Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
MR BOB
MOORE, PROFESSOR
SHEILA CRISPIN,
MS ANDREA
JEFFERY AND
MS JANE
HERN
18 FEBRUARY 2008
Q80 Mr Drew: So no member of the
public could complain to the Privy Council?
Ms Hern: No.
Q81 Mr Drew: That is interesting.
I am not putting words in your mouth, but you are not happy with
the current arrangements and you want to move to this new Conduct
and Competence Committee. I know you went through it in informal
session, but it is important to get on the record how this is
different and how it is going to work.
Professor Crispin: Just to recapitulate,
because it seems that you are not absolutely clear about what
is envisaged, at the moment we would wish for two councils, a
veterinary nurses' council and a veterinary surgeons' council;
and they would join up as a team effort at board level so that
if complaints were made they would be dealt with there, and the
board would look at the seriousness of the complaint and so would
be acting rather like the current Preliminary Investigation Committee.
If the case was then serious enough, it would go to the wonderfully
named Conduct and Competence Committee, which would be, if you
like, the Disciplinary Committee but with more of a lay involvement
and not so restricted as we are at present in terms of not having
any say over the constitution of both the PIC and the Disciplinary
Committee. It would give a situation where, hopefully, it would
be more accountable; it would have greater lay representation
and for the first time—which may be good or may be bad—the
nurses could appear in front of the disciplinary process, which
does not happen at present. It would I hope get over some of the
frustrations that we do feel; that at the moment we have 700 complaints,
but of those very few would justify being called "gross professional
misconduct". You are quite right that I, as an owner of an
animal, would be very unhappy if my dog dies and I do not think
it should have died; but unless someone can prove that is a case
of gross professional misconduct, there is little I can do about
it under the current system.
Q82 Mr Drew: Are you arguing in a
sense that you are going to graduate the levels of complaints,
because you can go from—
Professor Crispin: We would nuance—
Q83 Mr Drew: — from saying,
"This was wrong; we have written to the vet in question",
to, if you like, the nuclear, which is striking the vet off—and
there is not a lot between?
Professor Crispin: Yes. There
would be more sanctions guidance, if you like. It would be more
nuanced than it is at present, and hopefully one would get rid
of some of the frustrations.
Q84 Mr Drew: In terms of that ultimate
sanction, striking a vet off, give us a feel for how often that
happens. My understanding is that it is more to do with other
things than particular veterinary work, because that is quite
difficult to judge.
Professor Crispin: You are right.
One of the difficulties is that it is always much easier in black
and white if somebody dishonestly signs a certificate; it is not
so easy to prove that perhaps someone has killed a dog when they
should not have done, rather than inadvertently. You are quite
right that some things are easier to prove than others, and that
was again one of the difficulties. Whether that would be changed
of course is another matter.
Q85 Mr Williams: As I understand
it, discipline in the veterinary profession is aimed mainly at
the individual veterinary surgeon rather than a practice. You
have set up a practice standards scheme to set minimum or desired
standards within a practice. That, at the moment, is a voluntary
scheme, but you would wish to take it forward as a mandatory scheme
that would cover not only individual vets and partnerships but
body corporates and charities as well. Why do you think there
should be a mandatory scheme?
Professor Crispin: At the moment
you are quite right that it is voluntary, with the intention of
it becoming mandatory, but this is an area where we are still
in discussion with the British Veterinary Association because
it is undoubtedly one of the sticking points. As Jane pointed
out, one of the problems we have at present is that we can deal
with individual veterinary surgeons, but we cannot deal with practices
or premises. Something that has happened certainly during my professional
lifetime is that now we get a number of veterinary practices that
are not actually owned by veterinary surgeons. Sometimes they
have connections with the pet food industry or with other commercial
organisations. It seems crazy that we cannot take them to task
if they step out of line. The second part is that whilst the profession
I think has a tremendous reputation, it can be lost very easily
if you have just one practice that pulls you right down because
it is awful; so, if you like, it makes a better level playing
field for everybody, I would hope.
Q86 Mr Williams: Are you sure you
have got the support of your profession in this matter and how
many responses to your consultation were in favour?
Professor Crispin: I think it
would be fair to say that at the moment it is an area for debate—I
fully acknowledge that.
Q87 David Taylor: I think I just
heard Sheila Crispin talk about the concerns the RCVS has about
the growth of non-veterinary practice, and she included the example
of pet food manufacturers. Can you elaborate on that very quickly?
Professor Crispin: I think anyone
who owns an animal is very aware that when they go into veterinary
practice these days there is a lot of advertising of pet foods,
and some practices are now set up within pet food companies; you
can go and have an animal looked at in that type of situation,
but it is something that is changing and yet the legislation is
not there to deal with the change.
Q88 David Taylor: The Association
of Veterinary Students of Great Britain and Ireland recently debated
a motion that vets should advocate feeding a manufacture of pet
food, did they not?
Professor Crispin: Yes, I was
there.
Q89 David Taylor: You were a guest
at that debate, were you not?
Professor Crispin: Yes, I was.
Q90 David Taylor: You declined to
vote on that.
Professor Crispin: I was there
on an evening off; I was not there in any official capacity, so
I spoke on behalf of my dogs because I thought that was the safest
thing to do. But my views are quite well known: I think that we
probably require a rather pragmatic approach to what we feed our
animals, and that it may well in the case of my dogs include commercial
and non-commercial food.
Q91 David Taylor: There are good
numbers of vets, are there not, that believe—I can quote
one to you: "As varied as my patients were in size, species,
age, sex and breed, the one common uniting feature was their junk
food diet." Do you recognise the author of that?
Professor Crispin: I think so,
yes.
Q92 David Taylor: But he speaks on
behalf of growing numbers of not just vets but companion-animal
owners, does he not? There is a real growing concern about the
junk that we push down our pets, is there not?
Professor Crispin: I am not sure
that you should equate being vociferous with speaking on behalf
of large numbers. It is worth remembering that the pet food manufacturers
removed bovine products from pet food before we did for humans.
It is not a black-and-white situation.
Q93 David Taylor: It never is, but
the veterinary profession, particularly the RCVS, has been very
reluctant to be involved in this for a long period of years. That
is true, is it not?
Professor Crispin: I do not think
that is true. If I can now go back to my time as president, I
spent a lot of time dealing very politely with the many letters
that the president gets on this topic.
Q94 David Taylor: No-one denies the
politeness.
Professor Crispin: No, but the
line I took was to speak as president, as a scientist and as an
owner of animals, and actually doing it like that, hopefully,
you got a rather balanced view.
Q95 David Taylor: Do you see the
thrust of the vets' professional standards being the treatment
of or prevention of disease?
Professor Crispin: I think very
much the prevention. Indeed, one of the aims of the new Veterinary
Surgeons Act is to be proactive rather than reactive. I think
that is crucial; and, yes, the debate has made me look very carefully
at what I feed my dogs, and it has modified what I feed my dogs,
but I have not gone so far as to go entirely for raw meaty bones.
Q96 David Taylor: It is not intended
to be an approach on you; it also involves your colleagues as
well. The concern that people have is that the curriculum of the
veterinary colleges contains relatively little about the nutrition
of companion animals. Is that a fair comment?
Professor Crispin: Actually, there
is quite a lot on the nutrition of companion animals. The people
like Tom Lonsdale, who you quoted, would say that it is very much
weighted in terms of feeding commercial foods.
Q97 David Taylor: Is that partly
because the mega pet food manufacturers have a very large slice
and a captive market in every sense? They have ingratiated themselves
with the profession and with the veterinary colleges, have they
not? They sponsor various chairs of veterinary science, do they
not? You are not going to bite the hand that feeds you!
Professor Crispin: Lectureships,
I think. I do not think it is quite—
Q98 David Taylor: Professionally,
you are not going to bite the hand that feeds you, are you? Mr
Moore? It is not aimed at you.
Professor Crispin: No.
Ms Hern: It does not say a lot
for the impartiality of the profession that they would be swayed
by that sort of thing.
Q99 David Taylor: But it is something
that has grown up over a long period of years with relatively
few people that have questioned the given wisdom that somehow
pet food manufacturers are there to promote the health of the
many millions of companion animals in this country and elsewhere.
Do you accept that given wisdom—that it should not be examined
and should not be criticised and that we should not instigate
some research into the comparative diets, which, as Sheila Crispin
said, at the debate which I mentioned—you would have liked
to have seen some research. Why is the RCVS not banging the drum
on this?
Ms Hern: Because it is not a scientific
body in that sense: we are here to regulate the profession and
maintain—
| 
