Memorandum submitted by Eamon McAllister
(Vet 10)
I must thank you for allowing me this opportunity
to express my views on the possibility of a new Veterinary Surgeons
Act.
I have been a Member of the Royal College of
Veterinary Surgeons since 1973 and have been in general practice
almost exclusively since that date, a period which included running
my own successful surgeries in the London area for 25 years. For
the record my relations with the RCVS have always been cordial
and I have never been the subject of any disciplinary procedure.
My experience of the RCVS compels me to submit
that a new VSA is necessary to address a fundamental problem within
its Governing Council which in turn has a bearing on your other
agenda.
The RCVS is a highly political power hungry
organisation with an annual budget of £5 million and a staff
of over 60.
Its members, the vast majority of whom are in
general practice regard it with fear, suspicion and distrust and
are resigned to the fact that they will never have any influence
on decision making due to the current structure of the GC.
There are 40 seats on the GC occupied by 24
candidates elected by the membership, 12 appointed by the universities
and four appointed by the Privy Council. Of the 24 elected a significant
number are academics or others with little experience in practice.
Thus a very strong academic bias exists in the GC and general
practitioners are grossly underrepresented.
The annual election is preceded by widespread
canvassing and intensive publicity emphasising the importance
of exercising the franchise but paradoxically the RCVS has recently
taken great pains to explain that the word "member"
as in MRCVS is a misnomer and that it does not see its role as
being that of a representative body.
Confusion, frustration and anger have produced
apathy so extensive that "turnout" in the annual elections
is consistently less than 19%—void by United Nations electoral
standards and certainly no mandate to lead. (Included in this
figure of 19% are a considerable number of votes cast in favour
of no-hope candidates as a protest.)
As a consequence a largely self selected and
unelected body of ambitious individuals with a massive bias favouring
academia and related interest groups is governing a profession
which is cynical and sceptical of its motives.
There is widespread alarm and dismay at the
RCVS proposals to introduce and police compulsory CPD as well
as mandatory practice standards. It has also offered to maintain
a register of premises for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate
and hopes to integrate all of the above with its own discredited
Veterinary Nurses Training scheme neatly acquiring a fearful amount
of power and influence which will soon choke general practice
with bureaucracy and overregulation.
Public confidence in the profession is waning
and our fees are rising reflecting the increased costs of compliance
and extra staff not to mention the loss of very effective and
cheap generic medications shamelessly banned in legislation promoted
by the VMD. There is an overdependence on insurance companies
for economic success and increasing ill health amongst the membership
due to high stress levels from overwork and a huge burden of responsibility.
I submit that there should be a new VSA and
that one of its first provisions be to address this problem so
that 30 seats on the GC are reserved for elected contenders, six
for university appointees and four for those appointed by the
Privy Council. In addition, only those with a verifiable minimum
of five years spent in general practice should be eligible for
election.
I contend that with the removal of this distortion
and with this basic democratic reform in situ many of the current
complexities can be resolved and a sense of optimism restored
to this loyal but beleaguered profession.
September 2007
| 
