Here is a little more detail to add to my last blog on the subject of forthcoming regulation.

Following the recent Defra consultation concerning the review of the Veterinary Surgeons Act (1966) the prospect of trainers and behaviourists becoming regulated is now very much on the agenda and ignoring what’s coming is no longer a viable strategy. Although much of the detail still has to be worked out the consequences will inevitably be far reaching whatever the regulatory structure looks like. It will have an impact on all practitioners who engage in what is being called Allied Veterinary Professions (AVP), these are activities related to animal health care that are not in the realm of vets and vet nurses, this includes other activities such as all Musculoskeletal therapies, Farriers, Dentists as well.

Detail is short at this stage but principles are fairly clear. For sure there will be one set of standards to adhere to for each of the roles within each AVP, one regulatory group for each AVP and one central set of registers listing practitioners for each AVP. Currently this is thought to come under the umbrella of the RCVS. As things stand in the behaviour and training sector there are several organisations or registers claiming some form of voluntary regulatory role, but only one of them will have a function as part of the regulatory structure once regulation is introduced, the remainder will cease to have a purpose and will likely be redundant.

Behaviourists and trainers will need to be on the regulated register in order to practise which means they will need to be assessed as meeting the standard associated with their role both in knowledge and understanding and competence. They will also be limited to that role so if they are assessed for Training Instructor they will not be permitted to undertake behaviour work unless they are on that register too. In addition to being on the register there is still discussion around being licenced to practise.

Thinking beyond how this will affect individuals it is highly likely to have a direct impact on the methods people use too. If things go as expected it would mean that the professional standards will rule out the use of any form of aversive methodology. This would include choke chains, prong collars and remotely operated devices as well as aversive techniques that do not entail the use of devices. This will obviously create an issue for those ‘balanced’ trainers out there and those who still advocate the use e-collars.

Organisations that represent practitioners will not avoid significant repercussions either. They will not be able to assess their members’ knowledge or competence against the relevant standard to get them on the relevant register unless their policies and procedures for practitioner assessment are approved by the regulator. This will be determined by a rigorous assessment process. If they cannot assess their members it must bring into question their continued purpose as well.

Regulation will also have a direct impact on course providers as only courses approved by the regulator will contribute towards an individual becoming qualified to practise. Something I have emphasised many times before is that any courses that are not approved (including courses that are Ofqual regulated) will not serve a purpose other than perhaps as CPD.

At this stage nothing has been finalised but what I have described is based on real discussions that are under way now, it is certainly not scaremongering and should be considered seriously. How long this will take to implement and what the final system will look like in detail is not known yet but the political impetus behind it has gathered pace and the only organisation in discussions with Defra about the way ahead for behaviour and training is ABTC.