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 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.
Last, 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.
Leave a Reply