To Recipients of the Dog Identification Group _DIG_ Report by leader6

VIEWS: 7 PAGES: 72

									              Deputy Minister for Finance & Local Government       Victoria Quay
              Peter Peacock MSP                                    Edinburgh EH6 6QQ



To Recipients of the                                               Telephone: 0131-556 8400
Dog Identification Group (DIG) Report                              scottish.ministers@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
                                                                   http://www.scotland.gov.uk


                                                                   15 February 2001




CONSULTATION ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DOG IDENTIFICATION
GROUP (DIG)

Dogs play an important part in many of our lives and we are regarded as a nation of dog lovers.
However it is a fact that a number of dog owners allow their animals to stray. As well as causing
stress for the dog and its owner dealing with strays is a financial burden on a number of
organisations. These include local authorities who are primarily responsible for collecting stray
dogs, the various emergency services involved in accidents caused by stray dogs and farmers whose
livestock may be attacked. Members of the public can also be at risk from stray dogs that are out of
control.

Currently, by law, all dogs in a public place must wear a collar and a clearly displayed tag bearing
the name and address of the owner. Despite this around 10% of stray dogs have to be put down
because their owner cannot be identified and it is not possible to re-home the dog.

What can we do to ensure that stray dogs can be identified and reunited promptly with their owners?

In recognition of the problems caused by stray dogs the Government, through the Department of the
Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), set up a Dog Identification Group with a remit
which included seeking a consensus view on suitable and safe systems for permanently identifying
dogs. The Group comprised representatives from various animal organisations with observers from a
number of other groups, including the Scottish Executive. DIG’s report was submitted to the DTER
in September.

The Group has made a number of recommendations, the main one being that a voluntary scheme for
the permanent identification of dogs by either microchip or tattoo should be introduced, with the aim
of achieving 75% compliance within five years.



digminintro
I am interested in your views on the DIG’s recommendations to help us to determine how this issue
should be addressed in Scotland. I am therefore putting the DIG Report out for consultation until 11
May and I look forward to receiving your comments.




                                                       PETER PEACOCK




digminintro
     REPORT ON THE PERMANENT
      IDENTIFICATION OF DOGS




DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP
               (DIG)




                   MEMBERS
 THE BLUE CROSS•CIEH•THE DOGS HOME BATTERSEA
     •THE KENNEL CLUB•LGA•NCDL•NDWA•PCT•
       RSPCA•WOODGREEN ANIMAL SHELTERS
       REPORT OF THE WORKING PARTY ON
      PERMANENT IDENTIFICATION OF DOGS

    (THE DOG IDENTIFICATION GROUP (DIG))

                             EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Dog Identification Group was established by Ministers at the Department of the
Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) to achieve a consensus view on
permanent identification for dogs in England. The Group has met since May 1999
and taken evidence from interested persons and bodies.

The primary subject of contention was whether a voluntary or compulsory scheme
should be introduced and the Group has decided that a voluntary scheme should first
be established to see if it could be made to work. To do so will require an extensive
public education process which the Group consider should be endorsed and run
primarily by the government with assistance from the industry and animal welfare
charities.

The Group’s recommendations, annotated under the Terms of Reference, are:

        a. Suitable and safe systems of permanent identification for dogs:

               i)     DIG recommends that the government should accept permanent
               identification of dogs by either microchip or tattoo. Improvements in
               technology may allow other means of identification at a later date and
               this possibility should not be excluded (paragraph 26).

        b. The operation of databases for the maintenance of identification records:

               i)     DIG recommends that an industry standard for databases,
               sponsored by government, be instituted with some urgency to include
               such factors as availability times, means of remote access to data,
               updating of data and cross marketing (paragraph 30).




                                          1
       ii)       DIG recommends that an industry standard for databases
       should be written with some urgency to ensure the continuity and
       safety of databases containing information on identification of dogs
       (paragraph 31).

c. The benefits and disadvantages of voluntary and compulsory systems:

       i)        DIG recommends that consideration of the respective merits
       and wider implications of a voluntary versus compulsory scheme be
       deferred to the end of the five year period proposed or such earlier
       annual review as may be agreed by the Group (paragraph 44).

d. Recommendations for targets:

       i)        DIG recommends that a target of the order of 75% of dogs
       should be permanently identified (paragraph 39).

       ii)       DIG recommends that this target should be achieved in five
       years or less (paragraph 39).

e . The effects decisions may have on enforcement and other interested
bodies/groups:

       i)        DIG considers that a voluntary scheme is unlikely to have any
       significant effect on a body other than the police and dog wardens
       (paragraph 45).

       ii)       DIG recommends that any dog wardens’ time saved be
       reinvested in the public education programme (paragraph 60).

f. Other recommendations:

       i)        The Group recommends that, as this is of community benefit, a
       public information campaign is undertaken, primarily financed by
       government to a level which may be expected to achieve the agreed
       target. Government, charities and others should use their resources to



                                    2
support the under-privileged in ensuring their dogs are permanently
identified (paragraph 46).

ii)    DIG recommends that it should continue its work during the
course of the proposed five year campaign as an advisory body to
government (paragraph 64).

iii)   DIG recommends that a focus group is established to continue
consideration of permanent identification and associated issues
(paragraph 69).




                             3
                         THE FULL REPORT
TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. To produce a consensus view on:

       Suitable and safe systems of permanent identification for dogs.

       The operation of databases for the maintenance of identification records.

       The benefits and disadvantages of voluntary and compulsory systems.

       Recommendations for targets.

       The effects decisions may have on enforcement and other interested
       bodies/groups.

MEMBERSHIP

2. Members

       The Blue Cross
       Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH)
       The Dogs’ Home Battersea
       The Kennel Club
       Local Government Association (LGA)
       National Canine Defence League (NCDL)
       National Dog Wardens Association (NDWA)
       Pet Care Trust (PCT)
       Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA)
       Wood Green Animal Shelters

    Observers

       Animal Health Trust (AHT)
       Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)
       Other Government Departments when appropriate (MAFF, Home Office,
       Scottish Office, National Assembly for Wales)
       Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS)

INTRODUCTION

3 . The direct reasons for encouraging the permanent identification of dogs are
twofold:

     a. to enable the rapid return of lost and straying dogs;

     b. to enable a dog to be identified for statutory reasons.




                                          4
In doing so the welfare of the dog is safeguarded, the anxiety of the owner alleviated
and responsibility for the dog’s actions properly attributed.

4 . There are a number of secondary drivers which may be more accurately
categorised as control issues which the Group has decided should be discussed as a
separate topic. The issues include population control, a dog wardens’ code of practice
and funding of dog wardens.

5. Statistics for the number of stray dogs which are dealt with by Local Authorities
were provided by two sources. The National Dog Wardens Association (NDWA)
Annual Report for 19991 following a survey of members suggested 147,000 dogs
were dealt with by local authorities. A poll conducted on behalf of NCDL by MORI2
in April 1999 suggested the figure to be 135,000. The level of agreement between the
differing methodologies suggests that the numbers are likely to be accurate. A
number of 135,000 has been used throughout this report.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

6. The Local Government Act 1988 repealed the old dog licence on the grounds that
it cost more to administer than the revenue it produced. Two years later the
Environmental Protection Act 1990 placed a duty on local authorities to appoint an
officer to have responsibility for stray dogs and to house stray dogs for a period of no
less than seven days. However most Local Authorities retain dogs beyond this period
in an attempt to re-home them. The Control of Dogs Order 1992 reconfirmed the
mandatory requirement to wear a visible means of identification in public places.

7. The size of the stray dog population, and the fate of stray dogs, has been of
concern to animal welfare organisations and others for some time. In 1989 the
RSPCA commissioned the London School of Economics (LSE)3 to look into the issue
of dog registration, work which was updated by the Economics Advisory Group
(EAG)4 in 1998. The project was jointly sponsored by The Kennel Club and the
RSPCA and looked at the costs of straying dogs and national registration and at the


1
  NDWA Annual Report 1999 – see Appendix 1 to Annex B.
2
  MORI poll for NCDL – see Appendix 2 to Annex B.
3
  The Costs of Stray Dogs and Proposals for a National Dog Registration Scheme (available from
RSPCA, Causeway, HORSHAM, RH12 1HG)
4
  The Cost of Stray Dogs in the United Kingdom and the Need for a National Registration Scheme
(available from RSPCA at the address above)

                                                 5
advantages and disadvantages of compulsory and voluntary schemes. A report
followed, “Dog Identification, the Way Forward”5, and during the summer of 1998 a
number of meetings were held at The Kennel Club seeking the views of other
interested parties. Following this consultation exercise it was thought that a
comprehensive study needed to be undertaken, with the aim of agreeing a consensus
line.

8. Following discussions with animal welfare organisations a Minister from the
department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) established the
Dog Identification Group. The first meeting in May 1999 was chaired by the
Minister. The Group has met on a regular basis since then with meetings chaired by a
DETR official on behalf of the Minister. This report represents the outcome of
discussions of the Dog Identification Group and is a consensus view of proposals for
taking the issue of dog identification forward.

SECRETARIAT

9. The secretariat has been provided jointly by The Kennel Club and the RSPCA.
Minutes of the meetings are at Annex A.

                                            EVIDENCE

10. Categorisation of evidence was used to optimise the time available for hearing
evidence and for discussion. In order to maintain a workable framework for
considerations, evidence was taken in the following categories:

         a. Identification Methods.

         b. Rural and Urban Considerations.

         c. Police Involvement.

         d. Dog Wardens.




5
    Dog Identification, the Way Forward (available from RSPCA at the address above)

                                                    6
      e. International Experience.

      f. Other Welfare Bodies.

11. Written evidence received is appended at Annex B.

MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION

1 2 .Written evidence was considered from the following organisations: The
Association of British Dogs’ Homes6, The National Dog Tattoo Register7 and The
Kennel Club8. A letter was also received from the British Dalmatian Club9 that made
representations that the Group should accept tattooing as an acceptable form of
permanent identification.

RURAL AND URBAN CONSIDERATIONS

13. The Group wished to establish at an early stage the different effects and animal
welfare considerations of straying dogs in urban and rural settings. Written
submissions were therefore received from the National Farmers Union (NFU),10 the
National Trust Estates Department11 and the Chartered Institute of Environmental
Health (CIEH)12.

POLICE INVOLVEMENT

14. At present responsibility for stray dogs is shared by local authorities and the
police. Under the Dogs Act 1906, a finder has an obligation to take the dog to the
police station nearest to where the dog was found, return it to its owner or take it to
the local Council. The Group recognised that the police had very specific views and
experiences of stray dogs and oral evidence was therefore received from the
Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Police Dog Committee representative
and the Home Office.


6
  Charity Microchips – see Appendix 3 to Annex B.
7
  Tattoo Schemes for Dogs – see Appendix 4 to Annex B.
8
  DNA Profiling – see Appendix 5 to Annex B.
9
  Letter from the British Dalmatian Club – see Appendix 6 to Annex B.
10
   Dogs in the Countryside – see Appendix 7 to Annex B.
11
   Dog Workshop Notes – see Appendix 8 to Annex B.
12
   Some Local Authority Responsibilities for Animal Welfare – see Appendix 9 to Annex B.

                                                 7
DOG WARDENS

15. The experience of a representative sample of UK dog warden systems was sought
and submissions were received from Bristol City Council,13 Bradford Metropolitan
District Council14 and Northern Ireland15. The results of 1998 survey of Local
Authorities by the RSPCA16 was also considered.

INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE

16. The Group considered a report from Eurogroup17 on the control methods used in
Europe and experience in Australia18. No major conclusions were drawn. Continued
monitoring of the progress of stray dog management in other countries, specifically
within the European Union would be valuable.

OTHER WELFARE BODIES

17. A consultation paper19 from the Pet Advisory Committee (PAC) was presented.
The Group considered whether to seek the views of other human and animal welfare
groups and it was not considered necessary in relation to a voluntary scheme.
Monitoring developments and consultation with other groups as deemed necessary
would be valuable.

                                         DISCUSSIONS

GENERAL

1 8 .The Group accepted that the primary purpose of requiring permanent
identification of dogs is the welfare of the individual dog. Such identification should
allow the rapid return of lost or straying dogs to their owners and thus reduce the
distress caused to both. In addition the direct link between dog and owner would help
to ensure that owners took responsibility for their pet’s actions and condition.




13
   Permanent identification of dogs – see Appendix 10 to Annex B.
14
   The need for a national compulsory dog identification scheme – see Appendix 11 to Annex B.
15
   Dog Control 1984 – 1999 Northern Ireland, A Review – see Appendix 12 to Annex B.
16
   The views of Local Authorities on compulsory and voluntary dog identification schemes – see
Appendix 13 to Annex B.
17
   Dog population and control in Europe, a review – see Appendix 14 to Annex B.
18
   Effectiveness of Dog And Cat legislation in Australia – see Appendix 15 to Annex B.
19
   Dog registration consultation paper – see Appendix 16 to Annex B.

                                                  8
19. Pet animals are an intrinsic element of the British way of life. We are world
renowned for being a nation of animal lovers. In addition there is ample evidence20
that owning a pet has direct benefits to the owner’s health and welfare. The Group is
therefore of the view that nothing should be done to make dog ownership more
onerous for the responsible owner. As a result the Group felt that any decisions made
should take into account the likely resources of owners relative to the cost of
maintaining a dog and should consider reducing fees where appropriate. The charities
represented on the Group are unanimous in supporting permanent identification as
part of responsible ownership and some provide subsidised identification for those on
some state benefits. If a compulsory scheme were to be instituted, consideration of
subsidised permanent identification of dogs for those on some state benefits would be
an essential requirement.

IDENTIFICATION METHODS

20. The Group recognises that the permanent identification of all dogs is both a
desirable and an essential ingredient of responsible dog ownership. The Group
accepts that despite the best attempts of owners, dogs do “slip” their collars, making
identification and return arduous and at times impossible. However, the Group also
recognises that the huge variety in physical size and shape of dog breeds makes it
difficult to recommend only one type of permanent identification, and additionally
does not wish to be seen to be overly prescriptive to owners.

21. A recent report21 by the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA)
addresses the saftey and efficacy of microchips. The reported incidence of migration
and adverse reactions is low and the Group accept microchipping to be a safe and
effective method of permanent identification.

22. Microchipping has been accepted by Government as a safe and reliable means of
identification for the purposes of the Pet Travel Scheme (PETS) as recommended by
the Advisory Group on Quarantine (The Kennedy Report). This is likely to ensure
that almost all veterinary practices are equipped with microchip readers. Most animal
welfare organisations now microchip the animals which they re-home. The current
availability of microchip readers is variable with some local authorities and police

20
     The Waltham Book of Human-Animal Interactions, edited Robinson 1995, Pergammon Press
21
     Swift, S. Microchip adverse reactions, Journal of Small Animal Practice, Vol 41 page 232

                                                   9
forces not fully equipping their staff. As the reading of microchips within the
requirements of PETS may not impinge on them it will remain important to encourage
the widespread provision of readers for use by them on a day-to-day basis. This is
further addressed in the education section of the report.

23. The government preference expressed for PETS is for the use of microchips that
comply with ISO standards 11784 and 11785. The great majority of microchips now
inserted in the United Kingdom comply with this standard.

24. The government has accepted tattooing as an acceptable means of permanent
identification in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The Group also recognises that the
National Dog Tattoo Register has a long history of identifying dogs, and that some
owners are more comfortable with having their dogs tattooed rather than
microchipped.

25. After considering the evidence22 the Group has agreed that DNA profiling, whilst
an exciting possibility, is not yet a viable option. Inevitably other new technologies
will be developed and should not be excluded for future use.

26. The Group recommends that the government should accept permanent
identification of dogs by either microchip or tattoo. Improvements in technology
may allow other means of identification at a later date and this possibility should
not be excluded.

DATABASE SUB-GROUP FINDINGS

27. A database sub-group was established and findings are at Annex C.

28. It is apparent that the existing databases are capable of holding the data required
and should be capable of expansion to a size compatible with the canine population.
There are a number of issues which will require enhancement as a result of the
proposed increase by a factor of ten in numbers. Historically access has been by
telephone and

voice and consideration is being given to remote electronic access to authorised
persons and the resulting security implications of so doing.


22
     DNA Profiling – see Appendix 17 to Annex B

                                                  10
29. It will be imperative for the simple functionality of any national system that
information on a stray dog can be obtained from a single point of contact. With the
advent of PETS this is also an international issue. The embryonic European Pet
Network may achieve international interoperability of databases.

30. The Group recommends that an industry standard for databases, sponsored
by government, be instituted with some urgency to include such factors as
availability times, means of remote access to data, updating of data and cross
marketing.

31. Companies can go out of business for a variety of reasons. Were this to happen to
a database holder there would be a danger of the data being lost, bringing the system
into disrepute.   It is imperative therefore that data be held in escrow by an
independent authority to ensure its protection. The Group recommends that an
industry standard for databases should be written with some urgency to ensure
the continuity and safety of databases containing information on identification of
dogs.

STATISTICS SUB-GROUP FINDINGS

32. A statistics sub-group was established and findings are at Annex D.

33. The Group established a sub-group to provide statistical information as required
by Group meetings. The sub-group used two resources: the Pet Food Manufacturers
Association; and the government statistical offices. The former provided data on total
population numbers for dogs and the latter for humans by region and social class.
The methodology for the production of the canine population data has been verified
by The Kennel Club. The human population data is drawn from census data collected
in 1997.

34. The sub-group further considered how the numbers identified could be monitored.
On the current databases there are of the order of 600,000 dogs registered. However
the databases have been in operation for many years and it is inevitable that some of
those dogs will be dead and still on the database as not all owners will have reported
deaths. The sub-group therefore considered that, when monitoring the success of the
scheme, existing registrations should be disregarded and that only new registrations



                                         11
from the inception of the campaign should be included when assessing progress of the
scheme.

35. Once the scheme is established long-term monitoring will be required and the
problems identified in paragraph 34 will continue to be true. However dog population
statistics are provided annually by PFMA and, since life expectancy of dogs is on
average ten years, a number for annual registrations can readily be calculated. This
figure will continue to be used until databases can be guaranteed not to include dead
dogs.

TARGET SETTING

36. The primary justification for requiring numbers was to be able to set realistic
targets for the proportion of dogs which the Group considered it practical to see
identified. Clearly in a perfect world all dogs would be permanently identified.
Evidence provided by DETR23 showed that, even given significant resources it is not
possible to achieve 100% compliance with a licensing system. However if permanent
identification is to achieve its aim the proportion of dogs identified should be as close
to that as possible.

37. The Group considered this issue and recommended that the minimum proportion
should be of the order of 75%. It proved impossible to relate the distribution of dogs
to socio-economic groups and so it was assumed that the canine and human
population are directly related. In practice it seems likely that this is broadly accurate.
It was considered that social groups I, II and IIIN were more likely to have the
resources to provide permanent identification for their dogs than other groups. The
statistics sub-group considered each social group by region and a projection of likely
uptake is shown in their findings. The total uptake is of the order of 75% which
seems to show that a target of the order of 75% is likely to be achievable.

38. Using the monitoring system proposed in paragraph 34 would leave around 6.1
million dogs to be identified on current data. The Group believed that this could be
achieved in a relatively short timeframe; indeed this was the preferred option as
clearly a



23
     Report on TV Licence enforcement – see Appendix 18 to Annex B

                                                 12
major public information exercise would be required and this would be more cost
effective over a limited period. The Group discussed the issue and agreed a
timeframe of five years. The number to be registered will need to be reviewed in the
light of data available from the databases and from PFMA at the start of this period.

39. The Group recommends that a target of the order of 75% of dogs should be
permanently identified within five years of the acceptance of their report.

EDUCATION

40. Simply stating the number of dogs to be identified as an aim will have little effect.
The Group therefore agreed that underlying the need for permanent identification is a
requirement for better education of the public about the responsibilities entailed in
owning a dog. The welfare charity members of the Group already microchip all the
dogs which they re-home. The Kennel Club actively encourages breeders and owners
of new puppies to do so as well and many dog wardens actively promote
microchipping. The need for basic education is also already addressed by many
charities and by dog wardens who have extensive programmes aimed at school
children, and The Kennel Club and commercial organisations such as microchip
distributors aimed at dog owners.

41. However the adult population in general will also require extensive education in
the benefits of permanent identification as an aid to responsible and accountable dog
ownership. This increased responsibility may, of itself, include a wider compliance
with legislation. As this is for the overall benefit of the population the Group
recommends that the government should take the lead in this public information
campaign. The government lead should be enhanced by local authorities who have
the ability to identify stray dogs before returning them to their owners.

42. Key figures in this education process are the dog wardens. Many already
regularly visit schools and speak to local interest groups as well as providing advice
to the general public. They therefore form an essential link between the dog owning
public and the local community and should not be under-valued.

43. Educating dog owners can only be effective if those agencies dealing with stray
dogs have the equipment available to detect permanent identification in dogs which
stray. If this is not so, the rapid recovery of stray dogs to their owners will break

                                           13
down. It is therefore essential that the police and dog wardens have easy access to
suitable microchip readers and government will need to educate them that this is so.

44. It was also agreed that, if the general public could be educated to generally accept
the advantages of permanent identification, this would be preferable to additional
legislation. There was therefore unanimous support for using education to help
achieve the aims of increasing voluntary permanent identification before having to
consider legislation. The Group recommends that consideration of the respective
merits and wider implications of a voluntary versus compulsory scheme be
deferred to the end of the five year period proposed or such earlier annual
review as may be agreed by the Group.

45. In the light of this acceptance of a voluntary scheme it was apparent to the Group
that there would be little direct effect on other organisations with the exception of the
police and dog wardens who deal directly with stray dogs. The effects on these
bodies are dealt with in the Costs and Benefits section. The Group considers that a
voluntary scheme is unlikely to have any significant effect on a body other than
the police and dog wardens.

46. The Group recommends that, as this is of community benefit, a public
information campaign is undertaken, primarily financed by government to a
level which may be expected to achieve the agreed target. Government, charities
and others should use their resources to support the under-privileged in
ensuring their dogs are permanently identified.




                                           14
COSTS AND BENEFITS


Explanation of assumptions


47. The Pet Food Manufactures Association estimates there are 6.7million dogs in the
UK and PetLog/NDTR has about 600,000 already on their databases. Estimates of
the number of strays range from 106,000 to 139,000


4 8 .Assessments on destination of strays came from National Dog Wardens’
Association data (1993-96). This gave an idea on the proportions of dogs reclaimed,
returned, re-homed, sent to shelter or euthanased. The RSPCA provided information
on the average stay for each of these categories.


49. The education programme’s effect on strays and the rise in dogs with permanent
identification come from the RSPCA’s estimates, as do the euthanasia costs. The £25
cost of permanent identification is an indicative figure of the costs that veterinary
surgeons or NDTR could charge for this service. Kennelling costs came from the
RSPCA and the National Canine Defence League.


50. The accidents caused by strays are an average of the DoT’s figures for 1993-95.
As it is accepted that accidents involving dogs rarely result in personal injury, a
sensible cost per accident seems to be the DETR’s damage only cost of £1,210 (1997
prices).


51. Consultants EAG, in an earlier report to the RSPCA and The Kennel Club,
calculated the annual cost of human victims of dog attacks to be around £9m, based
on figures from a Sunday Times news article. However, strays do not cause all these
attacks, so as a rough estimate we took the proportion of dogs that stray and attributed
an equivalent proportion of attacks to them, giving a cost of £150,000 a year.


52. Using figures from the NFU Mutual, EAG suggested that the cost of attacks on
livestock come to around £2m a year. It is fairly safe to assume that all these attacks
are caused by stray dogs, as they are outside of the control of their owner.




                                           15
53. A MORI poll of 260 local authorities estimated their costs amount to £11m a year
for the UK. Excluding the local authorities’ kennelling and care responsibilities
leaves them with costs of £9m – roughly the cost of running the dog warden service.


54. After consulting the police, EAG estimated the cost to the police force for dealing
with strays out of hours at £15m, which is made up of time spent dealing with strays
and the contributions made to local Dog Homes for kennelling strays. The tables in
Annex F set these out in more detail.

Costs


5 5 . All the estimated costs presented here are present values over ten years,
discounted at a rate of 6%24.


56. In the absence of any policy to reduce strays, the costs over the next ten years
could come to £185-226 million. This includes the costs of running the dog warden
service (£65-72m), kennelling and euthanasia (£93-140m), attacks on humans and
livestock (£16m), and traffic accidents (£4.3m).


57. The policy under discussion involves running a campaign to persuade owners to
permanently idenifty their dogs and take a more responsible approach with them.
Table 1 shows the assumed take-up rates for permanent identification and the effect
the education programme will have on the number of strays. The cost of permanent
identification could be in the region of £138m.

Table 1

                                                          Yr 1    2         3          4     5

% of dogs with chips                                      8%      20%       36%        56%   75%

% of strays reduced with education                        2%      5%        9%         14%   20%


58. For those dogs that still stray following the education programme, their permanent
identification will allow almost immediate identification and should eliminate the


24
     As set out in the Green Book, HMT’s guide to policy appraisal in central government.

                                                     16
need to accommodate an identified stray. If kennelling costs are variable enough, the
education and the permanent identification offer a possible saving of £56-84m.


59. Although the identification will not limit the costs from accidents, attacks on
humans and livestock, the education programme will. Respective savings of £0.6m
and £2-2.5m are on offer.


60. Also, the education programme could free local authority resources. With a lower
number of strays dog wardens can target matters other than rounding-up strays. An
estimate for this freed resource is £9-10m. The Groups view is that the dog wardens’
primary task should be education of the public and not enforcement of legislation on
errant dog owners. In view of this, and the education programme required to make
this scheme a success, the Group recommends that any dog wardens’ time saved
be reinvested in the public education programme.


61. The costs to the police are in the region of £110m, but this includes kennelling
and euthanasia costs, and it is impossible to dis-aggregate the time spent on handling
strays. Therefore this is not another potential saving, to consider it as such would be a
case of double-counting.


62. Although the potential savings from this policy are not greater than the cost, there
are other benefits which are not quantifiable. One notable unquantifiable benefit is
the value dog owners get from knowing that their dog is likely to be returned should it
ever get stolen of lost. As this a voluntary scheme, and uptake follows the RSPCA’s
assumptions, this value could help justify the scheme.

FUTURE ACTION

63. It is clear that there is much work to be done if the Group’s recommendations are
to become a reality. This will not be achieved without some direction. The Group
considers that it is best placed to provide that direction. The marketing plan at Annex
E provides an outline of the action required and it is clear that significant effort will
be required over the next five years.




                                           17
64. The Group recommends that DIG should continue its work during the course
of the proposed five year campaign as an advisory body to government.

65. The Group considers that monitoring the progress of the campaign and adjusting
the content accordingly is essential and that continuing advice is fed back to
government on a regular basis. The monitoring process will require resources and it
is likely that DETR involvement will be necessary in the light of future sensitivities as
the collection and collation of data from competing databases will require commercial
confidentiality. In order to achieve this the Group proposes the formation of a focus
group which should undertake this monitoring and assessment.

66. The Group considers education to be a key issue. The current education effort by
individual members is not co-ordinated. The Group considers that, for the marketing
plan referred to above to be fully effective, it must be co-ordinated with the education
process. The focus group will be best placed to undertake this role.

67. There are a number of additional tasks implied by the Group’s recommendations
in addition to the monitoring detailed above. Not least amongst these are the drafting
of database industry standards and a Code of Practice for dog wardens which will
require the support of government and agreement of Local Authorities. As databases
and the dog warden service are key elements in the system operation and education
process respectively this will require rapid action and the focus group will be well
placed to provide this.

68. Depending on the progress of the campaign it may be that other issues require
further consideration and investigation. The Group should be able to delegate the
investigation of these issues to the focus group who would report to the full Group.

69. The Group also recommends that a focus group should be established to
continue consideration of permanent identification and associated issues with
representation from, CIEH, LGA, NCDL, NDWA, RSPCA, and The Kennel Club and
chaired by an official from DETR.

70. However the Group considered that the full DIG would only be required to meet
annually and report to the Minister on progress. The focus group will meet quarterly
and report to the full DIG. The focus group would also take on further work on the
secondary issues described in the introductory paragraph.

                                           18
RECOMMENDATIONS

71. The recommendations of the group are:

     a. Suitable and safe systems of permanent identification for dogs:

              i)     DIG recommends that the government should accept permanent
              identification of dogs by either microchip or tattoo. Improvements in
              technology may allow other means of identification at a later date and
              this possibility should not be excluded (paragraph 26).

     b. The operation of databases for the maintenance of identification records:

              i)     DIG recommends that an industry standard for databases,
              sponsored by government, be instituted with some urgency to include
              such factors as availability times, means of remote access to data,
              updating of data and cross marketing (paragraph 30).

              ii)    DIG recommends that an industry standard for databases
              should be written with some urgency to ensure the continuity and
              safety of databases containing information on identification of dogs
              (paragraph 31).

     c. The benefits and disadvantages of voluntary and compulsory systems:

              i)     DIG recommends that consideration of the respective merits
              and wider implications of a voluntary versus compulsory scheme be
              deferred to the end of the five year period proposed or such earlier
              annual review as may be agreed by the Group (paragraph 44).




     d. Recommendations for targets:

              i)     DIG recommends that a target of the order of 75% of dogs
              should be permanently identified (paragraph 39).

              ii)    DIG recommends that this target should be achieved in five
              years or less (paragraph 39).


                                         19
e . The effects decisions may have on enforcement and other interested
bodies/groups:

        i)       DIG considers that a voluntary scheme is unlikely to have any
        significant effect on a body other than the police and dog wardens
        (paragraph 45).

        ii)      DIG recommends that any dog wardens’ time saved be
        reinvested in the public education programme (paragraph 60).

f. Other recommendations:

        i)       The Group recommends that, as this is of community benefit, a
        public information campaign is undertaken, primarily financed by
        government to a level which may be expected to achieve the agreed
        target. Government, charities and others should use their resources to
        support the under-privileged in ensuring their dogs are permanently
        identified. (paragraph 46).

        ii)      DIG recommends that it should continue its work during the
        course of the proposed five year campaign as an advisory body to
        government (paragraph 64).

        iii)     DIG recommends that a focus group is established to continue
        consideration of permanent identification and associated issues
        (paragraph 69).




                                      20
Annexes:

A.     Minutes of meetings.

B.     Written evidence:
       Appendices:

       1.       NDWA Annual report 1999.

       2.       MORI poll on Stray Dogs commissioned by NCDL.

       3.       The charity microchip – the Association of British Dogs Homes.

       4.       Tattoo schemes for dogs – the National Dog Tattoo Register.

       5.       DNA profiling – The Kennel Club.

       6.       Letter from the British Dalmatian Club.

       7.       Dogs in the Countryside – National Farmers Union.

       8.       Dog Workshop Notes – National Trust Estates Department.

       9.       Some Local Authority Responsibilities for Animal Welfare.

       10.      Permanent identification of dogs – Bristol City Council’s policy.

       11.      The need for a national compulsory dog identification scheme – Bradford
                Metropolitan District Council.

       12.      Dog Control 1984 – 1999 Northern Ireland, A Review

       13.      The views of Local Authorities on compulsory and voluntary dog identification
                schemes – a report by RSPCA.

       14.      Dog population and control in Europe, a review – Europgroup for Animal Welfare.

       15.      Effectiveness of Dog and Cat Legislation in Australia – RSPCA Australia

       16.      Dog registration consultation paper – Pet Advisory Committee.

       17.      DNA profiling.

       18.      Report on TV Licence enforcement.

C.     Database sub-group findings.

D.     Statistics sub-group findings.

E.     Permanent identification marketing plan.

F.     Assumptions and costs.




                                                  21
                       ANNEX A




MINUTES OF MEETINGS


     18 May 1999

     17 June 1999

     22 July 1999

   17 September 1999

   1 November 1999

   1 December 1999

    8 February 2000

      4 May 2000

     10 July 2000

     12 July 2000
                        PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
          DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 18 MAY 1999

                      PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING
 GROUP (DIG) HELD AT ELAND HOUSE ON TUESDAY 18 MAY 1999 AT
                          10.30AM




PRESENT

Mrs Clarissa Baldwin (NCDL)
Mrs Sue Bell (NDWA)
Mr Kevin Cope (LGA)
Mr Roger French (TKC)
Col Duncan Green (ABDH)
Ms Sue Huggett (PCT)
Mr Martin Joseph (DETR)
Mr Alan Kennard (TBC)
Mr Chris Laurence (RSPCA)
Mr Alan Meale MP
Mr Peter Naish (WGAS)
Ms Emma Peskin (RSPCA)
Mrs Rosemary Smart (TKC)
Ms Sue Whall (BVA/RCVS)




IN ATTENDANCE

Ms Siobhan Larkin (DETR)
Mrs Cas Oakes (TKC)
Ms Jean Train (DETR)




MR ALAN MEALE MP IN THE CHAIR FOLLOWED BY MR MARTIN
JOSEPH
                       PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
         DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 18 MAY 1999

     ITEM 1. WELCOME ADDRESS AND INTRODUCTIONS

1.   Mr Meale welcomed the Members of the Working Party and
     thanked them for attending. He explained that, although he was
     pleased to be participating, he would be unable to stay for the
     complete meeting and, with the permission of the Members, he
     would ask Mr Joseph to take the chair on his departure. The
     Members agreed. He said that, if possible, he would attend future
     meetings.

2.   While appreciating that it would be a lengthy process, Mr Meale
     stated that he and his officials wanted DIG to be a success. He
     asked that everyone present approach the task with an open mind.
     The Government wished to take an informal decision on dog
     identification, but emphasised that, although a pre-election statement
     had been made, there was no manifesto commitment.


     ITEM 2. CHAIR AND SECRETARIAT

3.   The Group agreed that Mr Joseph (DETR) should Chair future
     meetings.

4.   It was agreed that TKC should prepare the minutes and future
     agendas. These, together with any relevant papers, should be
     submitted to the Chairman (DETR) for approval and distribution. It
     was agreed that papers should be tabled in advance of meetings and       TKC/
     not at meetings.                                                         DETR

5.   The DETR stated that it should not be involved in writing the Report
     as it is to be an independent Report by DIG. It was therefore agreed
     that The Kennel Club and the RSPCA should jointly draft the Report
     on an ongoing basis, to be approved by the Group at each stage.
     The RSPCA to be responsible for printing the final Report as it has
     the necessary facilities, the DETR to despatch. The logos of each of      TKC/
     the Member organisations of DIG to be produced on the Report.            RSPCA


     ITEM 3. TERMS OF REFERENCE

6.   The Terms of Reference submitted were approved with the
     following amendments:-

     Delete “(a)” and renumber the points accordingly.



     Delete “primary” in both the third point of the first paragraph and
     under renumbered (d).

     Revised Terms of Reference attached at Annex ‘A’.
                        PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
          DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 18 MAY 1999




      ITEM 4. MEMBERSHIP AND OBSERVERS

7.    Mr Meale had suggested that Mr Terry Singh of Bradford should be
      asked to join the Group as a Member. The Committee considered
      that, as Mrs Bell was already representing dog wardens, input from
      Bradford and any other relevant authority would be happily
      received. Mr Joseph to relay the Group’s decision to the Minister.        DETR

8.    The proposed list of Members was approved with deletion of ACPO
      and the addition of CIEH, i.e. a total of 11 Members. It was agreed
      that Observers be restricted to ACPO and the AHT, and other
      Government Departments as appropriate. The remaining
      organisations originally listed to be kept informed of the outcome of
      meetings and allowed to supply input if wished.                           DETR

      Revised list of Members and Observers attached at Annex ‘B’.


      ITEM 5. TIMETABLE AND AGENDA TOPICS FOR
      FUTURE MEETINGS

9.    The suggested timetable was discussed and a revised timetable is
      attached at Annex ‘C’. It was agreed to move “the international
      experience” to the September meeting and move “target setting and
      measuring targets” to the June meeting.

10.   With regard to “existing and proposed legislation” this was to be
      deleted from the July meeting. It was agreed that, in principle, the
      Group should be aware of existing legislation and a list is attached at
      Annex ‘D’. It was agreed that the Group should be particularly
      aware of The Kennedy Report

11.   With regard to the meeting in June and the Agenda item
      “Identification Methods”, the Group agreed the following:-

      •   The DETR to write to the National Dog Tattoo Register
          requesting them to submit a paper.                                    DETR
      •   The ABDH to submit a paper on microchips.                             ABDH
      •   TKC to submit a paper in order to update the Group on genetic
          profiling.                                                             TKC
                        PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
          DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 18 MAY 1999



12.   In relation to “operation of databases”, the following was agreed:-

      •   TKC/RSPCA to submit a brief on the capacity required to
          operate a database, point and method of access, how it should be
          regulated etc. Information to be obtained from companies             TKC/
          currently operating databases.                                      RSPCA

13.   TKC reported that representatives would be attending a meeting
      with the European Pet Network in Brussels on 5 June and facts and
      figures would be reported back to the Group in due course.               TKC

14.   With regard to “the international experience” for the September
      meeting, the Group agreed:-

      •   The DETR to write to Bradford and Bristol Environmental
          Health Departments and the Department of Agriculture for
          Northern Ireland requesting that they submit written evidence on
          their systems, experience and pros and cons.                         DETR
      •   The RSPCA to submit details on the Australian experience.           RSPCA


      ITEM 6. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

15.   It was agreed that the DETR should issue a press release stating that
      the inaugural meeting of DIG had taken place. It was further agreed
      that any future press releases or statements should be approved by
      the whole Group and then issued through DETR. Therefore, no
      organisation involved in DIG is to issue any press releases or speak
      to the press. Any of the Group receiving enquiries from the press
      should refer them to the DETR.                                          DETR


      ITEM 7. DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING

16.   Thursday 17 June 1999 at 10.30am at The Kennel Club.
                        PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
          DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) - 17 JUNE 1999

                      PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING
 GROUP (DIG) HELD AT THE KENNEL CLUB ON THURSDAY 17 JUNE
                       1999 AT 10.30AM




PRESENT

Mrs Clarissa Baldwin (NCDL)
Mr Andrew Beech (MAFF)
Mrs Sue Bell (NDWA)
Miss Ann Callaghan (TSO)
Mr Kevin Cope (LGA)
Mr Roger French (TKC)
Col Duncan Green (ABDH)
Mr Martin Joseph (DETR)
Mr Alan Kennard (TBC)
Mr Chris Laurence (RSPCA)
Mr Lou Leather (CIEH)
Mr Peter Naish (WGAS)
Ms Emma Peskin (RSPCA)
Mrs Rosemary Smart (TKC)
Ms Claire Scott (PCT)
Ms Sue Whall (BVA/RCVS)
Insp Phil Williams (ACPO)



IN ATTENDANCE

Ms Siobhan Larking (DETR)
Mrs Cas Oakes (TKC)




MR MARTIN JOSEPH IN THE CHAIR




                                    1
                       PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
         DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) - 17 JUNE 1999

     ITEM 1. PREVIOUS MINUTES

1.   The Minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 18 May 1999 were
     approved by the Group as a correct record with the following
     amendment:-

     Page 3, Paragraph 9 - To include “local Government experience and
     other experiences within Britain” in addition to “the international
     experience”.


     ITEM 2. MATTERS ARISING

     Observers

2.   Inspector Williams questioned the position of APCO as an
     Observer. The Group stated that, in line with the Minister’s wishes
     to have a small focused group, membership had been restricted.
     However, the Group agreed that Observers could participate as
     deemed necessary.

     Mr T Singh

3.   In response to a query from the DETR relating to Page 3, Paragraph
     7 of the Minutes, the Group confirmed that Mr Singh was not to be
     included as an Observer. However, he would be invited to attend
     the September meeting and submit a paper regarding the experience
     of the Bradford system.                                                  DETR

     Parties’ Policies on Dog Identification

4.   The paper submitted by the RSPCA on the Parties’ policies at the
     present time was noted. The Kennel Club would contact each Party
     with regard to their current position.                                   TKC

     European Pet Network

5.   Mr French reported that he had been unable to attend the European
     Pet Network meeting in Brussels on 5 June and, to date, the Minutes
     had not been received.                                                   TKC

     ITEM 3. TARGET SETTING

6.   Mrs Smart reported on the current PetLog statistics; these being 800
     dog registrations per day (208,000 per year), of which 60% are
     received from the private sector. Working on an average of a dog
     living for ten years, it is estimated that 600,000 dogs die per year
     and, as dog population statistics are fairly static, are thought to be
     replaced each year.

7.   Mr Kennard spoke on a paper he had prepared regarding targets, and

                                        2
                        PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
          DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) - 17 JUNE 1999

      this paper was circulated to the Members at the end of the meeting.

8.    It was agreed that a map of England and Wales showing dog
      population would be of use. In this respect the following action is to
      be taken:-

      • TKC to contact the Pet Food Marketing Association (PFMA) to
        obtain statistics. Should the PFMA not wish to provide this
        information to TKC, an intermediary to be asked to approach
        them and accordingly the AHT was nominated.                              TKC
      • Approach Pet Plan and other organisations for information.               TKC
      • RSPCA to provide details on urban and rural statistics.                RSPCA
      • The Chairman to clarify with the Minister whether Wales should
        be included in the final Report. It was noted that Northern
        Ireland is not within the Minister’s jurisdiction and Scotland will
        come under the Scottish Parliament as from 1 July 1999.                 DETR

      The above information to be submitted to the September meeting            TKC/
      and TKC and the RSPCA to liaise prior to that meeting.                   RSPCA


      ITEM 4. MEASURING TARGETS

9.    This item to be dealt with in conjunction with Item 3. Deferred until
      the September meeting.


      ITEM 5. IDENTIFICATION METHODS

10.   The various forms of identification were discussed and it was felt
      that only microchipping or tattooing were currently viable.
      However, it was stressed that the Group is responsible for
      investigating the issue of permanent identification and not dictating
      the methods to be used, which would be a matter for owners.

11.   The following was agreed:-

      • Chapter 8 of the Kennedy Report to be circulated as this deals in       TKC/
        detail with microchips.                                                 DETR
      • TKC to establish statistics relating to the incidence of microchip
        failure. The CIEH and RSPCA to supply contacts to write to.              TKC/
        TKC also reported that they could research through its contact          CIEH/
        with the KC/BSAVA Scientific Committee.                                RSPCA
      • DETR to reply to Phillips thanking them for their letter on their
        “electronic” microchip stating that the Group was not involved
        with product detail. The same response to be made to any similar
        letters received in the future.                                         DETR
      • No press releases to be issued at this stage.                           DETR




                                         3
                         PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
           DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) - 17 JUNE 1999

      ITEM 6.  IDENTIFICATION OF DATABASES AND
      MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS

12.   The whole issue of databases was discussed and the Group agreed
      that the following points needed to be established with the Report:-

      •   Criteria specification
      •   Access/Security
      •   Software requirements
      •   Confidentiality
      •   Marketing Opportunities/Restrictions
      •   Action in the event of database closure

      The Group agreed that a sub-group should be established to identify      TKC/
      the key issues and report back to the September meeting. This          RSPCA/
      group to include TKC, RSPCA and NDWA.                                  NDWA


      ITEM 7. DATE, TIME AND VENUE OF NEXT MEETING

13.   Thursday 22 July 1999 at 10.30am at the DETR, Ashdown House
      (opposite Sainsburys), Room 8/A&B, 123 Victoria Street.

14.   With regard to the meeting on 22 July, it was agreed that the DETR
      should invite representatives from the National Farmers Union
      (NFU) and the National Trust (NT) to submit papers and attend the
      meeting. Revised timetable attached at Annex ‘A’.                       DETR

15.   The following also to submit papers:-

      Mrs Bell (NDWA)                                                        NDWA
      Mr Leather (CIEH)                                                       CIEH
      Insp Williams (ACPO)                                                    ACPO

16.   It was also requested that the Economist Advisory Group (EAG)           TKC/
      paper on stray dogs be circulated with the next agenda.                 DETR




                                          4
                        PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
          DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) - 17 JUNE 1999



      ITEM 8. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

      Future Meetings

17.   Due to prior commitments by a number of the Members, it was
      agreed that the date of the September meeting would be changed
      from Thursday 16 to Friday 17, time to remain at 10.30am. Mrs
      Baldwin (NCDL) stated that she would be unable to attend on that
      date and requested that she nominate a representative. The Group
      agreed to this request.                                                    NCDL

18.   With regard to the October meeting listed as 21 October, again,
      several Members had prior commitments. The date was rescheduled
      for Monday 1 November, time 10.30am.

      British Dog Breeders Council

19.   The letter from the British Dog Breeders Council asking to be
      included in the Group was noted but, as discussed previously, the
      decision had been made that the Group should not be increased.
      Also, in respect of this particular letter, the opinion was that TKC
      was representative of dog owners.

20.   The Group recognised that many letters of this nature would be
      forthcoming and it was agreed that a common line was needed in
      response to such requests. The Group asked the DETR to draft a
      letter responding to these requests and circulate it for approval to all
      Members within the next week. It was also confirmed that any
      response should always include the Terms of Reference for the
      Group.                                                                     DETR

      Press Releases

21.   Although it had been agreed at the meeting on 18 May that no press
      releases should be issued, the Group agreed the matter should be the
      final item on all future agendas. It was further agreed that, should
      any press releases be released, the Terms of Reference for the Group       TKC/
      would always be included.                                                  DETR

      Final Report

22.   TKC and the RSPCA confirmed that they are to meet on Monday 21
      June to discuss the first chapter of the Report. The structure of the
      Report to be included on all future agendas.                                TKC




                                          5
                         PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
           DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 22 JULY 1999

                       PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING
GROUP (DIG) HELD AT ASHDOWN HOUSE ON THURSDAY 22 JULY 1999
                        AT 10.30AM




PRESENT

Mrs Clarissa Baldwin (NCDL)
Mrs Sue Bell (NDWA)
Mr Kevin Cope (LGA)
Mr Roger French (TKC)
Supt Clive Helliwell (ACPO)
Mr Martin Joseph (DETR)
Mr Alan Kennard (TBC)
Mr Chris Laurence (RSPCA)
Mr Lou Leather (CIEH)
Mr Peter Naish (WGAS)
Mr David Newell (ABDH)
Ms Emma Peskin (RSPCA)
Ms Catherine Roberts (HO)
Mr Toby Simmons (NFU)
Mrs Rosemary Smart (TKC)
Mr David Tyson (BVA)
Ms Sue Whall (BVA/RCVS)



IN ATTENDANCE

Mr Steve Ratcliffe (DETR)
Mrs Cas Oakes (TKC)




MR MARTIN JOSEPH IN THE CHAIR
                       PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
         DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 22 JULY 1999

     ITEM 1. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

1.   The Minutes of the meeting held on 17 June 1999 were approved by
     the Group as a correct record with the following amendment:-

     Page 3, paragraph 10, third line: Change “investigating the issue of
     permanent identification” to “investigating and recommending the
     issues of safe and permanent identification”.


     ITEM 2. MATTERS ARISING/DEFERRED

     British Dog Breeders Council

2.   Page 5, Paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Minutes dated 17 June: The
     DETR reported that no reply had been received from the British Dog
     Breeders Council in response to its letter.

     Future Agendas/Papers

3.   The Group requested that in future, those members submitting
     papers, print their names on them. Additionally, it was requested
     that the Secretariat print the item numbers in bold and individually
     number each page with a large number at the bottom.                    ALL/TKC

     Reports circulated for reference/research

4.   Chapter 8 of the Kennedy Report and the EAG Report on Stray
     Dogs were submitted to the Group for reference/research purposes.

     Parties’ Policies on Dog Identification

5.   The paper was noted.

     European Pet Network

6.   The paper was noted.

     Clarification of whether Wales to be included in the final Report

7.   The Chairman stated that, as far as the Minister was concerned, the
     Group should report on England only. It was, however, considered
     appropriate that the final Report should be submitted to Wales,
     Scotland, Northern Ireland and possibly the Channel Islands.             DETR




                                        2
                        PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
          DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 22 JULY 1999


      Proposed Formation of Sub-Groups

8.    The paper was discussed and the formation of the sub-groups agreed
      with the addition of Mr Cope to the sub-group for “Code of Practice
      for Local Authorities and Dog Wardens”. The sub-groups to submit          SUB-
      progress reports to each DIG meeting.                                   GROUPS

9.    Mrs Bell agreed to provide statistics to the “Statistics/Data” sub-
      group.                                                                   NDWA

10.   It was also requested that members supply any relevant information
      to the sub-groups as appropriate.                                          ALL


      ITEM 3. RURAL AND URBAN CONSIDERATIONS –
      EFFECTS OF STRAYS, DOG/ANIMAL ATTACKS

      Report from the NFU

11.   Mr Simmons spoke on the paper submitted by the NFU and the
      problems and possible solutions were discussed. The overall
      outcome was that accountability leads to responsibility, and the
      solution lies with education. It was also stressed by the NFU that,
      although it is often perceived that visitors are the main problem,
      countryside owners need similar education.

12.   The question of who should be responsible for education (which
      should be linked to identification) and enforcement is an issue to be     SUB-
      discussed in one of the sub-groups and reported back in due course.     GROUPS

      Report from the National Trust Estates Department

13.   No representative from the National Trust was present but the group
      felt the report submitted was wide-ranging and interesting, although
      it was noted that the group was discussing stray dogs rather than
      walkers.

      Report from the CIEH

14.   The report submitted by Mr Leather was discussed and an
      interesting debate ensued. Again, the issue of enforcement arose
      and it was asked that the Secretariat contact the DDA Reform Group
      to request a paper to be submitted on its experience of enforcement
      to the November meeting.                                                  TKC




                                        3
                        PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
          DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 22 JULY 1999


      ITEM 4. POLICE INVOLVEMENT – DO THE POLICE
      HAVE A ROLE WITH STRAY DOGS

15.   Ms Roberts from the Home Office and Supt Helliwell, Secretary of
      the Police Dog Committee, spoke as one on this issue. At present,
      the police are liable to take in dogs if the local authority cannot do
      so, i.e. out of office hours or in the case of an accident, but they are
      passed to the local authority at the earliest convenience. The police
      view is that it would be advantageous for dogs to be identified.

16.   Accordingly, at present, the police do have a responsibility but the
      Home Office wish to review this. Ms Roberts stated that local
      authorities should be responsible for stray dogs, as the consequence
      is a £15m cost to the police and a drain on its resources. She further
      stated that whatever recommendations put forward by the group
      should not include any hidden costs to the police force.

17.   It was agreed that the period of holding stray dogs had a direct
      impact on the financial burden and, accordingly, those that could be
      identified would reduce the holding period significantly.

18.   In view of the verbal report put forward by the above, during which
      Ms Roberts referred to the “Report on the Review of Police Core
      and Auxiliary Tasks”, it is clear that costs and accountability relate
      to the time a stray has to be kept and therefore identification needs
      to be a key issue.

19.   The group asked if the “Database” sub-group could establish how              SUB-
      many strays were identifiable.                                             GROUPS

      ITEM 5. STRUCTURE OF REPORT – CHAPTER ONE

20.   Chapter One was discussed and a revised version to be submitted to
      the next meeting with the following amendments:-

      Page 1, Paragraph 1, 3rd/4th lines: Delete “provide dog warden
      services” and replace with “appoint an officer to have responsibility
      for stray dogs”.

      Page 1, Paragraph 1, last sentence: Expand to add more historical
      context.

      Pages 3/4, Section headed “Secretariat”: To be rewritten in the final        TKC/
      Report in an historical context.                                            RSPCA




                                          4
                          PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
            DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 22 JULY 1999


21.   It was agreed that the Report should incorporate the following
      chapters:-

      1.   Pre-amble
      2.   Evidence
      3.   Discussion                                                            TKC/
      4.   Conclusion                                                           RSPCA

22.   It was further agreed that submissions from external bodies
      considered during the course of the Group’s deliberations would be         TKC/
      attached to the Report as Annexes.                                        RSPCA

23.   It was requested by Ms Peskin that all Group members provide the
      RSPCA with its organisation’s logo as soon as possible in order that
      each one may be included in the final Report.                               ALL


      ITEM 6. PRESS RELEASES

24.   The Group was referred to page 5, paragraph 15 of the Minutes of
      18 May relating to press releases and it was reiterated that no press
      releases should be issued without consent from the whole Group and
      that all enquiries should be passed to the DETR. The Chairman
      apologised for sending out a press release following the last              DETR
      meeting.

25.   The RSPCA reported on a fax received from “Dogs Today” relating
      to an article that is to be published in its July issue regarding dog
      registration and whether DIG would be interested in the result. In
      accordance with the above, “Dogs Today” should be referred to the
      DETR.                                                                      DETR

26.   Ms Peskin also reported on a letter received from a member of the
      public and stated that her reply was that the letter would be passed to
      the DETR. It was requested that a copy of her response should be
      circulated to members of the Group with the Minutes and, should
      everyone be happy with it, use it as a template for any enquiries         RSPCA/
      received.                                                                   TKC


      ITEM 7. DATE, TIME AND VENUE OF NEXT MEETING

27.   Friday 17 September 1999 at 10.30am at Eland House, Bressenden
      Place, SW1.

28.   A revised timetable for future meetings is attached at Annex ‘A’.
29.   In addition to the sub-groups reports, the following Group members
      to submit reports to the next meeting on:-




                                         5
                        PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
          DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 22 JULY 1999

      NCDL - MORI survey                                                    NCDL
      TKC - Opinion of Assistance Dogs relating to the aged and infirm.      TKC

30.   It was asked that the PAC consultation paper be circulated with the   TKC/
      Minutes for reference purposes.                                       DETR


      ITEM 8. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

      British Dalmatian Club

31.   The letter was noted.




                                        6
                         PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
        DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 17 SEPTEMBER 1999

                         PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING
GROUP (DIG) HELD AT ELAND HOUSE ON FRIDAY 17 SEPTEMBER 1999
                        AT 10.30AM




PRESENT

Mrs Sue Bell (NDWA)
Mr Richard Bevan (Bristol City Council)
Mr Nigel Cardwell (Belfast City Council)
Mr Kevin Cope (LGA)
Mr Paul DeVile (NCDL)
Mr Roger French (TKC)
Col Duncan Green (ABDH)
Mr Martin Joseph (DETR)
Mr Alan Kennard (TBC)
Mr Chris Laurence (RSPCA)
Mr Lou Leather (CIEH)
Mr Peter Naish (WGAS)
Ms Carol Scott (PCT)
Mr Terry Singh (Bradford Metropolitan District Council)
Ms Joceline Tran (RSPCA)
Insp Phil Williams (ACPO)



IN ATTENDANCE

Mr Steve Ratcliffe (DETR)
Mrs Cas Oakes (TKC)




MR MARTIN JOSEPH IN THE CHAIR
                      PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
     DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 17 SEPTEMBER 1999

     ITEM 1. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

1.   The Minutes of the meeting held on 22 July 1999 were approved by
     the Group as a correct record with the following amendments:-

     Page 3, Paragraph 14: The second sentence to be deleted as Mr
     DeVile reported that the issue of enforcement was not within the
     terms of reference for the DDA Reform Group and it would
     therefore be unable to submit a paper.

     Page 4, Paragraph 15: The second sentence to be amended to read
     “At present, both the police and local authorities are responsible
     under the 1906 Dogs Act to take in dogs”.


     ITEM 2. MATTERS ARISING/DEFERRED

     RSPCA Template Letter

2.   The template letter was approved with the following amendments to
     the second paragraph:-

     Delete “minister responsible, Alan Meale MP” and replace with
     “DETR”.

     Delete “UK stray dog problem and reporting on solutions by the end
     of the year” and replace with “the question of the permanent
     identification of dogs”.

     A revised version of the letter is enclosed with these Minutes
     (Annex A).

     MORI Survey Report

3.   The press release relating to the MORI survey was noted. Mr
     DeVile stated that the NCDL has received a response of 62.5%. It
     was noted that, although the number of stray dogs had diminished,
     the number put down had increased. The survey did reveal,
     however, that many Local Authorities are now tackling this problem
     by introducing a microchipping programme.

4.   The Group found this a useful press release and asked for complete
     figures of the survey to be submitted to the next meeting.           NCDL




                                      2
                      PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
     DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 17 SEPTEMBER 1999


     Opinion of Assistance Dogs relating to the aged and infirm

5.   It was unclear why the Agenda related to the aged and infirm, but
     with regard to whether various organisations for the disabled
     currently microchipped, Mr French reported that the Guide Dogs for
     the Blind, Registered Dogs for the Disabled and Assistance Dogs for
     the Disabled do not routinely chip. Assistance Dogs for the Deaf are
     about to commence chipping. It is also understood that the above
     organisations that do not routinely chip are waiting until the
     relaxation of quarantine, upon which they will routinely chip.

6.   Should any further information be forthcoming, it should be
     reported in due course. Mr Kennard stated that he had contacted a
     couple of organisations and was awaiting responses.                     ALL

     Reports circulated for reference/research

     i) PAC Dog Registration Consultation Paper

7.   The Group considered this a good paper but now out-of-date. It was
     requested that the DETR contact PAC requesting its views on the
     following questions:-

     1. To what extent would a compulsory scheme achieve more than a
     voluntary scheme?

     2. With regard to paragraphs 2 and 4 in the introduction, this would
     be better achieved by a compulsory scheme but to what degree?

     3. Would such a scheme hit the key target audience and what would
     be the knock on effects to those concerned?                            DETR

     ii) Paper on Methods of Enforcing Vehicle Excise Duty and
     Television License

8.   The above paper was submitted by the DETR for information
     purposes. Although the parallels are not relevant to the Group at
     this time, the enforcement procedures and the costs involved would
     be helpful should a compulsory scheme be recommended.
     Naturally, enforcement would not need to be considered should the
     recommendation from the Group be for a voluntary scheme.




                                        3
                       PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
      DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 17 SEPTEMBER 1999


      ITEM 3. THE INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE

      Dog Licensing in Northern Ireland

9.    A paper relating to the licensing of dogs in Northern Ireland had
      been submitted to the Group and Mr Cardwell, of Belfast City
      Council, was welcomed to the meeting to discuss the matter in more
      detail. Although it is understood that Northern Ireland is a separate
      operation, Mr Cardwell’s opinion is that the Group could learn much
      from its experience regarding dog licensing registration.

10.   The issues and statistics raised by Mr Cardwell are in his paper
      which is enclosed with these Minutes, together with a copy of the
      BCC Application for Dog Licence form (Annex B).

      Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

11.   The letter submitted by the USPCA was noted and Mr Laurence
      added that the views appeared to reiterate those put forward by Mr
      Cardwell.

      Effectiveness of Dog and Cat Legislation in Australia

12.   The figures supplied by the RSPCA, Victoria in Australia were
      noted.

13.   Mr Laurence reported that he had received some figures from the
      Chief of Dogs Wardens, Bermuda, who he had met at the NDWA
      conference, and these are attached with the Minutes for information
      (Annex C).

      Eurogroup Report on “Dog Population & Control in Europe”

14.   The report was noted but, as it was produced in 1990, the Group
      asked the RSPCA to enquire whether a more up-to-date version was
      available.                                                              RSPCA


      ITEM 4. LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE & OTHER
      EXPERIENCES WITH BRITAIN

      The Views of Local Authorities on Compulsory and Voluntary Dog
      Identification Schemes

15.   The letters submitted from various Local Authorities were noted
      with interest.
      Permanent Identification of Dogs - Bristol City Council’s Policy

16.   Mr Bevan was welcomed to the meeting. The paper submitted to


                                          4
                       PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
      DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 17 SEPTEMBER 1999

      the Group referred to Bristol’s policy regarding a voluntary scheme
      adopted in 1992, but Mr Bevan stated in his presentation that the
      Council was now of the opinion that, in principle, a compulsory
      scheme would be considered in a favourable light and it would like
      to see a national database in operation. The Group was impressed
      with Mr Bevan’s presentation and the way in which Bristol had been
      dealing with the situation.

17.   Statistics supplied by the BCC are attached to these Minutes,
      together with a copy of its leaflet entitled “Dogs in Bristol” and a
      copy of an article that appeared in its local paper regarding the
      chipping of dogs (Annex D). (Please note that the statistics do not
      add up exactly, owing to the fact that columns 1 and 5 relate totally
      to the BCC, while columns 2, 3 and 4 also include statistics
      provided by stray dogs collected by other organisations, e.g. police).

      Bradford Metropolitan District Council – The Need for a National
      Compulsory Dog Identification Scheme

18.   The next paper considered was that provided by Bradford
      Metropolitan District Council and Mr Singh was welcomed to the
      meeting. Mr Singh stated that Bradford was very much in favour of
      a compulsory scheme as it had particular problems with what was
      classed “latch-key” dogs, and also the definition of responsibility
      was difficult to determine. The initial voluntary scheme had worked
      up to a point but was now static, and the Council considered a
      properly structured compulsory scheme throughout the country was
      the way forward. Mr Singh expressed his personal views on
      legislation, and the Group informed him that this was not a matter
      for him, but an issue it would be debating in due course.

19.   The overall consensus arising from the three presentations was that
      funding would be a major factor when considering the
      implementation of any identification scheme.




                                         5
                       PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
      DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 17 SEPTEMBER 1999


      ITEM 6. REPORTS FROM SUB-GROUPS

      Statistics/Data Sub-Group

20.   Mr Laurence reported on the paper submitted by the first meeting of
      the above Sub-Group, and the aim of an 80% target on a voluntary
      identification scheme was considered achievable. He reported that
      Mr French was confident about the methodology of the figures
      supplied by the PFMA and these link up with the PetLog system.

21.   The figures attached to the paper relating to TV licences and donor
      cards were considered helpful, inasmuch that they reiterate the point
      previously made by the Councils that resources are a key issue,
      particularly in relation to educating the general public. The Group
      was of the opinion that an 80% compliance would be possible if the
      message could be got across.

22.   Mr Laurence requested that Members give the Sub-Groups a clearer
      steer on the way it wishes them to progress and what they require.
      He asked that any specific points be submitted to the Secretariat
      and/or the RSPCA and requested that these be kept to bullet points.       ALL

      Database Management Sub-Group

23.   The above Sub-Group had only met on 13 September and therefore           TKC/
      a report would be submitted to the next DIG meeting on 1                RSPCA
      November.


      ITEM 7. STRUCTURE OF REPORT

24.   The revised version of the Report to date was submitted and it was
      confirmed that an up-dated version would be presented at each
      subsequent meeting. Mr Laurence said that any ideas from
      Members of the Group regarding the drafting of the Report should
      be forwarded to either himself or Ms Peskin.                              ALL

25.   With regard to the submitted Report to date, it was approved with
      the following amendments:-

      Historical Context, paragraph 1, 3rd sentence: After “In 1992 the
      Control and Dogs Order” add “replaced a similar 1930 Order and".
      Then add an final sentence to the paragraph to read “Responsibility
      for enforcement was laid on local authorities”.

      Evidence, Police Involvement, 1st sentence: Delete “(outside office
      hours)” and replace with “(under the 1906 Dogs Act)”.                   RSPCA




                                        6
                       PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
      DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 17 SEPTEMBER 1999

      ITEM 8. PRESS RELEASES

26.   It was agreed that no press releases should be issued following this
      meeting.


      ITEM 9. DATE, TIME AND VENUE OF NEXT MEETING

27.   Monday 1 November 1999 at 10.30am in Conference Room 8AB
      (3rd Floor), Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, SW1.

28.   A revised timetable for future meetings is attached (Annex E). It
      was agreed that the Report should not be rushed as there were many
      issues to consider. Therefore, the timescale was amended so that all
      the background research should be completed by Easter 2000, with
      the final Report being submitted to the Government by the Summer
      2000.


      ITEM 10. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

      British Dog Breeders Council

29.   Although the BDBC had submitted a paper for presentation to the
      Group, the Council was obviously unhappy that it had not been
      asked to join as a Member. The paper was helpful, although it was
      obvious that the Council had received some misinformation and
      therefore had misconceptions regarding the Group.

      British Veterinary Association

30.   The Chairman reported that he had received a letter from the
      BVA/RCVS resigning as a Member of the Group. It did, however,
      offer its assistance should help be required on any veterinary matter.
      The BVA/RCVS had also requested that paperwork relating to the
      Group continue to be supplied. The Group asked the Chairman to
      write to the BVA/RCVS expressing regret at its decision but, as they
      had resigned as a Member, future paperwork would not be                  DETR
      forthcoming.

31.   The Chairman and the Group thanked the three speakers for their
      presentations and the contribution they had made to the meeting.




                                         7
                        PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
        DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 1 NOVEMBER 1999

                      PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING
  GROUP (DIG) HELD AT ASHDOWN HOUSE ON 1 NOVEMBER 1999
                        AT 10.30AM




PRESENT

Mrs Clarissa Baldwin (NCDL)
Mr Kevin Cope (LGA)
Col Duncan Green (ABDH)
Mr Martin Joseph (DETR)
Mr Alan Kennard (TBC)
Mr Lou Leather (CIEH)
Ms Emma Peskin (RSPCA)
Mrs Rosemary Smart (KC)
Ms Carol Scott (PCT)
Insp Phil Williams (ACPO)



IN ATTENDANCE

Mrs Shalewa Aramunde (DETR)
Mrs Cas Oakes (KC)
Mr Steve Ratcliffe (DETR)




MR MARTIN JOSEPH IN THE CHAIR




                                   8
                      PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
      DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 1 NOVEMBER 1999

     ITEM 1. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

1.   The Minutes of the meeting held on 17 September 1999 were
     approved by the Group as a correct record with the following
     amendments:-

     Page 6, Paragraph 21, Final Sentence: Add “Sub” before “Group”
     and add “by the end of 2003” at the end of the sentence.

     Page 7, Paragraph 30, Penultimate Line: Delete “not” as the Group
     did agree that copies of future paperwork could be sent to the BVA,
     although it must be stressed everything must remain confidential.
                                                                                DETR


     ITEM 2. MATTERS ARISING/DEFERRED

     MORI Survey Report

2.   As requested at the meeting on 17 September, the NCDL provided
     full figures relating to its MORI survey. Mrs Baldwin reported that
     they had received a 67% return on the questionnaire. She further
     stated that 135,000 dogs stray in a year according to these statistics,
     It was noted that there is a large amount of regional variation and a
     lot of lost dogs rather than abandoned dogs.

3.   It should be noted that these statistics had resulted purely from local
     authorities and did not include other organisations such as the
     police, Dogs’ Home Battersea etc. It was requested that these other
     organisations supply statistics to the Sub-Group as soon as possible,
     although the Sub-Group needs to be careful that they are not dealing
     with duplicate figures. It would also be helpful for these statistics to
     include the number of dogs taken in that have been microchipped.            ALL

     PAC

4.   Mr Joseph reported that the DETR had written to PAC requesting its
     views on the questions raised by the Group at its last meeting and
     was awaiting a response, which hopefully would arrive by the next
     meeting on 1 December.                                                     DETR




                                         2
                       PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
       DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 1 NOVEMBER 1999


      ITEM 3. REPORTS FROM SUB-GROUPS

      Statistics Sub-Group

5.    The population statistics provided by the Sub-Group were noted and
      discussed. They show a differing compliance across the regions
      with an uptake of 74.33% rather than the 80% hoped for.
      Campaigning will need to vary regionally.

6.    The Sub-Group is to meet again to come up with further figures and
      to work on target setting and ways of measuring these. The point
      raised at the meeting on 17 September regarding the need for the
      Sub-Group to have a clear steer from the Group on the way it should
      progress was reiterated, and any specific points (kept to bullet
      points) should be addressed to the Secretariat and/or RSPCA.              ALL

7.    It was reported that Mr Naish had left Wood Green Animal Shelters
      and therefore there was a vacancy on the Sub-Group (although it
      was noted that Mr Naish had not attended the meeting that had been
      held). No volunteers were forthcoming and therefore the Sub-Group
      would continue purely with its current members.

      Database Sub-Group

8.    Mrs Smart stated that the Sub-Group had tried to ascertain what
      needed to be done and the report identified the key issues.

9.    The issue of whether the Government would want a single database
      was raised. Mrs Smart said the assumption from the report was not
      for one database. However, it is The Kennel Club’s view that, as
      PetLog would be expanded to increase its capacity, it could be used
      as the main database. Mr Joseph said that, at this stage, the
      Government did not have a view and this would be forthcoming
      once the Group’s final report had been submitted to the Minister for
      consideration. The report should identify all the possible options,
      together with the pros and cons.

10.   The Sub-Group was asked to consider a national appointed agency         DATA
      and to examine the issue of compatibility if there was more than one     SUB-
      database.                                                              GROUP

11.   Ms Peskin stated that she has asked a colleague for a full report on    DATA
      the issue of Data Protection and this would be discussed at the next     SUB-
      Sub-Group meeting.                                                     GROUP

12.   It was requested that, although the Sub-Groups report at each
      meeting, they have their final reports for the March meeting and         BOTH
      should also consider the need for additional members to assist with       SUB-
      their work.                                                            GROUPS


                                        3
                       PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
       DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 1 NOVEMBER 1999




      ITEM 4. TARGET SETTING AND MEASUREMENT

13.   As discussed earlier in the meeting, the Statistics Sub-Group would
      first consider these issues. Issues to be discussed would be how to
      achieve the target over the next few years, the campaigning that
      would be necessary, the costs and who would be responsible for
      paying them. It was reiterated that the report needs to be as
      structured as possible in order for the Government to analyse every    STATS
      option as to the way forward. Mr Joseph reported that the DETR           SUB-
      had economists should the Sub-Groups require any assistance.           GROUP


      ITEM 5. STRUCTURE OF REPORT

14.   Ms Peskin apologised that, owing to promotion at the RSPCA and a
      colleague leaving (not yet replaced), her workload had increased
      dramatically and she had been unable to meet the deadline with the
      report. She further stated that, due to the above, she would,
      unfortunately, no longer be able to write the report, although she
      would remain committed to the Group and Sub-Groups. A
      volunteer was needed, and it was noted that this could not be the
      Secretariat or the DETR as it would be entirely inappropriate. The
      members were requested to submit suggestions to the DETR.                ALL


      ITEM 6. PRESS RELEASES

15.   No press releases to be forthcoming from the Group at this stage and
      all agendas and minutes should remain confidential. However, it
      was appreciated that all organisations needed to continue with their
      own press releases and there was no embargo on mentioning their
      organisations’ view on microchipping. For DETR press releases,
      see Item 9.                                                              ALL


      ITEM 7. DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING

16.   Wednesday 1 December at 10.30am in Conference Room G1AB
      (Ground Floor), Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1.




                                        4
                       PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
       DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 1 NOVEMBER 1999


      ITEM 8.     REVISED TIMETABLE - FUTURE MEETING
      DATES

17.   The revised timetable was noted and the January meeting set for
      Wednesday 19 January 2000. Dates for the February and March
      meetings to be considered at the meeting on 1 December.                ALL


      ITEM 9. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

18.   The Chairman reported that Mr Keith Hill had replaced Mr Alan
      Meale. Although it had been understood that Mr Meale would only
      attend the final meeting, the Group requested that the Chairman
      invite Mr Hill to attend an earlier meeting should he so wish.
      Officials would be seeking the Minister’s agreement to the extended
      timetable requested by the Working Group. If this was agreed, a
      press release may be issued by the Department.                        DETR




                                       5
                        PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
        DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 1 DECEMBER 1999

                       PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING
             GROUP (DIG) HELD AT ELAND HOUSE
         ON WEDNESDAY 1 DECEMBER 1999 AT 10.30AM




PRESENT

Mrs Clarissa Baldwin (NCDL)
Mr Kevin Cope (LGA)
Ms Jane Forsyth (RSPCA)
Mr Roger French (TKC)
Mr Steve Goody (TBC)
Col Duncan Green (ABDH)
Mr Martin Joseph (DETR)
Mr Chris Laurence (RSPCA)
Mr Lou Leather (CIEH)
Ms Emma Peskin (RSPCA)
Ms Carol Scott (PCT)
Insp Phil Williams (ACPO)



IN ATTENDANCE

Mrs Cas Oakes (TKC)
Mr Steve Ratcliffe (DETR)




MR MARTIN JOSEPH IN THE CHAIR




                                   6
                      PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
      DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 1 DECEMBER 1999

1.   The Chairman opened the meeting and stated that, at the request of
     the Sub-Groups, it had been suggested that Item 6 be considered
     after Item 2. The Group had no objection to the change of order to
     the agenda.


     ITEM 1. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

2.   The Minutes of the meeting held on 1 November 1999 were
     approved by the Group as a correct record.


     ITEM 2. MATTERS ARISING/DEFERRED

     Pet Advisory Committee

3.   The response received from the Pet Advisory Committee in answer
     to the questions raised by the Group at its meeting on 17 September
     was noted.


     ITEM 6. REPORTS FROM SUB-GROUPS

4.   The Sub-Groups had met on 30 November. It was considered that
     sufficient data had been accumulated and only a limited amount
     would still be available. Therefore, the proposal was for a Focus
     Group to be formed, consisting the KC, RSPCA, NCDL, NDWA
     and LGA, which would submit a draft report to the next meeting.

5.   The report would consider all the options available with the target
     being voluntary identification of 80% of the dog owning population
     within five years.

6.   It was further proposed that, once the Group had agreed the draft
     report, it would be submitted to the DETR for consideration.
     Depending on the Minister’s response, it was proposed that the
     Group’s monthly meetings should cease and be replaced by
     quarterly meetings of the Focus Group, which would monitor the
     progress of voluntary identification of dogs. The Focus Group
     would report to an annual meeting of the main Dog Identification
     Group. It was suggested that a civil servant chair the quarterly
     meetings.

7.   The database to be considered would be PetLog and the National
     Tattoo Register. A code of practice regarding the database would
     need to be established and Mr French stated that all dogs could be
     transferred from PetLog to DogLog, and that cross marketing would
     then be limited to PetLog. It would also be necessary to review all
     cross marketing activities undertaken by microchip distributors.



                                      2
                       PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
       DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 1 DECEMBER 1999

8.    Financing marketing of a voluntary initiative would also be a major
      consideration and would require assistance from the Government in
      addition to the charitable organisation involved. This issue would
      be included in the draft report and the Chairman offered to take the
      draft chapter on costings to the DETR economists for consideration
      before the Report was finalised.

9.    The Group unanimously agreed to the above proposals with the
      Focus Group reporting direct to the Government and referring back
      to the main Group if required.

10.   The Focus Group to meet twice before the rescheduled Group              FOCUS
      meeting (Item 9).                                                       GROUP


      ITEM 3. EFFECTS OF DOG IDENTIFICATION ON THE
      DOG INDUSTRY

11.   It was noted that the dog industry would be affected and this would     FOCUS
      be considered within the final report.                                  GROUP


      ITEM 4. EFFECTS OF IDENTIFICATION ON INTERESTED
      GROUPS

12.   Again, this would be considered within the final report.                FOCUS
                                                                              GROUP


      ITEM 5. PUBLIC EDUCATION STRATEGY

13.   The Group considered public education a crucial aspect, and it was
      requested that any ideas members may have on this issue be
      submitted to the Secretariat or the RSPCA to be included in the final    FOCUS
      report. It was noted that this is an area that will need to be          GROUP/
      constantly monitored.                                                      ALL

14.   The participation of the BVA and RCVS was considered essential
      and Col Green offered to informally discuss the matter of them
      coming back “on board” with the organisations. It was also agreed
      that other members of the Group, should they have the opportunity,      ABDH/
      also raise the issue with the BVA and RCVS.                               ALL

      ITEM 7. STRUCTURE OF REPORT

15.   Discussed under Item 6.




                                         3
                       PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
       DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 1 DECEMBER 1999

      ITEM 8. PRESS RELEASES

16.   A draft press release regarding the Minister’s approval to an
      extension to the timescale the Group required to submit a final
      report was circulated by the DETR. However, due to the earlier
      discussions, it was agreed that this had been superseded and
      therefore the press release would not be sent out. It was further
      agreed that, at this stage, no press release would be issued.        DETR

17.   It was further requested by The Kennel Club and the RSPCA that
      any future press releases issued should not quote the direct
      telephone line numbers of Cas Oakes and Emma Peskin and the
      Press Office numbers of both organisations were passed to the        DETR
      DETR.


      ITEM 9. DATE, TIME AND VENUE OF NEXT MEETING

18.   Rescheduled from Wednesday 19 January 2000 to Tuesday 8
      February 2000 at 11.00am at the DETR. To be held in Conference
      Room 8AB (2nd Floor), Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street,
      London SW1.


      ITEM 10.       DATES FOR FEBRUARY AND MARCH
      MEETINGS

19.   As the January meeting was rescheduled for February, it was agreed
      that any future dates would be discussed at that meeting.


      ITEM 11. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

20.   None.




                                       4
                        PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
        DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 8 FEBRUARY 2000

                       PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING
  GROUP (DIG) HELD AT ASHDOWN HOUSE, 123 VICTORIA STREET
           ON TUESDAY 8 FEBRUARY 2000 AT 11.00AM




PRESENT

Mrs Clarissa Baldwin (NCDL)
Mr Joe Clarke (NDWA)
Mr Kevin Cope (LGA)
Mr Roger French (KC)
Mr Steve Goody (NCDL)
Col Duncan Green (ABDH)
Mr Martin Joseph (DETR)
Mr Alan Kennard (TBC)
Mr Chris Laurence (RSPCA)
Mr Lou Leather (CIEH)
Ms Claire Scott (PCT)


IN ATTENDANCE

Mr Steve Ratcliffe (DETR)
Mrs Cas Oakes (KC)




MR MARTIN JOSEPH IN THE CHAIR
                      PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
      DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 8 FEBRUARY 2000

     ITEM 1. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

1.   The Minutes of the meeting held on 1 December 1999 were
     approved by the Group as a correct record.


     MATTERS ARISING

     BVA/RCVS

2.   It was reported that, although the BVA wished to receive a draft of
     the final report, it had requested that its name be withdrawn from the
     list of organisations contributing to the report. The DETR was
     requested to clarify the situation with regard to the participation of
     the RCVS.                                                                DETR


     ITEM 2. DRAFT FINAL REPORT

3.   The draft report was discussed and it was stated that all written
     documentation received (previously provided to the Group) would
     be attached as annexes to the final report.

4.   It was the considered opinion of the DETR that the final report
     should not stray far from the original terms of reference, which had
     been approved by the Minister in charge at the initial meeting of the
     Group.

5.   Certain Group members raised concern with regard to the proposed
     80% target for voluntary dog identification and it was considered
     that this should be flexible to a certain degree. It was reiterated,
     however, that the DIG Focus Group would be monitoring the
     position and if, say in five years time, voluntary identification was
     not proving to be the way forward, the matter of compulsory
     identification may need to be considered.

6.   Various other queries were raised and it was agreed that all
     Members of the Group should consider the draft report in detail and
     submit in writing any specific comments (referring to page,
     paragraph and line) to Chris Laurence (RSPCA) with a copy to Cas
     Oakes (KC) by 1 March. Cas Oakes, in turn, would fax details to
     the DETR.

7.   The Focus Group agreed to meet again on 27 March at The Kennel
     Club to discuss the revised draft, which would include any minor
     changes submitted and a second draft would be prepared by 3 April
     in order to be sent to all the Members for consideration at its next
     meeting. Any contentious issues submitted to be attached as
     appendices for discussion at that meeting. (Note: Second draft
     discussed at Focus Group meeting on 27 March and a further


                                        2
                        PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
        DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 8 FEBRUARY 2000

      meeting has been set for 13 April for final draft which will then be   FOCUS
      sent to all Members for consideration).                                GROUP

8.    It was also considered that a marketing plan should be instigated,
      particularly with regard to the financial resources, and Duncan
      Green (ABDH) offered to liaise with Martin Joseph/Steve Ratcliffe      ABDH/
      (DETR) on this project and form a Sub-Group. Chris Laurence             DETR/
      (RSPCA) and Clarissa Baldwin (NCDL) offered the services of            RSPCA/
      marketing representatives from their charities.                         NCDL


      ITEM 3. PRESS RELEASES

9.    It was agreed that no press releases should be issued at this stage.     ALL


      ITEM 4. DATE, TIME AND VENUE OF NEXT MEETING

10.   Thursday 4 May at 11.00am. Venue to be confirmed by the DETR.            ALL/
                                                                              DETR


      ITEM 5. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

11.   None.




                                          3
                         PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
            DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 4 MAY 2000

                         PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING
  GROUP (DIG) HELD AT ASHDOWN HOUSE, 123 VICTORIA STREET
              ON THURSDAY 4 MAY 2000 AT 11.00AM




PRESENT

Mrs Clarissa Baldwin (NCDL)
Mrs Sue Bell (NDWA)
Mr Kevin Cope (LGA)
Mr Roger French (KC)
Mr Martin Joseph (DETR)
Mr Alan Kennard (TBC)
Mr Chris Laurence (RSPCA)
Mr Lou Leather (CIEH)
Ms Emma Peskin (RSPCA)
Ms Carol Scott (PCT)
Mrs Rosemary Smart (KC)


OBSERVER

Mr Nigel Mason (WGAS)


IN ATTENDANCE

Mrs Cas Oakes (KC)
Ms Seema Patel (DETR)
Mr Steve Ratcliffe (DETR)

Mr Kristinn Mason (Economist, DETR) – Item 2
Mrs Brenda Irons (Public Relations/Marketing, DETR) - Item 3
Mrs Claire Parris (Public Relations/Marketing, DETR) - Item 3



MR MARTIN JOSEPH IN THE CHAIR
                       PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
          DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 4 MAY 2000

1.   The Chairman firstly thanked the Group, and in particular the Focus
     Group, for the achievements it had made.


     ITEM 1. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

2.   The Minutes of the meeting held on 8 February 2000 were approved
     by the Group as a correct record.

3.   In relation to paragraph 2 regarding the position of the BVA/RCVS,
     Chris Laurence confirmed that the BVA do not wish to be included
     in the Report, but the RCVS wished to be included as an Observer.
     The Group agreed that, as the BVA had withdrawn its name from
     the list of organisations contributing to the Report, they should not
     be entitled to see the draft.                                            ALL


     ITEM 2. FINAL REPORT FOR APPROVAL

4.   The revised Report was discussed in depth, in conjunction with
     Kristinn Mason, an Economist with the DETR, whose input was
     greatly appreciated by the Group. Although the Group made
     amendments at the meeting, it was considered that these had not
     substantially changed the Report materially, as all issues had been
     previously minuted and approved. However, it was agreed that, due
     to the shortened timescale in which the Group had received to
     consider the Report, the following was approved:-

     •   15 May: Final comments on the Report to be submitted to Chris
         Laurence and copied to Cas Oakes and Steve Ratcliffe.                ALL


     •   26 May: Chris Laurence to submit final draft to Cas Oakes and
         Steve Ratcliffe for circulation to all Members of the Group and      ALL
         Kristinn Mason.


     •   12 June: Deadline for any further comments on the final draft;       ALL
         again these to be submitted to Chris Laurence with copies to Cas
         Oakes and Steve Ratcliffe.
                                                                             DETR
     •   Early July: DETR to fix a date for the Group to present the
         Report to the Minister.

5.   It was further agreed that, should any Member of DIG consider there
     was a need for a further Group meeting to finalise the draft Report,
     they should contact the Chairman, Martin Joseph, who would act as
     an arbitrator as to whether this was necessary before presenting the
     final Report to the Minster.                                            DETR




                                       2
                        PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
           DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 4 MAY 2000

6.    It was considered essential that an executive summary be included at       FOCUS
      the front of the final Report for the ease of the reader.                  GROUP

7.    With regard to publication of the Report, the DETR stated that this
      would have to wait until the Minister had considered the content and
      recommendations. If this was presented in July, it would be hoped
      that approval would be received in September to enable the Report
      to be published, with the anticipation of Ministerial approval to
      implement the DIG recommendations to commence from January
      2001.                                                                        ALL


      ITEM 3. MEDIA/MARKETING PLAN

8.    DIG had agreed to form a Media/Marketing Sub-Group to discuss a
      proposed integrated media/marketing strategy and campaign. A
      meeting had taken place between representatives from the KC,
      NCDL and DETR. Brenda Irons and Claire Parris of DETR joined
      the current meeting to continue discussions on the issue. Clarissa
      Baldwin apologised for the format in which the marketing plan had
      been distributed and this was to be revised.                               NCDL

9.    Although it was stated that many ideas had been discussed in
      principle as to how to launch the marketing plan, it was reported that
      nothing could be executed until acceptance of the Report had been
      received from the Minister. It was, however, requested that the
      Media/Marketing Sub-Group meet again in order to discuss specific
      areas, i.e. sponsorship, radio/television coverage, regional activities,
      long-term plans to follow the initial launch etc., and Clarissa
      Baldwin is to organise this.                                               NCDL

10.   The DETR mentioned that it was hoped that the Central Office of
      Information (COI) would be able to assist with much of the initial
      work, i.e. leaflets, radio, posters etc., and they would liaise with
      them as to how to progress further. It was, however, considered that
      a PR agency might be best placed to co-ordinate the overall MEDIA/
      organisation of the proposed scheme, and financing would need to MARKET
      be looked at in detail. It was noted that it would be a substantial ING SUB-
      task to write the plans before they could be submitted for bids to    GROUP
      agencies..




                                          3
                        PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
           DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 4 MAY 2000


      ITEM 4. DRAFT PRESS RELEASE: POST-ISSUE OF
      REPORT

11.   It was agreed that no press releases should be issued at present.
      Consideration of a press release to be discussed once the Report had
      been presented to the Minister.                                          ALL


      ITEM 5. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

12.   Emma Peskin requested that permission be given for Roger French
      to speak to the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare
      on 7 June on the issue of dog identification although the DIG Report
      would not be finalised. Roger French stated that he could speak on
      the subject of identification, particularly in relation to PetLog,
      without relating to the content of the final DIG Report, and the       RSPCA/
      Group agreed to this request.                                             KC




                                        4
                         PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
           DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 10 JULY 2000

                       PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL



   MINUTES OF A SUB-MEETING OF THE DOG IDENTIFICATION
 WORKING GROUP (DIG) HELD AT ASHDOWN HOUSE ON MONDAY 10
                        JULY 2000
                        AT 9.30AM




PRESENT

Dr Georgina Burney (DETR)
Mr Roger French (KC)
Mr Steve Goody (TBC)
Col Duncan Green (ABDH)
Mr Martin Joseph (DETR)
Mr Alan Kennard (TBC)
Mr Chris Laurence (RSPCA)


IN ATTENDANCE

Mrs Cas Oakes (KC)
Ms Seema Patel (DETR)
Mr Steve Ratcliffe (DETR)



MR MARTIN JOSEPH IN THE CHAIR
                       PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
         DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 10 JULY 2000

1.   Martin Joseph introduced Dr Georgina Burney who would be
     replacing him in the Chair as from Wednesday 12 July, although he
     stated that he would be available for the next two weeks should he
     be required.

2.   It was reiterated that this meeting had been called in order to address
     the letter received from Alan Kennard regarding the concerns of The
     Blue Cross from certain recommendations contained in the draft
     DIG Report. Additionally, Duncan Green, The Dogs’ Home
     Battersea, had also submitted a letter with a couple of reservations
     relating to the report.

3.   Martin Joseph stated that, having studied the draft report and the
     comments raised by The Blue Cross and The Dogs' Home Battersea,
     in his opinion the following six areas needed to be considered:-

     •   Funding
     •   Targets
     •   Databases
     •   Annex relating to the International Experience
     •   Terms of Reference
     •   Voluntary v Compulsory

     Funding

4.   Alan Kennard considered that the funding of a public information
     campaign should fundamentally be the responsibility of the
     Government and not the charities, as they do the educational work,
     and requested that the report and marketing plan should state this.
     Duncan Green supported this view.

5.   Chris Lawrence stated that the Group was looking at Government to
     commit a certain amount of money in relation to a public animal
     welfare campaign, but it was considered that sponsorship could be
     obtained from other sources, e.g. microchip suppliers.

6.   After discussion, it was agreed that the issue of funding should be
     considered after the Minister had agreed to the Report in principle.
     Following this, consultation should be sought from a marketing
     agency with regard to costings, and negotiations would take place
     with Government for funding.




                                        2
                        PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
          DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 10 JULY 2000


      Targets

7.    Alan Kennard considered that an 80% target was unrealistic and
      could not be agreed until the figure for funding was known.

8.    Chris Laurence stated that the ideal position would be to have 100%
      target, but the 80% target the Group had been looking at was seen as
      achievable. It was further reported that, although the French Kennel
      Club have a mandatory tattooing scheme, it is ignored by 25% of the
      dog owning population.

9.    Following discussion, it was agreed to amend the wording from 80%
      to read "in the order of 75%".

      Databases

10.   Roger French reported that the National Tattoo Register is very keen
      to work with DIG on the issue of database(s). Additionally, he
      added that The Kennel Club does not operate cross marketing. It
      was agreed that there should be a single point of contact regarding
      microchips and tattoos with security in place.

11.   It was re-emphasised that the proposed Focus Group would meet on
      a quarterly basis, with the main DIG Group meeting annually.

      International Experience

12.   It was the view of the Sub-Group that, at the time of preparing the
      Report, no major conclusions had been drawn.

      Terms of Reference

13.   Duncan Green in his letter had some concerns over the terms of
      reference as reflected in the draft report. As a consequence of
      discussions at the current meeting he expressed that following the
      agreed amendments he was now content with the report.

      Voluntary v. Compulsory

14.   Following Alan Kennard's concerns over a voluntary v. compulsory
      scheme, which The Blue Cross considered should remain voluntary
      forever, it was agreed that the Focus Group would monitor the
      situation. The Report recommends a 5-year voluntary scheme and
      this would be reviewed regularly by the Focus Group, and reports
      would be presented to future meetings of DIG.

      Meeting on Wednesday 12 July 2000

15.   The next meeting of DIG to take place on Wednesday 12 July 2000


                                        3
                  PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
    DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 10 JULY 2000

at DETR, Eland House, Bressenden Place, SW1 at 11.00am, when it
is hoped that unanimous agreement to the Report could be achieved
in order that a meeting with the Minister can be set up in early
September.




                                4
                         PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
           DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 12 JULY 2000

                       PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING
 GROUP (DIG) HELD AT DETR, ELAND HOUSE, BRESSENDEN PLACE,
                         VICTORIA
            ON WEDNESDAY 12 JULY 2000 AT 11.00AM




PRESENT

Mrs Clarissa Baldwin (NCDL)
Ms Julie Briggs (RSPCA)
Dr Georgina Burney (DETR)
Mr Kevin Cope (LGA)
Mr Roger French (KC)
Mr Steve Goody (TBC)
Mr Martin Joseph (DETR)
Mr Alan Kennard (TBC)
Mr Chris Laurence (RSPCA)
Ms Emma Peskin (RSPCA)
Ms Carol Scott (PCT)
Mrs Rosemary Smart (KC)


OBSERVER

Mr Nigel Mason (WGAS)


IN ATTENDANCE

Mrs Seema Patel (DETR)
Mr Steve Ratcliffe (DETR)



MR MARTIN JOSEPH IN THE CHAIR
                        PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
          DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 12 JULY 2000

      INTRODUCTIONS AND APOLOGIES

1.    The Chairman introduced Georgina Burney and Seema Patel,
      DETR, and explained that due to an internal reorganisation within
      DETR both he and Steve Ratcliffe would no longer be working
      with DIG. As a result Georgina Burney would from now on be
      chairing DIG Meetings.

2.    Steve Ratcliffe advised that the following apologies had been
      received: Mr Lou Leather (CIEH), Duncan Green (The Dogs Home
      Battersea), Robin Pellew (Animal Health Trust), Inspector Keith
      Halliwell (ACPO), MAFF, The Home Office, The Scottish
      Executive and The National Assembly for Wales.

      ITEM 1. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

 3.   The minutes of the meeting held on 4 May 2000 were not discussed
      due to time constraints. These will be considered at a later meeting.

      ITEM 2. FINAL REPORT FOR APPROVAL

 4.   All members of DIG had had the opportunity to look at and
      comment on the latest draft of the report which had been circulated
      by DETR on 1 June 2000. As a result a number of comments had
      been received and taken on board by Chris Laurence, who had been
      given the task of drafting the report. Subsequent to these both Alan
      Kennard, Blue Cross and Duncan Green, The Dogs Home
      Battersea, had written separately on 23 June expressing further
      concerns about the report. The Chairman advised that as a result it
      was considered inappropriate to proceed with the meeting with the
      Minister on 12 July and this had reluctantly been postponed. In an
      attempt to resolve the issues raised in these letters the Chairman
      had convened a separate meeting on 10 July with the RSPCA, The
      Kennel Club, The Dogs Home Battersea and The Blue Cross in
      attendance. As a consequence it had also been agreed to proceed
      with a full DIG Meeting on 12 July to report the outcome of the
      meeting on 10 July.

 5.   The Chairman identified 5 main areas where there were still
      problems with the content of the report. These are listed in a paper
      which Chris Laurence circulated at the meeting which also detailed
      the agreements reached at the meeting on 10 July. This paper is
      Annex A to these minutes. The Chairman, with support from Chris
      Laurence, proceeded to explain to DIG the rationale behind each of
      the proposed changes. These were debated by DIG in turn and
      agreements were achieved as follows:

      •   Presentational issues - Chris Laurence pointed out that a
          number of cross references and paragraph numbers needed to be
          corrected; that the summary of assumptions in the 'Costs and        Chris


                                         2
                       PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
         DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 12 JULY 2000

         Benefits ' section should be moved to an Annex and that the          Laurence,
         entire report will be produced in 1.5 line spacing. Agreed            RSPCA

     •   Targets - all references within the report to the target number of
         '80%' should be changed to read ' in order of 75%'. Agreed
     •   International Experience - Paragraph16 an additional sentence
         should be added 'No major conclusions were drawn'. Agreed
     •   Databases - In paragraph 30 add the words "with some
         urgency" to make sentence read '……..should be written with
         some urgency to include……..' Agreed
     •   In paragraph 31 - add the words 'with some urgency' to make
         sentence read '……. Should be written with some urgency to
         ensure continuity….' Agreed
     •   The Chairman suggested that DIG consider the use of a
         consultant to help develop an industry standard for the DIG             Roger
         database. In connection with this Roger French agreed to               French,
         produce a paper addressing the issue of a database standard for        Kennel
         consideration by DIG.                                                    Club
     •   Education/Public Campaign - Delete the existing paragraph 46
         and replace with: 'The Group recommends that, as this is
         community benefit, a public information campaign is
         undertaken, primarily financed by government to a level which
         may be expected to achieve the agreed target. Government,
         charities and others should use their resources to support the
         under-privileged in ensuring that their dogs are permanently
         identified'. This paragraph should also be inserted into
         Recommendation f i) of the Executive Summary. Agreed
     •   A proposal was put forward from The Blue Cross with regard
         to Recommendation c i) and paragraph 44 to add the words ' or
         such earlier annual review as may be agreed by the Group'.
         Agreed

6.   It was agreed that Chris Laurence would make the agreed changes
     to the report within the next few days and would then send the              DETR
     revised draft to DETR who would then circulate this to members of
     DIG for comment. It was agreed that members would then send
     details of any further minor comments direct to Chris Laurence. At
     the request of the Chairman members also agreed to write to DETR
     by 18 August to advise whether they were content or discontent               ALL
     with the final report.




                                         3
                       PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
         DOG IDENTIFICATION WORKING GROUP (DIG) – 12 JULY 2000


     ITEM 3. PRESS RELEASES

7.   It was agreed that although the current agreed DIG arrangements
     for press releases should be maintained it was also necessary, in
     preparation for any proposed announcement after the meeting with
     the Minister, that media representatives from DIG members should
     liaise with DETR's press office (Brenda Irons) before this took
     place.
                                                                            ALL
     ITEM 4. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

8.   Provided that a consensus on the report had been achieved
     beforehand Georgina Burney suggested that DIG should meet the
     Minister to present their report to him in the first week of
     September. She agreed to explore provisional available dates with
     Keith Hill's office and contact members to seek agreement on when     DETR
     this should take place. Emma Peskin raised the question of who
     should be responsible for presenting the report to the Minister.
     After some discussion it was agreed that The Kennel Club,               KC,
     RSPCA, LGA and The Blue Cross would meet separately                  RSPCA,
     beforehand to consider the content of the presentation and who        LGA &
     should give it.                                                         TBC

     ITEM 5. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

9.   Emma Peskin, on behalf of DIG, offered thanks to the outgoing
     Chairman and the Secretariat for all the hard work undertaken over
     the past 18 months.




                                      4
PLEASE NOTE THAT ANNEXES B TO F ARE ONLY AVAILABLE AS HARD
COPY AND CAN BE OBTAINED FROM shirley.anderson@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
(Tel 0131 244 7050)


ANNEX B        WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

Appendices:

1.     NDWA Annual Report 1999.

2.     MORI poll on Stray Dogs commissioned by NCDL.

3.     The charity microchip – the Association of British Dogs Homes.

4.     Tattoo schemes for dogs – the National Dog Tattoo Register.

5.     DNA profiling – The Kennel Club.

6.     Letter from the British Dalmatian Club.

7.     Dogs in the Countryside – National Farmers Union.

8.     Dog Workshop Notes – National Trust Estates Department.

9.     Some Local Authority Responsibilities for Animal Welfare.

10.    Permanent identification of dogs – Bristol City Council’s policy.

11.    The need for a national compulsory dog identification scheme – Bradford
       Metropolitan District Council.

12.    Dog Control 1984 – 1999 Northern Ireland, A Review

13.    The views of Local Authorities on compulsory and voluntary dog identification
       schemes – a report by RSPCA

14.    Dog population and control in Europe, a review – Europgroup for Animal Welfare.

15.    Effectiveness of Dog and Cat Legislation in Australia – RSPCA Australia.

16.    Dog registration consultation paper – Pet Advisory Committee.

17.    Report on TV Licence enforcement.

Annex C        DATA SUB-GROUP FINDINGS

Annex D        STATISTICS SUB-GROUP FINDINGS

Annex E        PERMANENT IDENTIFICATION MARKETING PLAN

Annex F        ASSUMPTIONS AND COSTS

								
To top