Local Veterinary Inspectors
61. In oral evidence the importance of the SVS's
links with private veterinary practice in achieving its objectives
was highlighted by the NFU[151]
and vets. The RCVS pointed out that the extent to which the SVS
is dependent on private practitioners to carry out state functions
would affect its ability to respond to existing and new tasks.[152]
The BVA noted that "any reduction in the number of LVIs available
to assist the State Veterinary Service veterinarians will impact
upon the workload of the State Veterinary Service".[153]
In line with concerns about the 'shortage' of large animal vets,
the BCVA expressed worry that the pool from which such vets came
was getting smaller.[154]
Defra acknowledged this point, but the Director of the SVS pointed
out that "although the number of practices might be reducing
we were not having difficulty in getting the LVI services delivered,
except in one or two areas".[155]
62. Defra told us that it is "currently undertaking
a review of our relationship with LVIs which centres on the nature
of the contract, the system of communication/instruction and training
programmes. The object of the exercise is not to reduce the amount
of money paid to LVI practices but to improve the efficiency within
which the system works".[156]
The Director of the SVS, Mr Atkinson, explained that although
the LVI system had worked well it needed "revising and modernising
and bringing into line with the modern employment of traditional
practice".[157]
He said that Defra and the BVA were "working closely together
to try to devise a modern, contractual arrangement which will
maintain all the good things that we all recognise about the relationship
but get rid of some of the anomalies and give us a sound basis
for placing work in the private sector as the strategies develop".[158]
63. The BVA stressed the need for a "partnership
between the state, the private practitioner and
the farming
community".[159]
We have highlighted that need throughout our report. It is clear
that much of the statutory veterinary work in the country is undertaken
by private practitioners acting on Defra's behalf in the capacity
of an LVI. It would be foolhardy of Defra to jeopardise that relationship.
We therefore recommend that Defra not only use the review to
revise relationships with LVIs but also to discuss what lessons
can be learned in its relations with those private vets who do
not undertake LVI work but who are likely to be involved in the
delivery of the animal health and welfare and surveillance strategies.
Organisation and staffing
64. Dr Anderson's concerns about the difficulty of
recruiting to the SVS appear, at least temporarily, to have been
overcome. Both the RCVS and the BVA, as well as Defra, noted that
foot and mouth disease had publicised the role of the SVS and
had stimulated a lot of interest in the SVS's recent recruitment
exercises, leading to the appointment of "some really high
quality people".[160]
65. However, the NFU believed that "the SVS
is understaffed for the routine tasks it has to perform".[161]
But Mr Atkinson told us that getting more vets was not the "right
answer". He said that as well as its vets, the SVS had another
thousand staff - "technical assistants, administrative people
and actually lots of constraints are on that level of staff, not
necessarily on the veterinary side".[162]
66. The State Veterinary Service has a key role to
play in delivering the animal health and welfare and veterinary
surveillance strategies. Not only must it bring forward appropriate
policies, it also has to improve its links with private sector
vets to ensure that all those who play a part in improving the
animal health and welfare of the nation are equipped to do so.
Once the LVI review is over, Defra should assess the staffing
requirements of the State Veterinary Service. The assessment should
consider the implications of the animal health and welfare and
surveillance strategies on current working practices and the demands
on the service of a future large-scale animal disease outbreak,
as well as taking into account the needs of the revised contracts
with LVIs.
140 Ev 47, Annex A, para 2. Back
141
Defra, Animal health 2001: the report of the Chief Veterinary
Officer, Appendix E. Back
142
Q 146. Back
143
Defra, Animal health 2002: the report of the Chief Veterinary
Officer, Appendix E. Back
144
Q 158. Back
145
Ev 47, Annex A, para 4. Back
146
Ev 47, Annex A, para 8. Back
147
Foot and mouth disease 2001: Lessons to be Learned Inquiry, HC
(2001-02) 888, pp. 160-161. Back
148
Ibid, p. 28. Back
149
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, foot and Mouth
Disease 2001: Lessons to be Learned Inquiry, Minutes of Evidence,
HC (2001-02) 1144, Qq 95-96. Back
150
Infectious diseases in livestock, paras 10.35 and 10.37. Back
151
Q 63. Back
152
Ev 25, para 18. Back
153
Ev 4, para 16. Back
154
Ev 7, para 34. Back
155
Q 175. Back
156
Ev 42, para 4. Back
157
Q 117. Back
158
Q 159. Back
159
Q 25. Back
160
Q 56, Q 25, Q 157 and Q 160. Back
161
Ev 37, para 14. Back
162
Q 166. Back