards and uncontrolled pricing by commercial database companies; difficulties in using the databases for enforcement purposes or court actions; increased fraud including duplicate records being created for the same dog; and companies potentially selling data on to third parties for marketing purposes.

5.43 In short, respondents believed it would be ineffective and "pointless" to introduce a compulsory microchipping system that did not have a basic, common standard for databases holding the information.

5.44 Respondents' focused on six main areas in their comments, as described below.

Consistency and centralised control

5.45 Respondents believed that, in order for compulsory microchipping to have any impact, there would need to be consistency and central control over the data. There were repeated calls for "one national database" and "a single point of entry" (via telephone or a website) to the database. This arrangement, it was argued, would avoid confusion, help reunite lost dogs with their owners, and prevent stolen animals from being rechipped and registered on another database.

5.46 The success of the national cattle, sheep and pigs registries, and the failure of the horse passport scheme were frequently highlighted. The latter - where several different bodies issue horse passports - was described as "a shambles" and "a mess". Respondents said this led to fraud and duplicate passports being issued for the same horse. It was suggested that lessons could be learned from this experience, in particular, that a single, central registry managed by the government would be more successful than a system involving multiple commercial databases.

5.47 Although there was a clear preference by respondents for one national database, there were two main views about how that one database could be delivered. One group of respondents felt that a national database should be operated by the government, the police or other public body (similar to DVLA). This group strongly believed that it would not be appropriate, or in the public interest, to use a commercial database for this purpose. The second group of respondents appeared less concerned about whether microchip data was held by one organisation or several, but emphasised that, if multiple commercial databases continued to be used, they would have to be linked together and be compatible to allow searching, cross-referencing and updating from a single point.

5.48 In addition, it was suggested that whatever form of database was established in Scotland, it should be consistent with, and able to share data with, other databases in the UK (following implementation of compulsory microchipping in England and Wales), and in Europe (EuroPetNet) in order to accommodate visitors bringing dogs to Scotland for shows or holidays.

Accessibility of the information

5.49 In terms of accessibility, respondents wanted the database(s) to be easy to update. It was suggested that dog owners could be given secure web access to their own dog's record using the microchip number and a password. There were also frequent calls for the service to be available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week via telephone and on-line.

5.50 Respondents also emphasised the importance of appropriate agencies (including enforcement bodies) having open access to the information.

Data protection and security

5.51 Standards related to data protection and security were seen by respondents as high priority. In particular, respondents were concerned that data should not be able to be accessed by dog thieves, and there were calls for:

• Safeguards to be put in place to prevent false information being registered, or confidential information being passed on to third parties
• ID checking of dog owners registered on the database
• Assurances that the data will continue to be available if a company ceases trading
• The legal position regarding the deletion of old records (when a dog dies or changes hands) to be carefully considered
• Regulations to prevent selling information for profit or marketing purposes.

Quality and efficiency of the service

5.52 Respondents repeatedly made the point that "accuracy of the data is of primary importance". Respondents wanted standards that would ensure that information was reliable, robust and up-to-date, with specified timescales for updates (change of ownership, change of address, etc.), as well as arrangements for confirming that records are still correct - some respondents suggested this could be done annually and be linked to an annual scan by a vet, while others suggested every three years.

5.53 Respondents wanted to see high standards set for: microchips and scanning equipment; customer service; fraud prevention; and the business viability of the database operator (to ensure adequate computing software, hardware, staff and facilities).

5.54 Some respondents pointed out that the Microchipping Advisory Group (now the Microchipping Trade Association) in England and Wales had already carried out a great deal of work to develop a code of practice for commercial database companies, and it was suggested that the Scottish Government may wish to review this.

Cost

5.55 In general, respondents thought that standards should include a national pricing regime to ensure costs were consistent and kept to a minimum across Scotland. There were frequently expressed concerns that commercial companies would see a legal requirement to microchip "as a licence to print money". There was also a view that if the cost of updating records was set too high, people simply would not do it. A low cost system was seen to be the key to encouraging data quality.

5.56 Respondents made a range of suggestions about fees. For example, some thought that owners should pay an initial cost to register their dog, but that updates thereafter should be free. Others suggested fees ranging from £2 to £10 per update.

5.57 While most favoured (free) online updates actioned by owners themselves via a secure web interface, it was also suggested, less often, that telephone calls (for those without internet access) should not exceed the national rate (for example, there should be no premium rate phone numbers).

Minimum dataset requirements

5.58 Finally, while some respondents wished to see further detailed consultation about a minimum dataset, others took the opportunity to make detailed suggestions about the information which should be held in the database. In relation to this, there were two main groups:

• Those who thought the database should hold a "basic minimum" of personal information. This usually meant name and contact details of the owner; microchip number of the dog; and the breed, sex and colour of the dog.
• Those who wanted a more extensive dataset. In addition to the items above, different respondents suggested that the following could also be included:
  • Full ownership and breeding history of the dog, including name and contact details of all previous owners, and the breeder's registration number.
  • Information about behavioural incidents including whether the dog is subject to a Dog Control Notice, the number of times the dog has been found straying, any complaints made in relation to the dog by members of the public. This information was seen to be particularly important for local authority respondents. (There was also a suggestion that the database could include details of owners who were banned from owning dogs or other animals.)
  • Dog's name
  • Dog's date of birth (if known), or approximate age, if being rehomed
  • Whether the dog is entire, neutered or spayed.

Less often, respondents suggested that one or more of the following items could also be included in a more extensive dataset:

• Dog's parentage (if known), including the chip numbers of the parent dogs
• Any distinguishing features of the dog (eye colour, ear type, etc.)
• Photograph of dog (full face, left side, right side, rear view)
• Date of sale or transfer of ownership / date of rehoming
• Reasons for change in ownership
• Signature of previous owner agreeing to transfer of ownership
• Vet name and contact details
• Test details (if known) (e.g. DNA, BAER, ophthalmic)
• Medical requirements (if dog requires daily medication)
• Vaccination history
• Owner date of birth (for tracing purposes)
• Name and contact details of microchip implanter
• Red flag option to notify if the animal has been stolen.

5.59 A number of organisational respondents, including the Kennel Club, Scottish Kennel Club, Battersea Dog's Home and Police Scotland suggested that Petlog, which is managed by the Kennel Club, might provide the basis for the Scottish database standards.

Other issues raised by respondents regarding minimum standards

5.60 In addition to the six main themes discussed above, other points made less often were in relation to:

• Legal issues. Respondents thought any database company should be legally obliged to provide information to authorised bodies upon request. In addition, if the database is intended to hold information about people who may be deemed unfit to keep animals, careful thought will be required to ensure that unproven or expired convictions are not misreported.
• Requirements for dog owners and microchip implanters. Echoing comments made elsewhere, some respondents suggested that any regulations for compulsory microchipping should also set out requirements for dog owners such as timescales by which an owner must update their dog's details or be issued with a fixed penalty notice; and requirements for microchip implanters, ensuring that implanters were fully trained, certified and licensed.

Q13 Who should be able to see previous database records on microchipped dogs?

5.61 The consultation stated that dog owners, microchip implanters, and some animal welfare organisations are able to access current database records, but only enforcement authorities are able to see previous records. Question 13 asked if the current arrangements should continue if mandatory microchipping were introduced.

5.62 In total, 1,481 respondents answered Question 13. Table 5.5 shows that the largest proportion of respondents (42%) thought that current arrangements should continue - that is, only enforcement authorities should be able to see previous records on a microchipped dog. Organisational respondents were more likely than individuals to agree with this question (52% vs 41%). Compared with organisational respondents, individual respondents were more likely to answer "don't know".

5.63 A majority of enforcement agencies (i.e. 78% of local authorities and police) and respondents with professional dog-related qualifications (i.e. 55% of veterinarians, veterinary nurses and behaviourists) thought that only enforcement authorities should have access to previous database records. In contrast, rescue agencies and animal welfare organisations were divided in their views, with 42% saying "yes", and 42% saying "no" in response to this question.

Table 5.5: Question 13: Do you think that current arrangements regarding access to database records should remain the same if compulsory microchipping is introduced?

	Group / organisational respondents		Individual respondents		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	50	52%	567	41%	617	42%
No	28	29%	436	31%	464	31%
Don't know	18	19%	382	28%	400	27%
Total	96	100%	1,385	100%	1,481	100%

5.64 Altogether, 623 respondents made further comments at Question 13. An examination of these comments suggests that respondents had interpreted this question in a variety of ways, and that some were confused about what was being asked. For example, some respondents seemed to think the question was asking about whether the dog's entire microchipping record should be made publicly available. Other comments were unclear, ambiguous or appeared to contradict the respondent's answer to the initial yes / no question. For example, among those who ticked "no" at Question 13, one group of respondents made comments that focused solely on the importance of access for enforcement authorities, without any reference to other types of organisations or the different levels of access currently available.

5.65 As such, caution should be used in interpreting the figures shown in Table 5.5 above. While these might be seen as broadly indicative of opinion, the following sections drawing on the comments offered provide greater insight into the views of respondents on who should have access to databases and the types of access different groups should have.

Reasons for keeping current arrangements

5.66 Among those who favoured retaining current arrangements, the primary reasons given related to data protection and the privacy of personal data. Respondents believed that enabling wider access to information about a dog's previous owners could be open to abuse and criminal misuse of the information. Furthermore, respondents argued that the only reason for anyone to have access to previous information on a dog's owners would be for the purposes of investigating a crime; therefore, the information should be made available to enforcement agencies and no one else. The point was made that individuals working for enforcement authorities are public servants, bound by data protection legislation, and fully accountable for their actions. This is not the case for staff employed by (or who volunteer with) animal welfare charities, or for the dog's current owner.

5.67 Respondents argued that other parties seeking access to previous data should be able to make an application to an appropriate authority for the information.

5.68 As noted above, enforcement bodies were largely in favour of retaining current arrangements. However, several local authority respondents reported that they are not currently able to access previous details on microchipped dogs (in contrast to the statement made in the consultation document). Local authority respondents believed that they should not only be able to view the dog's complete record, but also to amend it - for example, if a dog is subject to a Dog Control Notice.

Reasons for changing current arrangements

5.69 As noted above, many of the comments made by those who ticked "no" to Question 13 are difficult to interpret. For example, one group of respondents made a variety of statements suggesting that "everyone" or "anyone with a vested interest" should have access to information on a dog. It is not clear whether these statements were arguing for dog owners, microchip implanters and animal welfare organisations (i.e., the groups mentioned in the question) to have access to current and previous records for a particular dog, or whether they were instead arguing for information on microchipped dogs to be available to the wider public. Typical comments included the following:

"Everyone should be able to access this information." (Tibetan Spaniel Club of Scotland)

"All records on the dog should be available to all with a vested interest in the dog." (Individual respondent)

5.70 However, it was clear from the comments that some respondents did believe that the data should be publicly available:

"These records should be openly available to all, thus allowing neighbours or other interested parties to check and ensure compliance." (Individual respondent)

5.71 Among the respondents whose comments were easier to interpret, there was a very wide range of (sometimes contradictory) views.

5.72 The most common view was that animal welfare organisations (including rescue and rehoming centres) should be able to have access to previous records on a dog, as this would assist in assessing a dog for rehoming. A small number of respondents also specifically suggested that rehoming centres could use this information to contact previous owners or even the breeder to rehome the animal, if the current owner was unable to be contacted. Alternatively, a previous owner might know how to contact the current owner.

5.73 Some respondents stated that they were in favour of previous information on the dog being available to welfare / rehoming organisations and veterinarians for health and welfare reasons, but not to dog owners for data protection reasons.

5.74 A less common view was that dog owners should have access to the dog's full ownership history. However, those who advocated this view often said it would be helpful to know "where the dog has come from", without being specific about the benefits this would bring. Those (few) who did offer more detailed reasons believed access to such information would:

• Help them to avoid adopting a "problem dog"
• Be useful in knowing how to manage the dog's behaviour and meet its needs
• Enable people who bought an apparently healthy dog in good faith to seek recompense if that turned out not to be the case.

5.75 There was also a prevalent view that certain individuals (including dog breeders) and dog rescue organisations should have access to the dog's previous history in order to use this information to assess the suitability of future owners.

5.76 In addition, according to respondents, allowing a wider range of individuals and organisations to access information about the dog's ownership history would: enable prospective owners to check that they are not buying a stolen dog; facilitate the resolution of disputes about ownership; and allow breeders to check that the dogs they sold are still in good homes.

Q14 Would compulsory microchipping be easy or difficult to enforce effectively?

5.77 Question 14 asked respondents their views about whether compulsory microchipping would be easy or difficult to enforce effectively. In addition, respondents were asked to suggest what approach to enforcement would be most appropriate.

5.78 Altogether, 1,480 respondents replied to Question 14. Table 5.6 shows that nearly two-thirds (65%) thought that compulsory microchipping would be difficult to enforce effectively, and 18% thought it would be easy. The remaining respondents did not know. Local authorities and other enforcement-related respondents were more likely than other respondents to believe that enforcement would be difficult: more than three-quarters of this group ticked "difficult" at Question 14.

Table 5.6: Question 14: Do you believe that compulsory microchipping would be easy or difficult to enforce effectively?

	Group / organisational respondents		Individual respondents		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Difficult	68	71%	899	65%	967	65%
Easy	19	20%	250	18%	269	18%
Don't know	9	9%	235	17%	244	16%
Total	96	100%	1,384	100%	1,480	100%

Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.

5.79 In total, 979 respondents made a comment at Question 14.

Why respondents thought enforcement would be difficult

5.80 Respondents gave five main reasons for believing that enforcement would be difficult:

• Enforcement would be impractical and expensive. Respondents noted that the only way of checking whether a dog has been microchipped is to scan it, but that scanning every dog in Scotland - or even randomly scanning dogs in parks - would be impractical, expensive and intrusive. This group frequently questioned how enforcement would be funded, and some specifically commented that the policy would be unenforceable.
• Current legislation is not enforced. Respondents commented that there were already a number of dog laws that were not being enforced effectively, including legislation that requires all dogs to wear a collar and ID tag when in public. The point was made that, if the legal requirement to provide visible identity is not enforced, a requirement to provide invisible identity is unlikely to be enforced either. Similar comments were made in relation to laws on dog fouling and the requirement for an individual to have their dog on a lead when walking beside a public road. Some respondents (including some local authority respondents) thought that without significant additional funding, enforcement would not be a priority to local authorities given the pressure on budgets in the current economic climate.
• It is not clear who should be responsible for enforcement. In general, respondents thought that enforcement of compulsory microchipping would not be a good use of police time. There was disagreement among respondents about whether veterinarians should have a role in enforcement: some advocated this, while others cautioned against it, suggesting that it would result in people not taking their dogs to the vets. Indeed, respondents often commented that irresponsible owners are already less likely to take their dogs to a vet. Other respondents thought that enforcement should be carried out by local authority dog wardens, although the perceived need for many more dog wardens than there are at present was noted.
• It is "too easy" to buy and sell dogs. Respondents saw a significant challenge to enforcement from puppy farmers, backyard breeders and the buying and selling of dogs through online ads. The difficulties of identifying and tracking puppies / dogs sold privately were highlighted, and the point was made that the enforcement of compulsory microchipping is unlikely to be possible without stronger regulations to restrict the buying and selling of dogs.
• Technology is not widely available or reliable. Some respondents noted the problem of scanners not always recognising chips and chips that sometimes stop working; they felt that effective enforcement would require scanners and chips to be standardised, and owners to be issued with proof that their dog has been microchipped.

5.81 There was a common view among those who thought enforcement would be difficult that irresponsible owners would not bother microchipping their dogs. There was also a view that dogs owned by these individuals would only ever be identified if there was an incident to bring the dog to the attention of the authorities. Thus, compulsory microchipping was seen to provide no additional benefit over current legislation, but a great deal of expense for responsible owners and relevant bodies. Those who thought enforcement would be difficult also sometimes referred to the experience of dog licensing, claiming that this was abandoned because "it didn't work".

Why respondents thought enforcement would be easy

5.82 Few of the respondents who thought enforcement would be easy explained why they thought it would be easy. Instead, this group generally discussed the approaches to enforcement that they thought could be used.

5.83 Among those who did give a reason, the most common was that "a microchip is no different to a car tax disc". There was also a view that enforcement would largely be unnecessary among responsible owners (who would comply with the legislation); rather, enforcement would focus on dogs that came to the attention of the authorities due to an incident or report from the public - this was referred to as "passive enforcement".

5.84 Other respondents commented that enforcement would be easy so long as it was adequately resourced. However, this group also acknowledged the difficulties of reaching non-registered breeders selling dogs on the internet. Some thought that compulsory microchipping might initially be difficult, but that eventually people would come to expect any dog they purchase to be chipped.

Suggested approaches to enforcement

5.85 Respondents made a wide range of suggestions for approaches to enforcement. The most common was that dog wardens (the police, rangers, etc.) should carry scanners and undertake random checks on dogs in parks and dog-walking areas. This approach was generally advocated by those who thought enforcement would be easy, but was dismissed as impractical by those who thought enforcement would be difficult. Among the latter group, random "stop-and-scan" was also seen to be an infringement of civil liberties, and there was a general view that it would only reach responsible dog owners, as irresponsible owners are unlikely to be out walking their dogs in the park.

5.86 Other frequently mentioned suggestions were:

• Impose stiff penalties for non-compliance. These ranged from a heavy fine (which would increase with non-payment), to impounding of the dog, to banning the owner from having dogs in the future. Respondents also thought that non-payment of fines should result in a report to the procurator fiscal and criminal prosecution.
• Give veterinarians a role in enforcement. Respondents suggested that vets might not only implant microchips (for example, at a puppy's first inoculations), but could also be involved in routinely scanning dogs, and reporting any owners who refused to have their dogs chipped. However, as noted above, there was some concern about the appropriateness of vets being involved in enforcement.
• Make it an offence to sell or rehome an unchipped dog. This would put the focus of enforcement on breeders since there was a general view that rehoming centres already microchipped the dogs that came through their doors. It was occasionally suggested that it should also be an offence to provide veterinary treatment to an unchipped dog, thus effectively involving vets in the process of enforcement.
• Raise public awareness. Some respondents advocated a softer approach to enforcement focusing on encouraging compliance, rather than punishing the non-compliant. This would involve educating and persuading dog owners of the benefits of microchipping, and issuing written warnings before proceeding to fines. Public awareness could be raised through the media, as well as through pet stores, vet surgeries, local authority events, training clubs, etc., and a free microchipping service could be provided at public events and through animal welfare charities.

5.87 Respondents often made more general statements about approaches to enforcement, such as: "it would have to be adequately resourced", and "there would need to be more dog wardens". Some also called for an initial "grace period" to allow the general public to become aware of the new legislation.

Q15 Could microchipping cause health problems in dogs?

5.88 Question 15 asked respondents whether they had any concerns that microchipping could cause health problems in dogs. Altogether, 1,492 respondents replied to this question. Table 5.7 shows that 11% of respondents said "yes" and 77% said "no". The remainder said "don't know".

Table 5.7: Question 15: Do you have any concerns that microchipping could cause health problems in dogs?

	Group / organisational respondents		Individual respondents		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	14	14%	152	11%	166	11%
No	70	70%	1,072	77%	1,142	77%
Don't know	16	16%	168	12%	184	12%
Total	100	100%	1,392	100%	1,492	100%

5.89 A total of 477 respondents provided further comments at Question 14, and there was a great deal of overlap in the comments of those who said "no" and those who said "yes" to the first part of Question 15.

5.90 In general, those who answered "no" to Question 15 stated that they were not aware of microchips causing any health problems in dogs. Respondents frequently cited their own experience, claiming that their own animals (dogs, cats, horses, farm livestock, zoo animals) have never suffered any ill effects from being microchipped. Others suggested that veterinarians would not recommend the procedure if there was any evidence of microchips causing health problems, and indeed some veterinarians commented that in their experience of microchipping hundreds of dogs sometimes over a period of decades, they had not encountered any health problems in a dog related to microchipping.

5.91 Respondents in this group sometimes stated that they had heard there could be problems with microchips in some dogs, but in their view, the benefits of microchipping (i.e. having a lost dog returned safely to its owner) outweighed any small risks there might be for a small proportion of dogs.

5.92 A small number of organisational respondents (including the Dogs Trust and the British Veterinary Association and British Small Animal Veterinary Association) cited research evidence that indicated a very small risk of health problems related to microchipping. ^[5] However, these respondents all agreed with the view that the benefits of microchipping outweigh the risks.

Awareness of health problems in dogs due to microchips

5.93 The main issue raised by respondents at Question 15 was that microchips can sometimes migrate in the animal. Respondents who ticked "no" generally believed this was nothing to be concerned about, while those who ticked "yes" said they had heard of cases where this had caused a problem for the dog, or less often, that this had caused difficulties for their own dog.

5.94 A second issue, again raised by respondents in both groups, was that problems can result from chips implanted by untrained, unqualified individuals (examples given were of improperly implanted chips being inserted into the spinal column of a puppy, or causing nerve damage). Thus there were calls for regulations to ensure that the procedure was only ever carried out by authorised and professionally trained veterinarians.

5.95 Among those who answered "yes" to the first part of Question 15, respondents often voiced general concerns about foreign bodies being inserted into the dog and the procedure causing stress for the dog. Some of these respondents also made the point that microchipping should not be done on very elderly dogs or very young puppies (respondents' suggestions about a minimum age for microchipping ranged from 6 weeks to 6 months). There were particular concerns about the impact of microchipping on small, toy breeds. Those who answered "yes" also highlighted reports of tumours, infections and abscesses forming at microchip sites, and allergic reactions to microchips.

5.96 This group of respondents suggested that there should be an option for certain dogs to be exempted from microchipping for medical reasons (for example, Dobermans with VonWillebrands disease), and for tattooing to be offered as an alternative to microchipping for dog owners who did not wish to have their dog chipped.

5.97 Respondents also expressed concerns that health issues could indirectly result from a policy of compulsory microchipping, for example, because owners of unchipped dogs might avoid taking their dogs to a vet, or if dog thieves attempted to remove a chip from a stolen dog.

5.98 There was also some questions about who would be held legally responsible if a dog developed a tumour or had an adverse reaction to a microchip when the owner was opposed to having the dog compulsorily chipped.