College caution call over canine fertility clinic legislation link

The RCVS has urged lawmakers not to combine new veterinary sector legislation with tougher regulation of canine fertility clinics (CFCs).

The regulator has voiced its concerns after a recent report by the Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) select committee called for ministers to prioritise both issues within a new Veterinary Surgeons Act.

It argued that “unscrupulous” operators had been helped by a lack of clear responsibility for the enforcement of present rules.

But, while it welcomed the report’s recognition of the need for a new act “fit for the 21st century” regulating the whole vet team and veterinary practices, the college also advised “caution” about linking the two subjects together because of the potential for political controversy.

‘Empower’

In a statement to Vet Times, the college said: “A new act should empower the RCVS to be a modern regulator of the vet-led team.

“Tacking on additional measures that don’t involve the RCVS as the regulator risks any future bill becoming overburdened, leading to potential controversial provision, which could reduce the success of the bill being passed by Parliament.”

The call for a new Veterinary Surgeons Act that incorporates the regulation of CFCs is among 17 recommendations contained in the EFRA committee’s pet welfare and abuse report, which was published on 5 April.

The document condemned the penalties for breaches of the current Veterinary Surgeons Act as “derisory” and what it sees as the weaknesses within the present framework.

‘Diffuse enforcement arrangements’

It said: “Unscrupulous CFCs have benefited from diffuse enforcement arrangements, lack of clarity over which statutory body is responsible for enforcement under the Veterinary Surgeons Act (1966), and uncertainty as to where concerns around suspected illegal activity should be reported.”

The committee also urged Defra to work with local authorities and other relevant organisations to develop guidance for training council officers to enforce CFC rules.

A college spokesperson stressed the organisation was “agnostic” about whether a new Veterinary Surgeons Act should be a standalone bill or linked to other welfare-related legislation, except for the concern that linking it to other measures may make it more controversial and therefore less likely to become law.

While a college working party is currently considering what a future practice regulatory framework may look like, she also argued it was “unlikely” that CFCs that did not employ vets, nurses or other allied professionals who may come under its regulatory umbrella in the future would be covered by it.

‘Penalties’

But the spokesperson added: “We agree that there should be greater financial penalties for people breaking the law and that these should be future-proofed so that they cannot be diminished to irrelevance by inflation.

“Additionally, we also agree that CFCs warrant greater attention, and that properly funded powers for local authorities to oversee these might be effective.”

One example of its fears may lie in the fate of the former Kept Animals Bill, which was dropped by the Government last year amid pledges that its measures would be brought forward in separate bills instead.

Although that decision was widely criticised at the time, ministers claimed the bill was in danger of being stretched beyond its original commitments and accused opposition parties of playing “political games” on the issue.

Despite criticism of that approach from the committee, Defra has said it will “carefully consider” the report’s proposals.