Further supplementary memorandum submitted
by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (Vet 11b)
INTRODUCTION
1. This note offers clarification on a number
of points which came up in discussion when the College's representatives
gave evidence before the Committee on 18 February.
2. We were sorry to hear the Minister tell
the Committee on 3 March that DEFRA do not intend to put resources
into updating the veterinary legislation for the next three years.
Ministers must of course make hard decisions on priorities. It
was surprising, though, to hear that the Department is prepared
to defer dealing with the shortcomings of the Veterinary Surgeons
Act as it relates to veterinary surgeons but proposes to devote
attention to exemption orders and Schedule 3. Exemption orders
made under section 19 of the Act specify minor treatments, tests
or operations which may be carried out by non-veterinarians, and
Schedule 3 lists other things which may be done by non-veterinarians.
These are certainly important provisions, but not central to the
Act. It would be interesting to know why DEFRA see the priorities
in those terms.
DRAFTING OF
LEGISLATION
3. The Chairman queried (question 26) whether
the RCVS proposals for legislation were firm in every detail,
so that a Bill could in principle be drafted. This is true of
most of the proposals, but we deliberately refrained from taking
a hard and fast view on the future composition of the RCVS Council,
the Veterinary Nurses Council and the new body which would monitor
compliance with standards and deal with complaints. This was because
we recognised that Ministers were likely to have specific views
on such matters as the proportion of lay to professional membership
and the proportion of elected to appointed professional membership.
We did not think it would be helpful to adopt a hard and fast
line on those questions, which are in any event very much open
to debate.
4. The RCVS Council adopted its proposals
in November 2005 following two consultations with the profession,
in February 2003 and June 2005. DEFRA carried out its own public
consultation in September 2003, and the Department was privy to
the College's review of the legislation as a result of the Chief
Veterinary Officer's position as a member of the RCVS Council.
We therefore expected that, once Council had considered the outcome
of the June 2005 consultation and adopted firm views on the issues,
the Department would respond and give some indication whether
Ministers thought we were heading in the right direction. Such
a steer has not been forthcoming in fact, and in the light of
the evidence which the Minister put to the Committee on 3 March
it seems that the College will need to plough its own furrow.
But for a Private Member's Bill to be successful it will need
Government support, so we still need to know whether DEFRA think
we are on the right lines and what they would support or not.
ORDER-MAKING
POWERS IN
THE VETERINARY
SURGEONS ACT
5. Miss McIntosh suggested (question 36)
that there might be scope for making the necessary changes to
the Act through existing order-making powers within it. Those
powers relate only to the following matters:
— recognition of UK veterinary degrees
(section 3 of the Act);
— constitution and procedure of RCVS
Registration Appeals Committee (section 5D);
— examinations for holders of overseas
veterinary qualifications which are not recognised for the purposes
of registration in the UK (section 6);
— maintenance of the register of veterinary
surgeons (section 11);
— appeals against decisions of the
Disciplinary Committee (section 17);
— carrying out of treatment, tests
or operations by veterinary students (section 19);
— making of exemption orders and amendments
to Schedule 3 (section 19);
— agreements with the Republic of Ireland
(section 21);
— election of Council members (Schedule
1); and
— procedure of Disciplinary Committee
and functions of legal assessors (Schedule 2).
6. Section 25 of the Act contains procedural
provisions about subordinate legislation made under the Act. It
does not itself confer power to make orders or regulations.
REPRESENTATION OF
THE PROFESSION
7. Mr Taylor asked (question 68) whether
the College tracked the background of members of the RCVS Council
to find out how far they were representative of the profession.
The answer is no. The Act provides for 24 Council members to be
veterinary surgeons elected by their peers, and we have not thought
it proper to scrutinise or question the way in which the electors
cast their votes. Our 2003 consultation paper raised the question
whether elections for Council members might be regionally based,
but the responses did not support this.
8. We also recognise, particularly from
the criticism of the General Medical Council made in the Shipman
Inquiry, that a regulatory body must be seen to act in the public
interest and not perceived to be representing the profession in
any defensive sense. The Government has now indicated that such
governing bodies should be appointed rather than elected. RCVS
would wish to retain some elected members of Council, so that
the organisation is still accountable to the profession that funds
it, but if a number of members of Council (professional and lay)
were to be appointed that would provide some means of ensuring
that there was a balance of background and expertise on Council.
AVENUES OF
APPEAL FOR
COMPLAINANTS AND
RESPONDENTS
9. Mr Drew asked (question 77) about appeals
to the Privy Council. The respondent in a disciplinary hearing
may appeal to the Privy Council against a decision by the Disciplinary
Committee, such appeals being heard by the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council. Complainants have no right of appeal, because
they are not party to proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee.
10. In addition the Privy Council—the
Government, in effect—has default powers to step in if the
College fails to discharge any of its functions under the Act.
This does not in any real sense provide members of the public
or the profession with a grievance procedure, although they may
well choose to write to Ministers or their MPs. The Privy Council
has similar default powers in relation to a number of other professional
bodies, but we understand that they have never in practice been
used.
NEW ARRANGEMENTS
FOR HANDLING
COMPLAINTS
11. Mr Drew also asked (question 81) for
clarification of the new structure we envisage. Briefly, we propose
a new statutory body, which we have labelled the "board"
for the purposes of debate, to take on the job of enforcing the
standards of conduct and competence set by the RCVS and VN Councils.
The board would investigate complaints and decide which of them
should be heard by a new, wholly independent Conduct and Competence
Committee. There would thus be a clear separation between the
functions of standard-setting, investigation and adjudication.
RCVS
March 2008
| 
