Memorandum submitted by the Royal (Dick)
School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh (Vet 08)
The response by the senior clinical staff of
the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh
to the request by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
on 10 July 2007 for evidence regarding proposed changes to the
Veterinary Surgeons Act are outlined below.
1. Whether the provisions of the 1966 Act
are out of step with developments in the veterinary surgeon and
related professions
We agree that a more transparent, accountable
approach is required to regulation of the veterinary profession,
with greater involvement of lay members in regulatory committees.
Bringing the veterinary nursing profession, which has matured
as a profession in its own right, under similar regulation within
the RCVS is also desirable.
We believe that an amended Act should address
the possibility of career tracking from an early stage, with the
possibility of veterinary surgeons being licensed to practice
with certain species or within specific disciplines only (with
exceptions for emergency situations).
2. Whether there ought to be regulation of
providers of veterinary care other than veterinary surgeons
We consider that there should also be regulation,
under the auspices of the RCVS, of other service providers including
dental technicians, animal behaviour consultants and providers
of complementary therapies, whether they are working within or
independently of veterinary practices.
3. Whether the delivery of veterinary services
ought to be regulated through a mandatory practice standards scheme,
with a professional code of ethics, rather than the RCVS regulating
practitioners on an individual basis
We agree that there should be a mandatory practice
standards scheme and that the standards should be set jointly
by new Councils, as proposed by the RCVS. However, the details
of how this would be policed and funded require to be clarified.
4. Whether the RCVS and Veterinary Nurses
Council (VNC) should be given the power to require continuing
professional development and revalidation
We support the introduction of mandatory CPD
and agree that power should be given to the RCVS and VNC for this
purpose. The increasing prevalence of career breaks with the increased
numbers of women in the veterinary profession needs careful consideration
in this regard. Regarding licensing, it is agreed that there should
be different categories of licence, as proposed. In particular,
this may help address shortages in certain specialties such as
veterinary public health, pathology and poultry health.
5. Whether the governing body of the RCVS
and VNC ought to include appointed lay persons as well as veterinary
professionals
It is considered that it is desirable to include
lay persons to improve transparency, provide experience from other
professions and represent the views of end users.
6. Whether the RCVS and VNC ought to have
a separate conduct committee with the powers to investigate complaints,
give warnings and to make interim orders pending proceedings
We support the proposed new structure for the
councils, boards, and the separate independent Conduct and Competence
Committee. It is not clear what sanctions the Committee would
have to require persons other than the respondent to disclose
information in disciplinary hearings, as proposed. This requires
clarification. We also support the suggestion that the Conduct
and Competence Committee should be able to give warnings and interim
orders pending proceedings, but there should be clear guidelines
as to when interim orders can be given, for example in cases where
the respondent would constitute a danger to animals under their
care, to the public or to themselves, if allowed to continue to
practise. If such guidelines are not clear, there is a danger
that respondents could be deemed guilty until proven innocent.
7. Whether the RCVS ought to have the power
to delegate specified procedures to people holding qualifications
recognised by the RCVS Council
We agree with the above statement, provided
the specified procedures are individually agreed. See also response
to point 2., above.
August 2007
| 
