9 Oct 2024
Concerns about the effectiveness of long-sought legislative reforms were highlighted during a discussion of what organisers see as the current “crisis” in the veterinary sector.
Allister Webb
Job Title
Image: © Stephen Davies / Adobe Stock
Moves to strengthen the regulation of veterinary practices risk creating a “double whammy” for clinicians by not holding all surgery owners to account, an animal welfare campaigner has claimed.
Concerns about the effectiveness of long-sought legislative reforms were highlighted during a discussion of what organisers see as the current “crisis” in the veterinary sector.
The RCVS has not commented directly on the claims, saying it was reluctant to “prejudge” the issue while work to develop detailed proposals remains ongoing.
However, Anglesey-based activist Linda Joyce-Jones urged clinicians to “stand together” as she argued the sector’s present focus on replacing the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act was insufficient due to the corporate ownership of many practices.
While a new act is seen as vital for modernising the profession in a number of areas, including recognition of RVNs, college leaders have argued it is also essential to enable full regulation of practices, as well as individual clinicians.
But Ms Joyce-Jones told the 20 September event at Aberystwyth University: “Many veterinary professionals see this as the golden egg, the solution to their problems.
“Maybe they will think differently when they realise the college’s plans will result in a double whammy.
“The practice you work in will be regulated as you who are currently on the RCVS’ register are now. However, the corporates who own the practices, whose policies you might promote, will remain unaccountable.”
Ms Joyce-Jones has previously led calls for a Welsh parliamentary inquiry into the impact of corporatisation on veterinary services. It is believed that the issue will be reviewed by the Senedd’s petitions committee in the coming weeks.
A new working group was set up by the RCVS in January to examine the question of mandatory practice regulation, with proposals, at that point, expected to follow by the end of this year. A college spokesperson told Vet Times the group was currently working on the issues, but does not yet have any detailed proposals for how a reformed regulatory process might work.
He added: “We wouldn’t want to prejudge the outcome of their deliberations.”
But Ms Joyce-Jones, who believes an external ombudsman should be set up to oversee the sector, made a direct appeal to vets and veterinary nurses who she said “did not deserve this royal college” as she went on to attack planned reforms to the college’s own governance procedures.
RCVS council members are expected to reconsider the measures, which include plans to scrap the present annual elections to the body in favour of a wholly appointment-based model, at their next meeting in London in early November.
Its leadership has repeatedly insisted the changes are necessary both as part of the case for new legislation and to more closely align the college’s protocols with what is considered to be best regulatory practice.
But Ms Joyce-Jones told clinicians: “Stand with us because sooner rather than later, with a new VSA, the soon to be appointed, not elected, governing council will try to throw you under the proverbial bus, too.”
Although hundreds of responses were submitted during a consultation process earlier this year, the college has already dismissed calls for a referendum of vets and nurses on the measures, while several veterinary sector groups have also voiced their own concerns.
