Memorandum submitted by the British Equine
Veterinary Association (Vet 14)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. BEVA does not believe that the provisions
set out in the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 meet the current needs
of the modern veterinary and related professions or of animals
and their keepers. First, the disciplinary processes laid out
by the Act are not satisfactory. Second, the Act does not provide
for the regulation of the other (non veterinary surgeon) groups
and individuals who provide veterinary services to horses and
BEVA therefore believes the Act does not adequately protect equine
health and welfare.
2. BEVA believes that extensive revision
to the disciplinary process is essential to serve properly the
needs of the veterinary profession and that such revision is in
the public interest. This revision must include the constitution
and independence of disciplinary committees; the recruitment,
training and guidance of those committees; and more flexibility
in sentencing with a broader range of sanctions.
3. BEVA is extremely concerned about the
impact that some unregulated groups and individuals already have
on equine health and welfare. BEVA also believes that the current
system of Exemption Orders does not provide an enforceable means
of protecting horses and horse owners against unsatisfactory work
carried out by these groups and individuals. BEVA considers regulation
of these groups and individuals to be in the public interest and
therefore to be a high priority for the protection of equine welfare.
4. BEVA supports the regulation of the delivery
of veterinary services through the regulation of individual veterinary
surgeons and a voluntary practice standards scheme that is transparent
and visible to the public. BEVA does not support a mandatory practice
standards scheme and considers that a voluntary scheme and the
effect of market forces will ensure best value to the public,
especially in rural areas.
5. BEVA supports the proposal that veterinary
surgeons are regulated by the RCVS Council and veterinary nurses
are regulated by the Veterinary Nurses Council. These councils
should have the power to require compulsory continuing professional
development. BEVA supports revalidation of veterinary surgeons
and veterinary nurses provided this is achieved through satisfactory
achievement of continuing professional development requirements
as laid down by the respective Councils. BEVA further believes
that new legislation should provide for regulation, via an additional
Council, of other groups that provide veterinary services to horses
and horse owners in order to protect equine welfare and safeguard
the public.
6. BEVA believes that it is highly desirable
that the RCVS and VN Councils should contain lay representation.
Lay representation should also be included throughout the disciplinary
process.
7. BEVA further believes that is essential
that all stages of the disciplinary process are entirely independent
from the Councils and that any individuals who serve on the Councils
may not serve on any of the disciplinary committees. BEVA strongly
believes that the Conduct and Competence Committee should not
be able to make interim orders suspending a veterinary surgeon:
such a system would inevitably need to unjustifiable loss of income
in cases where unfounded allegations had been made.
8. BEVA does support the concept of the
"veterinary team", led by a veterinary surgeon and with
the animal concerned being under the care of the veterinary surgeon.
However, although BEVA can see merit in the proposal that veterinary
surgeons should be able to delegate specified procedures to people
holding RCVS-recognised qualifications, BEVA is very concerned
about those paraprofessional groups or individuals who choose
not to enter into such an arrangement. Those groups or individuals
who chose not to take part would remain both unregulated and outside
the "veterinary team". BEVA is therefore concerned that
should this proposal be implemented, the current unsatisfactory
situation with regard to equine paraprofessionals in relation
to safeguarding equine welfare would be perpetuated.
INTRODUCTION
9. The British Equine Veterinary Association
(BEVA) is a specialist species division of the British Veterinary
Association and is a professional association representing equine
veterinary surgeons within the UK.
10. BEVA has 2,400 members representing
all branches of the equine veterinary profession. The large majority
(approx 75%) of BEVA members are in private mixed or specialist
equine veterinary practice providing ambulatory veterinary services,
as opposed to the primarily clinic-based services provided by
small animal veterinary practices. The UK horse, pony and donkey
population has risen considerably in the last decade, to a current
estimate of 1.3 million animals. In contrast to farm animal practice,
the demand for equine veterinary services has increased alongside
the increases in the UK horse population and the increasing numbers
of people (estimated to be 4.3 million) riding either occasionally
or regularly. The horse industry in the UK has an estimated annual
value of £4 billion and equine veterinary surgeons play a
major role in this highly successful and valuable sector of the
economy.
11. The equine veterinary profession continues
to provide 24 hr services to horse owners across all regions of
the UK and does so without using deputising services. The equine
veterinary profession has therefore developed, and maintains,
an efficient, cost-effective and workable system for the provision
of equine veterinary care and the protection of equine welfare.
12. BEVA strongly believes that revision
of the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act is necessary and welcomes
the current inquiry.
BEVA RESPONSES TO
THE EFRA
SELECT COMMITTEE'S
QUESTIONS
Question 1. Are the provisions of the 1966
Act out of step with developments in the veterinary surgeon and
related professions?
13. BEVA believes that the 1966 Act is out
of step with developments in the related professions within the
equine sector and therefore no longer serves the needs the public
or provides a satisfactory mechanism for safeguarding equine health
and welfare. It is worth pointing out that the significant changes
that have occurred in both small animal practice (corporate ownership
and delegation of out-of-hours provision to deputising services)
and farm animal practice (decrease in demand for veterinary services
and a decline in the number of practices) have not occurred in
equine practice. Equine veterinary practice has increased in the
last decade and equine practices provide highly efficient round-the-clock
delivery of veterinary services to horse owners and their horses
thereby ensuring optimum welfare and continuity of professional
care. However, a significant change within equine sector has been
the growth in the number of "paraprofessional" groups
and individuals offering veterinary services to owners, notably
equine dental technicians and equine artificial insemination technicians.
14. The existing legislation (the 1966 Act
and Exemption Orders) is not satisfactory with respect to the
regulation of these paraprofessional groups. Complaints received
by BEVA about unsatisfactory or illegal work by equine dental
technicians and artificial insemination technicians suggests that
members of the public are not aware of the regulatory framework
provided by the existing legislation. BEVA does not believe that
the current legislation safeguards the public interest, or equine
welfare, and is not sufficiently robust to safeguard public confidence
in the veterinary profession or protect equine welfare.
15. BEVA considers that the disciplinary
processes laid out by the 1996 Act do not meet the needs of the
modern veterinary profession. BEVA believes strongly that revisions
to the disciplinary process are required to provide more transparency
and independence of the process; a greater range of sanctions
including warnings and remedial measures; and improved procedures
for recruitment, training and guidance of those serving on disciplinary
committees.
Question 2. Should there be regulation of
providers of veterinary care other than veterinary surgeons?
16. BEVA believes that the definition of an
act of veterinary surgery should not be changed and that performance
of acts of veterinary surgery should be restricted to veterinary
surgeons or to properly regulated, suitably qualified individuals
who are not veterinary surgeons carrying out specified veterinary
procedures.
17. BEVA supports regulation of veterinary
nurses along the lines proposed by the RCVS, with a Veterinary
Nursing Council.
18. BEVA is very concerned about the equine
welfare problems currently caused by some members of unregulated
paraprofessional groups performing substandard work or acting
in contravention to the 1966 Act. BEVA is further concerned that
such welfare problems will not be addressed if regulation of these
groups together with effective enforcement is not achieved by
new legislation to replace the 1966 Act.
19. BEVA believes very strongly that regulation
should be extended to all providers of veterinary care and should
not be restricted to veterinary surgeons and nurses. This is essential
to safeguard equine health and welfare. Furthermore, maintenance
of public confidence in the "veterinary team" is dependent
on there being regulation of all providers of veterinary care,
not simply the veterinary surgeon and veterinary nurse.
20. BEVA does not consider that Exemption
Orders provide a suitable mechanism for regulating the activities
of paraprofessional groups and individuals. Whilst BEVA accepts
that Exemption Orders provide, in principal, a mechanism to allow
competent individuals who are not veterinary surgeons to carry
out specified acts of veterinary surgery, the lack of enforcement
means that Exemption Orders do not properly safeguard equine health
and welfare. BEVA therefore strongly believes that Exemption Orders
are not satisfactory and should be not be continued. Equine health
and welfare can only be safeguarded by regulation of paraprofessionals
within a new legislative framework.
21. BEVA believes that the principle of
self regulation should be extended to paraprofessionals and that
a framework along the lines set out for veterinary surgeons and
veterinary nurses in this consultation would provide a practical
and workable means of achieving this goal.
Question 3. Should the delivery of veterinary
services be regulated through a mandatory practice standards scheme,
with a professional code of ethics, rather than the RCVS regulating
practitioners on an individual basis?
22. BEVA supports regulation of delivery
of veterinary services and the standards of those services though
a combination of a voluntary practice standards scheme
and the regulation of individuals.
23. BEVA does not however support the concept
of a mandatory practice standards scheme and considers that the
costs of a mandatory scheme may be difficult for small rural practices
to bear. BEVA is concerned that a mandatory scheme may therefore
reduce the provision of veterinary care in rural areas and therefore
may not be in the public interest or in the best interest of equine
welfare.
24. BEVA believes that regulation of individual
equine veterinary surgeons together with publicising of a voluntary
practice standards scheme and consumer market forces will ensure
optimum delivery of equine veterinary services. Equine practitioners
are highly committed and conscientious individuals operating from
small businesses delivering 24 hour veterinary care to the highest
possible standards in ambulatory practice and BEVA does not consider
that the imposition of mandatory practice standards is required
or desirable, in particular for small rural equine practices.
Question 4. Should the RCVS Council and VN
Council be given power to require continuing professional development
and revalidation?
25. BEVA supports mandatory CPD for veterinary
surgeons and veterinary nurses and that requirements for mandatory
CPD should be determined by the relevant Council.
26. BEVA supports revalidation for veterinary
surgeons and veterinary nurses provided that this is based on
satisfactory completion of CPD as laid down by the RCVS and VN
Councils.
Question 5. Should the governing body of
the RCVS and VNC include appointed lay persons?
27. BEVA believes that it is essential that
the governing bodies include lay persons. Public confidence in
the regulation of the veterinary and nursing professions is best
achieved with effective lay representation on the RCVS Council
and the VN council. BEVA notes that the current limited lay representation
on RCVS Council has been beneficial and supports extension of
this principle in the current proposals.
28. BEVA further believes that there should
be effective lay representation at every stage of the disciplinary
process so that public confidence in the disciplinary process
and in self regulation of the profession is maintained.
Question 6. Should the RCVS and VNC have
a separate conduct committee with powers to investigate complaints,
give warnings and to make interim orders pending proceedings?
29. BEVA strongly supports the proposal
that RCVS and VNC have conduct committees that are separate from
their councils. BEVA further believes that it is imperative that
such conduct committees are entirely separate from the
councils and that individuals may not serve on both Council and
conduct committee.
30. BEVA believes that the constitution
of the conduct committee, the recruitment of its members, together
with provision of appropriate training, guidance on sanctions
and self-review of performance are vital for the proper function
of the conduct committee. The operations of the equivalent conduct
committees of the General Medical Council and General Dental Council
provide suitable working models.
31. BEVA does not support the proposal that
the conduct committee should be able to make interim orders pending
proceedings. Such an order will have serious financial impact
on a practitioner and, should the allegation prove unfounded and
the individual not be found guilty of professional misconduct,
such loss of earnings and possible damage to professional standing
would be entirely unacceptable.
32. BEVA strongly supports the proposal
that there should be greater flexibility in the disciplinary process
and a greater range of sanctions should be available to the conduct
committee, including warnings and remedial action to correct deficiencies.
BEVA believes that the aim of the disciplinary process should,
wherever possible, to improve standards of professional practice
to safeguard animal welfare and protect the public: the current
limited range of sanctions available to the RCVS disciplinary
committee does not achieve these aims.
Question 7. Should the RCVS have the power
to delegate specified procedures to people holding qualifications
recognised by RCVS Council?
33. BEVA does support the concept of the
"veterinary team" providing integrated care of an animal.
This team should be led by a veterinary surgeon and the animal
concerned should be under the care of the veterinary surgeon.
34. BEVA does not, however, consider that
the proposal to delegate procedures to individuals recognised
by the RCVS would provide satisfactory working arrangements between
veterinary surgeons and equine paraprofessionals. Whilst this
proposal would integrate some paraprofessionals into the "veterinary
team", BEVA is very concerned about those paraprofessional
groups or individuals that choose not to enter into such a RCVS
recognition scheme along the lines proposed and would thus remain
outside the "veterinary team". BEVA is concerned therefore
that this proposal will not properly safeguard equine welfare
because it would include some paraprofessionals only.
35. BEVA is therefore concerned that should
this proposal be implemented, the current unsatisfactory situation
with regard to integrating equine paraprofessionals into the "veterinary
team" and to safeguarding equine health and welfare would
be perpetuated.
36. BEVA notes that although veterinary
surgeons would have the ability to decide whether to delegate
and to whom under this scheme, the veterinary surgeon would
presumably be responsible for the work carried out by those individuals
and BEVA questions whether this is a satisfactory arrangement
for the veterinary surgeon. BEVA also notes that the economic
implications of this proposal, should such an arrangement require
the veterinary surgeon to be present whilst the work is being
carried out, may prove unattractive to owners.
September 2007
| 
