Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Written Evidence


Memorandum submitted by Mrs J R Gidlow BVSc, MRCVS, Ewing &Gidlow (W12)

  I am a Large Animal Veterinary Surgeon, Principal of a four/five vet practice situated in rural North Northumberland. I have enclosed a map taken from the Competition Commission Report to indicate site of practice and area covered [not printed]. I would like to point out that there appears to be an error in the database since there are no surgeries shown in North Northumberland!

  I qualified in 1985 from Liverpool and went to work on the Isle of Bute, moving to Wooler in 1987. I took a career break from 1992-94 then returned to the practice as a Partner (one of three). Within 18 months one partner aged 40 left practice to run a Dairy farm. In 1999 the then Senior partner retired early at age 56. The economy of the local area is based on Agriculture. The livestock is mostly beef, and sheep kept on large Farms. Many clients farm more than one holding and employ stockmen and shepherds. The farms are run as Agribusinesses. Whilst I have been in practice we have endeavoured to provide a service which encourages preventative medicine, although this by it's very nature decreases the need for "fire brigade" work.

  Since becoming a partner in 1996 there have been several dramatic events affecting farming and the Practice.

  In March 1997 that the BSE announcement was made in the Commons The number of farm visits dropped by half overnight. This was a direct result of the dramatic fall in the value of stock which meant that individual animals were no longer worth getting a vet out to. The Agricultural recession followed. Farm labour was further reduced. The practice made fewer visits but the financial effect was initially limited because of our preventative medicine policy. But we had to work a lot harder to demonstrate the benefits of continued use. Farmers have became increasingly more demanding when visits are made,the diagnosis has to be right first time. More farmers began treating animals themselves, phoning for advice and POM being handed out as result. Visits were declined. Farmers viewed this as a cost cutting exercise.

  Then Spring 2001, FMD came into the Practice area but few farms were slaughtered out. A large number were placed under D notices so they could not be visited. In latter stages farms were inspected by us for stock movement purposes. This was the first time in many months we had been on some of the farms. Never had we had the opportunity to inspect all the animals on some farms, this was a real eye opener. Most of my vets remarked on how many lame sheep they were seeing which, hitherto not recognised as major problem. In addition the numbers of farmers with stock in several different places were far more extensive than we realised—another effect of the agricultural recession.

  In March 2002 the practice undertook some market research and Farmers were questioned on their attitude to provision of services and costs. The general agreement was they had all reduced the number of callouts to cut costs and this had had a direct impact on animal welfare. Some unpleasant things were happening on their farms which they would not have thought possible to allow 10 years ago. They were now forced to accept this as a "sign of the times". The overriding feeling was that animal welfare was suffering but there was nothing farmers could do about it given their economic circumstances. These farmers comments were in keeping with our own observations.

  This has now had marked financial impact. In order to keep some presence on the farms we have kept our visit charges down, this is counterbalanced to some extent by our selling of medicines which contributes significantly to our turnover. We do not charge for our telephone advice to try and keep some contact with the farmers.

  Although we have tried to diversify our interests there are only a very limited number of SA and Equine clients. I have developed my interest in game bird work which is useful in the summer when LA practice is quiet. Due to the nature of beef and sheep husbandry, busy times for LA practice are the Spring and Autumn calving, Spring lambing and Autumn/Winter housing for cattle. We also sell PML wormers, vaccines etc. for use in livestock. This is a very price competitive area because there are four "trade" outlets within the locality. It is necessary to compete in the marketplace. Margins are tight on these products but we regard this part of the practice as essential to ensure farmers have available the best possible advice.

  I have always been a committed LA vet and accept that being on duty is part of the job. All my vets describe the worst part of their job as "being on duty". It is not possible to have a separate "out of hours" clinic as do SA practices in cities, or spread the out of hours amongst other practices for reasons described below. I have just read the CC report in its entirety. I am therefore disgusted to read the Chapter 2, para 159 which says that the RCVS & BVA do not regard 24 hour cover as an onerous burden!! Although Fire Brigade work is less, cows with calving difficulties do and will still occur at 1.00 am. The cost of provision of this overall service is enormous. LA farmers have subsidised this through their purchases of POM medicines from Vets. If these CC proposals are implemented in full it will put a serious question mark over the future of the Practice unless new means of funding are found. All the financial details quoted indicate that already large animal practices are the least profitable of all types of practice. The CC report gives figures for income of LA partners which are not high especially when interest on capital invested in the business is taken into account. There is a real danger overall vet costs will increase if medicines are purchased elsewhere. Although other practices within Northumberland (see map) have a much larger SA client base the same economics apply to the LA side of their businesses. The danger is that many mixed practices will cease any LA work if it becomes more uneconomic, and other LA practices will cease to exist. Farmers may only become aware of this situation when it is too late. There are other ways of financing LA service but these will take time to introduce to farmers.

  We have one vet on duty at night and weekends, a one in four rota. If the practice was reduced in manpower, the hours on call would increase significantly. We work 42 hours plus 32 "on call" hours per week. To amalgamate out of hours with other practices would increase the workload and distances travelled per night since there would be fewer vets on call to cover the same area. Farmers would have to wait longer. Ultimately it is the animals for whom treatment is delayed who suffer. Would any vet be willing to work night and day ?

  It is already extremely difficult to find competent experienced large animal vets. This has been an increasing problem for a number of years. I believe this is due to:

    (a)  LA poorly taught at University so new graduates feel ill equipped to go into LA work. Many then have unpleasant experiences and retreat into Small Animal work.

    (b)  The increasing number of women entering the profession—an excellent paper by Ms C Sheild demonstrates that the working life of woman vet is only 2/3 that of male counterpart. She also demonstrated that women are much less inclined to take on the responsibilities of partnership or ownership of a practice, which is also true of the younger members of the profession in general.

    (c)  There is a large drop out rate from our profession of both sexes, due to the job not living up to expectations. Are the wrong students being taken into University ?

    (d)  Students at University are told that there is "no future in LA work" (we had an excellent local student who was persistently told this at University for three years, he then decided to go and be an equine vet).

    (e)  Extreme difficulty of introducing a new graduate into large animal practice due to increased farmer expectation. Few basic jobs are done by vets eg Dehorning, castration. Farmworkers are more knowledgeable (which is good) so when vets are called in for eg calving, they are always difficult. Often the newly qualified vet is not as good at calving cows as stockmen. It is vital that support is given so that neither clients or New graduates lose confidence. They need to trust their vet otherwise they will not call them out.

    (f)  The responsibilities placed on us now are quite enormous, giving advice relating to thousands of pounds worth of stock. Bigger farms with more stock increases this. As compared with small animal work where there is usually only one client and one animal to be dealt with at any one time.

    (g)  This shortage is particularly acute in very rural areas like ours. So few people are used to living in the country. Our nearest Marks and Spencer is 60 miles away!! We and another local practice advertised last year—the one suitable applicant with the relevant experience chose to work for another practice down South. We re-advertised four months later. Of the six replies the best on offer was a new graduate from a crofting family. As Principal, I work an average of 55 hours a week, plus "on call" 32 hours in support of the New graduate, plus other demands on my time (I am writing this on Easter Sunday). With only three experienced vets it would be not be feasible for me to work the above plus another 32 hours on call to support a new grad, and nor could anyone else be expected to do so. It is vital to bring on younger members of the profession which is why we have students for their extra mural studies and employ a New grad. The continuation of this is in doubt unless we can be supported in some way.

    (h)  In recent times a significant number of senior partners have retired early from LA practice. Many citing the level of aggravation in LA practice due to the previously outlined reasons. Within the locality, five have retired early from four practices all saying they have "had enough."

  The combined effect of all the above will have serious consequences for the farming community if allowed to continue unchecked.

  Vets are being constantly urged to assess overall levels of disease and effects on health welfare and production for the whole of a farming enterprise. The breadth and depth of knowledge required to do this takes several years to achieve. Considerable effort is needed to keep up to date by attending conferences, seminars etc. This is more difficult and time consuming for a rural area practice. Nearly all CPD is at least three hours each way and usually requires an overnight stay. CPD and all associated costs is an additional expense borne by the practice.

  Surveillance is a very important issue, if we don't get onto a farm we don't get an opportunity to see what is really going on. As a result many diseases are not diagnosed, in addition fewer samples are taken for lab tests. Talking to farmers and prescribing over the phone is just not the same. Too many POM' s are handed out without seeing the animal concerned. We and another local practice have urged for a review of the definition of `animals under our care' as set out in RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct. We would like it more defined but have been told by both BVA and RCVS that this would be `difficult to do'. So nothing is going to happen. The definition is so woolly only one farmer in our survey recognised that there was any restriction in the prescribing of POMs at all. We really need to get back on farm to see more animals to stand a chance of providing any meaningful surveillance. In addition to a tightening of the `animals under our care definition', I believe quarterly or bi-annual visits for whole farm assessment would bring enormous benefits in terms of animal welfare and surveillance.

  AHWS has drawn attention to Farm Assurance and Herd/Flock Health Plans. We estimate that more than 70% of our farmers are members of a Farm Assured Scheme. Not once have we ever had to confirm to any FAS that a member of their scheme is our client, although for all the schemes every farm must nominate a vet.

  FAS could be useful if set up in the right way. A huge amount of effort has been put in by BCVA and NDFAS to introduce their scheme. BCVA approved vet sets up a plan and signs to say it conforms to what is required BUT no assessment takes place as to whether plan is being adhered to. The Vet does not sign to say plan is being complied with.

  Similar problems exist when other HP's are created. Although many schemes advise the use of vet there is no absolute requirement for their involvement when an HP is constructed. eg FABBL. Although for FABBL a written HP is now required I have yet to hear of any farmer being asked to produce theirs.

  Creation of a HP so that it is workable, meaningful and addresses all the relevant issues of prevalent diseases, production problems, uses of wormers, vaccines and other medicines is a hugely time consuming, difficult and intricate task. In depth knowledge of the individual farm and farmer as well as historical, current disease status etc. is required before commencing. In my professional capacity the construction of HP's is one of the most challenging areas. Whilst others in the industry can help create HP's, if POMS are incorporated I would regard veterinary involvement as a must BUT all the effort is a waste of time unless an HP is used and its impact on the Farming enterprise is monitored and updates made. At present no FAS or HP incorporates a requirement for this.

  I believe that this is the way forward to assess the amount of disease present in our farms in the UK. Concerted efforts need to be made by all parties. At present our farmers just see HP as writing down what they already do. An enormous amount of education needs to be done with farmers reference the real benefits of HP's. Who will monitor them for assessment of improvement/deterioration. Should standards be set? Some vets argue that if it was to be `own vet' enforcing standards there could be a conflict of interest however, if we have created the plan we should oversee its' implementation. Periodically there could always be external verification as was used for a similar scheme in the pig industry.

SVS

  All of the vets in the practice now have LVI status to be able to carry out work for DEFRA. Most is routine testing for TB (every four years) and Brucellosis (every two years). It was demonstrated in the FMD outbreak of 2001 how vital the resource of vets in practice can be. Three vets from my practice went on rotation to DEFRA as TVI's. In addition, within the practice huge amounts of work both paid and unpaid was generated by DEFRA. Many vets feel that they were `left out of the loop' on numerous occasions such as when press announcements were made, we were bombarded by our farmers for information which DEFRA did not make available to us. In essence it would seem that DEFRA want us when they need us but not for the rest of the time. We perform many other LVI duties some of which are paid for by DEFRA some of which are paid for by the client. We advise on many other issues unpaid.

TYPES OF LA PRACTICE

  I recognise our Beef and Sheep practice is at the sharp end of the problem compared to Dairy large animal practice, for a number of reasons :

  (1)  Dairy practices have many clients within a short distance due to the intense stocking of dairy cows. Beef farms are more extensive, more travelling, fewer visits.

  (2)  Routine veterinary visits are common for dairy farms—many animals seen on one visit occurring on weekly/fortnightly/monthly basis, compared to extensive beef farming where individual animals are often required to be seen.

  (3)  Dairy cows are much quieter and used to being handled. Increasingly beef cows are becoming dangerous to work with—far removed from the quiet temperament of Hereford X cows that used to be present on farms.

  (4)  Much more research is done into dairy cows, mastitis, nutrition. Easier for vets to investigate a problem and provide solutions due to the amount of information available.

  (5)  Many practices say they never see sheep—this has real consequences for animal welfare and the sheep industry.

  (6)  In essence, Beef and Sheep vet work is physically hard, dirty, dangerous and mentally taxing with large responsibilities.

  We are part of the local community employing seven other people from the locality. We hold farmer meetings, provide vet cover for local shows, attend at Kelso races and many other events. I am also participating in a local farmer initiative to control sheep scab in the Cheviot Hills. All of these will be lost if the number of LA vets is allowed to decline still further. Whilst I fully appreciate the economics of competition and the view that a free market economy is best—what price animal welfare ? If farmers are allowed to continue to ignore it because of economics, then they will. I remain a committed LA vet but I wonder for how long?

25 April 2003



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 23 October 2003