Memorandum submitted by Mervyn Harris
(Vet 25)
I write as a veterinary surgeon who has worked
continuously in private practice since qualifying in 1966. I have
worked as an assistant in mixed practice, as a sole proprietor
and as a partner in a six-vet practice until 2005, when the practice
was sold and I was employed as a part-time veterinary surgeon.
I am a member of the BVA and SPVS and currently sit on the Councils
of both organisations.
The issues that face our profession are both
similar and different to those that faced me when I qualified.
Confidence in the profession by the public then seemed higher,
employment law was much less complicated, males dominated the
profession, the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct was stricter
and unequivocal, CPD was often free and locally provided, distinction
between the roles of veterinary surgeons and "paraprofessionals"
was more clear cut, contact with colleagues was frequent and valued,
the need to provide an out-of-hours service was accepted and fulfilled.
Whilst it would seem reasonable to assume that
any legislation dating from 1966 cannot fulfil the requirements
of regulating the profession 40 years later, the 1966 Act has
stood the "test of time" remarkably well and I have
reservations about repealing it, especially if present regulatory
needs can be fulfilled by other means, such as using the "Section
60 Option". The option of using this and other mechanisms
should be fully explored first and only if, after careful examination,
the required needs cannot be met should repeal of the 1966 Act
be considered.
In relation to the specific bullet points listed
in the Press Notice Number 50, I reply as follows:
1. I do not believe that the veterinary
profession is constrained in its development or in being able
to follow changes/developments in our kindred professions by the
1966 Act. The profession has embraced a lot of change, especially
within the past 10 years, and this has taken place without the
need for primary legislation.
2. Regulation of veterinary care outside
the profession is important, but change to what is in place already
is only necessary if the current system is failing to protect
the interests of animals and the provision of proper standards
of animal welfare. Evidence of this should be the only driver
of change.
3. The delivery of veterinary services will
be primarily led by market forces. The public are much better
informed now than previously and if a practice does not provide
the expected standard of care required by a client, someone else
will, and the client will follow that service. "Pull factors"
work better at driving up standards than "push factors",
such as mandatory practice standards. A greater emphasis on the
need to comply with the law in all aspects of running a practice
is desirable and should provide the necessary "push factor"
in this matter. Mandatory standards would be expensive and complicated
to implement, enforce and oversee, and may not achieve the desired
result anyway.
4. The RCVS and VNC should encourage, educate
and even shame professionals into undertaking continuing cpd.
The concept of "lifelong learning" is starting to take
hold and I think this is a better way to achieve more cpd and
higher standards than having a compulsory system. This should
undermine the need for revalidation, a concept which has huge
ramifications.
5. Lay person representation on RCVS and
VNC should be implemented.
6. The whole process of conduct committees
should be reviewed and made more flexible and appropriate to the
present day. The current system is creaking and often dispenses
rough or inappropriate justice. A transparent, well-defined, even-handed,
flexible and fairer system is overdue.
7. I agree with the RCVS having powers to
delegate specified procedures to people holding appropriate qualifications.
I hope these comments are helpful.
September 2007
| 
