List of recommendations
1. We
were disappointed that, given the amount of time and the level
of consultation which has already taken place on the profession's
governance, the RCVS had not yet sorted out the detail involved
in its reform proposals. We believe that a profession of its size
and importance should by now have had drafted a new Bill as a
way of firming up its proposals and to help persuade Defra of
its need for action towards new legislation in this area. (Paragraph
22)
2. Whilst there is
general support for the greater inclusion of lay members on the
Council of the RCVS, the Royal College must develop a clear plan
for the structure of its proposed new Council under a new Act.
The proportion of lay membership should be no less than 40% and
professional members of the Council should be both appointed and
elected. It is entirely appropriate that members of the profession
should meet the costs of their own regulatory body through registration
fees. The RCVS should analyse the additional costs likely from
the creation of its new structures, in addition to the other changes
it has proposed, and how these will affect the average veterinary
practice and its customers. (Paragraph 23)
3. The resources for
work on a White Paper for new primary legislation for the veterinary
profession are unlikely to be available before 2011. Whilst this
is a disappointment, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
should use the time now available to elaborate and clarify its
proposals in greater detail, to consider further the case for
those of its proposals which do not have general support within
the profession, and to assess the potential cost of its proposals
for regulating professional standards to the profession and to
the consumer. We find it surprising that the RCVS Council was
unaware of the decision taken by Defra to halt work on new primary
legislation. Defra appears to have raised the profession's expectations
that a new Act would be introduced in the near future. Defra should
ensure that in future its working relationship with the RCVS is
improved. (Paragraph 28)
4. We agree wholeheartedly
with the Department's assessment of the drawbacks of the present
disciplinary system. It is not satisfactory for customers who
have a genuine case for complaint about the professional standards
of a vet to only have recourse to the civil law, without any appeal
to a regulatory body. (Paragraph 42)
5. We agree that there
ought to be a wider range of sanctions available to the Royal
College of Veterinary Surgeons in order to give greater flexibility
and proportionality to the operation of the complaints process.
(Paragraph 44)
6. There is a pressing
need for the disciplinary process for veterinary surgeons to be
updated. We agree that there ought to be a separation between
the RCVS Council, which sets rules for the profession, and the
Disciplinary Committee, which adjudicates complaints on the basis
of those rules. This should not wait until 2011. The RCVS should
hold further discussions with Defra on whether changes to the
process could be achieved through a more modest legislative proposal
than would be required for wholesale reform of its procedures.
For example, a Private Member's Bill drafted with advice from
Defra could be taken through by a Member of Parliament sympathetic
to the RCVS proposals. Meanwhile, the RCVS should continue to
improve its current procedures through administrative reforms
which can be achieved within the current legislative framework.
(Paragraph 49)
7. The
RCVS's case for a mandatory practice standards scheme does not
appear to be proven or to have the support of the wider veterinary
profession. The RCVS should for the present focus its energies
on promoting its voluntary scheme to the profession to demonstrate
the potential benefits to veterinary surgeons who do maintain
high standards of a mandatory system. (Paragraph
61)
8. We
accept that continuing professional development is good practice,
but the RCVS still has a long way to go to convince the profession
of the need for mandatory continuing professional development
and revalidation. We support some form of mandatory requirement
in principle, but the College, together with other bodies in the
veterinary professions, should consider carefully the potential
impact of these proposals on smaller practices and prepare an
analysis of the likely costs for consideration as part of the
work towards a new Act. (Paragraph 68)
9. There
appears to be general agreement that the veterinary nurse profession
has evolved to a stage where it warrants its own statutory framework
of regulation. We recommend that the Royal College of Veterinary
Surgeons and the Veterinary Nurses Council develop their proposals
further to present a clear structure for future consideration.
However, there is no clear view across the animal care professions
on how other "para-professionals" ought to be regulated,
but the balance of opinion, which we support, is in favour of
some form of regulation to protect animals and their owners against
the depredations of the wholly unqualified practitioners of potentially
harmful treatments. There is more work to be done by Defra, the
RCVS and the veterinary and animal health professions on Defra's
proposal for a risk-based approach to a new veterinary services
legislative framework. (Paragraph 84)
10. Defra's
decision to walk away from work on a White Paper has left the
revision of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 in a mess. Whilst
Defra's budgetary pressures may not enable it to complete all
the functions that would currently be required to introducing
a new Veterinary Surgeons Act, its decision to halt work completely
on new legislation is untenable. However, the Royal College of
Veterinary Surgeons has not done enough itself to provide a clear
picture of its proposals for a new statutory framework for the
regulation of the profession. The Royal College must provide greater
detail to the profession, and other interested parties, about
its proposals for a new Council and disciplinary structure. In
order to take its proposals further, the Royal College must also
analyse the cost of its proposals to the profession and to the
consumer. The main purpose of any new legislation must be to protect
the consumer, but the veterinary profession must not be overloaded
with unnecessary regulation. (Paragraph 85)
11. It
is unlikely that a complete overhaul of the regulatory structure
will occur before 2011 unless the veterinary profession irons
out its differences and decides what it wants. We believe that
a working party comprising Defra, the Royal College of Veterinary
Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association should share the
costs of developing a new Bill by the end of 2008 with a view
to its being introduced to the House in mid 2009. The profession
must take the matter into its own hands and as a priority coalesce
round some specific proposals to amend the disciplinary process
for veterinary surgeons. This is generally agreed to be the area
of the existing legislation most in need of updating.
(Paragraph 86)
| 
