Further supplementary memorandum submitted
by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (Vet 11d)
It has been suggested that the Committee would
be interested to hear of recent changes in the College's procedures
for handling complaints about veterinary surgeons.
The Act requires the RCVS Council to set up
a Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC) to look into cases
in which it is alleged that a veterinary surgeon is liable to
be removed or suspended from the register. PIC must decide whether
or not to refer such a case to the Disciplinary Committee. Last
year PIC carried out a review of its procedures in the light of
the Fifth Report of the Shipman Inquiry and the Government's subsequent
decisions on the regulatory arrangements of the human health professions.
There are three main threads in the changes
which we have now introduced:
— separating out the Committee's two
functions of investigating complaints and deciding whether they
merit referral to the Disciplinary Committee;
— greater lay and legal involvement
in the investigation process; and
— greater transparency in our decision
making.
On the first point the Act, if taken literally,
requires PIC to investigate complaints. A committee cannot, however,
very well undertake an investigation in person. Realistically,
it has to commission enquiries by others and then take stock of
the results. It is in any case undesirable for the same people
to undertake an investigation and assess the outcome, because
the investigator is bound to form impressions which make it harder
to take an objective view of the evidence. That is why in the
enforcement of the criminal law the functions of investigation
and prosecution are separated between the police and the Crown
Prosecution Service. PIC has therefore decided that when a visit
is made as part of the investigation of a complaint this should
normally be done by a suitably trained veterinary surgeon who
is not a member of the Committee, accompanied by a member of the
College's staff when appropriate.
On the second point, we take the view that the
investigation of complaints needs veterinary, lay and legal input.
All complaints are initially assessed by a legally qualified member
of staff to see whether or not they fall within the jurisdiction
of the College, and following investigation an independent Lay
Observer is now normally involved in deciding whether there is
an arguable case which should be referred to PIC.
On the third point, we have written protocols
or guidance for the decision-making by PIC and the Disciplinary
Committee. The full RCVS complaints procedure and the decision-making
protocols are set out in the attached guidance note, "Processing
a complaint". You may also be interested to see the note
which we produce for the public, "Making a complaint to the
RCVS". The Disciplinary Committee Guidance issued at the
end of last year is also attached.[2]
Our aim is to ensure that our procedures are
fair to both complainants and respondents, transparent and credible.
There is, however, one problem. The Act requires both PIC and
the Disciplinary Committee to be composed entirely of Council
members. As you know, this is something that we want to change,
because it makes it difficult for us properly to separate standard-setting,
investigation and adjudication. We do all that we can to keep
the membership and functions of the two Committees separate, but
there is no way round the fact that the members of both are involved
as Council members in policy debates which may be relevant to
cases which they handle as Committee members. No matter how we
improve our internal procedures, we cannot get over the fact that
the Act entrusts the screening and adjudication of complaints
to two Committees whose composition is specified on the face of
the legislation.
Dr R P Moore
President
RCVS
March 2008
2 Not printed. Back
| 
