Veterinary surgeons or vet nurses could face prosecution and a possible £500 fine if they fail to report the case of a dog that is supposed to have an identity chip but the device cannot be found, as delegates discovered during a discussion about Legislation in the Big Issues stream at BSAVA Congress.
The rule, introduced at the beginning of the first day of April, sounds like an elaborate l Fool’s day prank, but it isn’t.
This law applies only to England and covers identity chips implanted in dogs but not in those other species that are routinely chipped. It creates an offence for the clinician or a member of the public to not report a device that has been removed, has migrated from its expected position or has malfunctioned.
Intended to help curb the trade in illegally imported puppies, the rules raised both hackles and eyebrows among the audience members who believed that the proposed system was unfair and unenforceable.
It also created a number of practical problems – should practitioners scan every dog presented in their consulting room, what should they do if the owner refuses permission to carry out the procedure, and how is it possible to readily check the animal’s details if there is not one but many databases holding that information?
Veterinary surgeons do have an interest in identifying cases in which the microchip has moved within the body and could potentially damage the animal’s health. But the evidence shows that such cases are extremely rare, said Lord Sandy Trees, a veterinarian and member of the House of Lords who advised the government against the idea.
The chief veterinary officers for two of the devolved administrations were present to hear the arguments against introducing similar rules in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Furthermore, there is hope that the rules may be applied in such a way that they will not cause problems for practitioners based in England.
Since the rule came into force, BSAVA’s Head of Scientific Policy, Dr Sally Everitt, said she had received an explanatory email from DEFRA which stated that the government would not expect prosecutions to be conducted through the magistrates courts system. Instead such cases should be dealt with by the RCVS disciplinary procedure to avoid the risk of ‘double jeopardy’.
The head of the Royal College professional conduct department Mr Gordon Hockey considered it unlikely that his staff would be dealing with a steady stream of cases. “I don’t think vets were even on their radar when this legislation was drafted. It may just be one of things that raises concerns in the profession that nobody else is worried about.”
RCVS president Professor Stuart Reid agreed that his colleagues on the preliminary investigation and disciplinary committees would not consider such cases worth pursuing. “It is unrealistic to believe that they would identify this a professional conduct matter,” he said.
No Comment