Memorandum submitted by the British Veterinary
Association (Vet 38)
Please find enclosed the British Veterinary
Association (BVA) submission regarding the Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs Committee inquiry into the need to replace the Veterinary
Surgeons Act 1966. The BVA is the national representative body
for the veterinary profession in the United Kingdom and represents
over 11,000 individual members. In keeping with its role, the
BVA's submission pulls together the views of our many Specialist
and Territorial Divisions, and therefore provides a summary of
comments made from interested veterinary surgeons and veterinary
bodies who have made responses to this EFRA Committee inquiry
via BVA.
It is our observation that whilst the existing
Veterinary Surgeons Act has, and continues to provide, adequate
regulation of the profession, it is generally agreed that modernisation
of the Act is needed. In particular there is wide consensus that
the disciplinary process requires updating to include a wider
range of disciplinary powers and a greater level of transparency.
The regulation of veterinary nurses alongside veterinary surgeons
has widespread approval.
The views of the profession are, however, more
divergent in relation to other areas of the Act. There is widespread
support for the RCVS to continue in its position as the regulatory
body, however a significant proportion of the profession have
concerns regarding their proposals for increased regulation of
both practices (through a mandatory practice standards scheme)
and individual veterinary surgeons (by means of revalidation).
Whilst the profession is united in its support of the highest
possible practice standards, how such standards are regulated
is of paramount importance; BVA has included a regulatory model
for Practice Standards that we believe fulfils the principles
of "better regulation", not over-regulation, and would
achieve the desired aims without passing on extra costs to businesses
and the public. No meaningful detail has yet been presented for
how revalidation might be enforced, so many in the profession
feel unable to commit to any such proposals until detail is available.
Finally, the need to address the regulation of paraprofessionals
is well recognised, however there is considerable disagreement
on how best this might be achieved.
We hope that we will have the opportunity of
expanding on our submission at the oral evidence stage, but if
in the meantime there are any issues of clarification which you
feel might be helpful, please do not hesitate to get in contact.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The British Veterinary Association (BVA)
believes that the provisions set out in the Veterinary Surgeons
Act 1966 provide an adequate means of regulating the veterinary
profession for the purpose of protecting animal health and welfare
and maintaining public confidence.
2. The BVA nevertheless accepts that increased
flexibility and accountability, especially in terms of the disciplinary
procedures, with greater lay representation, would be desirable
and in the public interest.
3. The BVA has serious concerns regarding
the practices of unregulated groups and individuals who carry
out acts of veterinary surgery in contravention of the 1966 Act.
We recommend that in light of this inquiry, it might be timely
for the committee to investigate this area and ascertain what
action (be it regulation or otherwise) could be taken to best
protect the public interest.
4. The BVA believes that veterinary services
ought to be regulated both through a practice standards scheme
and regulation of individual veterinary surgeons. However,
we can see no advantage in a mandatory practice standards scheme
and believe that practice standards ought to be self regulated
in order to ensure best value for the animal owning public.
5. The BVA supports the proposal that the
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) and Veterinary Nurses
Council (VNC) should be given the power to require continuing
professional development. However, we remain unconvinced that
a meaningful revalidation process could be implemented.
6. The BVA believes that in the interest
of objectivity and maintaining public confidence, the RCVS and
VNC should have appointed lay members both on the Council and
all committees involved in disciplinary procedures.
7. The BVA is supportive of the proposal
that the RCVS and VNC have conduct committees separate from the
RCVS and VN Councils. The BVA has serious reservations about whether
such a committee should have the power to make an interim order
suspending a veterinary surgeon, leading to loss of income and
potential for financial hardship for the veterinary surgeon and
others working in the practice on the basis of what might prove
to be an unfounded allegation.
8. The BVA believes that veterinary surgeons
should be able to delegate specified procedures to people holding
qualifications recognised by the RCVS provided that clear guidelines
for doing so exist and that the animal remains under the care
of the veterinary surgeon.
INTRODUCTION
9. The British Veterinary Association (BVA)
is the national representative body for the veterinary profession
in the United Kingdom and represents over 11,000 members. Our
chief interest is to protect and promote the interests of the
veterinary profession in this country and we therefore take a
keen interest in all issues affecting the veterinary profession,
be they animal health, animal welfare, public health or employment
concerns.
10. The BVA welcomes the opportunity to
provide evidence to EFRA Committee on the need to replace the
Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. We have confined our response to
the seven questions we have been asked. Our comments are consistent
with the BVA's "Beliefs on Professional Regulation",
a copy of which can be provided on request. This document defines
"Professional Regulation" as "the statutory framework
governing a distinct group entitled to carry out procedures by
virtue of their training and registration. Registration determines
training, training requirements, the practising standards required,
and who does and does not meet them." It also sets out the
BVA's view that the purpose of veterinary professional regulation
is to; "protect the health and welfare of animals, to safeguard
human health, to ensure the respect and fair treatment of the
public and to maintain the reputation of the veterinary profession".
BVA RESPONSE TO
QUESTIONS POSED
BY EFRA COMMITTEE
(i) Whether the provisions of the 1966 Act
are out of step with developments in the veterinary surgeon and
related professions
11. Significant changes have occurred in
the modus operandi of the veterinary profession since the
introduction of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. Such changes
include the rise in corporate ownership of veterinary practices,
the increase in practices owned and run by non vets, the decline
in farm animal practice relative to companion animal practice,
the number and nature of referrals to specialist centres, and
the emergence of a range of "paraprofessional" groups
wishing to treat animals. Additionally, regulatory "norms"
and the regulatory structures of other similar professions have
shifted somewhat over time.
12. Despite these changes, the provisions
of the 1966 Act have continued to provide an effective means of
regulating the veterinary profession for the purpose of protecting
animal health and welfare, and safeguarding public health. The
BVA believes (on the basis of empirical evidence) that there is
a high level of public confidence in the veterinary profession,
and on this basis it could be argued that substantial changes
to the 1966 Act are neither justified or necessary.
13. However, the BVA does accept that the
1966 Act lacks flexibility in terms of its disciplinary procedures,
and that there is a need to enhance the range of sanctions available
to the RCVS' disciplinary committee. Sanctions which are less
severe than suspension or striking from the Register are highly
desirable, and the ability to apply measures which would be designed
to proactively prevent problems arising would also be desirable.
The BVA also accepts that current thinking indicates a need for
greater involvement of lay personnel in the regulation of the
veterinary profession.
14. The BVA recognises that the 1966 Act
does not define "animals" and that more recent legislation,
such as the Animal Welfare Act 2006, does. However, the BVA believes
that the 1966 Act is quite satisfactory in this respect and that
no definition is required. Problems can arise when legislation
defines the meaning of a particular word, and to qualify the definition
of "animals" may raise questions which would otherwise
not exist.
(ii) Whether there ought to be regulation
of providers of veterinary care other than veterinary surgeons
15. The BVA strongly supports the regulation
of veterinary nurses, who work very closely with veterinary surgeons
and are an integral part of the veterinary team.
16. The BVA has serious concerns about the
risk to animal welfare and public health posed by other unregulated
groups and individuals who are performing acts of veterinary surgery
in contravention of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.
17. The Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 sets
out that only veterinary surgeons are permitted to carry out acts
of veterinary surgery. It also provides for exemptions for specified
activities performed by suitably qualified people: examples include
veterinary nurses and Schedule 3 procedures, lay blood sampling,
bovine ultrasound scanning, and a cattle AI exemption is expected
to be introduced soon. There is, therefore, a mechanism in place
to enable particular acts of veterinary surgery to be performed
by competent non-veterinarians whilst protecting animal health
and welfare, even though the exempted groups are not subject to
the same regulations as veterinary surgeons. The BVA would like
to see these provisions continue, and might support further exemptions
in appropriate circumstances. The problem is that the restrictions
specified in the 1966 Act are not being effectively enforced and
unqualified and unregulated providers continue to carry out acts
of veterinary surgery without hindrance, to the potential detriment
of animal health and welfare.
18. Although the BVA is not opposed, in
principle, to the extension of regulation to other providers of
veterinary care, it has not reached any conclusions as to whether
this is practicable at present or how it might be achieved. The
existing system is satisfactory in theory but is not effectively
enforced, and we suggest that it would be prudent for the committee
to investigate this area further and seek some means of ensuring
that animals and the public are better protected.
19. For the purpose of protecting animal
welfare, the BVA believes that the definition of an act of veterinary
surgery as set out in the 1966 Act should remain unchanged. Acts
of veterinary surgery should continue to be restricted to qualified
veterinary surgeons.
(iii) Whether the delivery of veterinary
services ought to be regulated through a mandatory practice standards
scheme, with a professional code of ethics, rather than the RCVS
regulating practitioners on an individual basis
20. The BVA believes that veterinary services
ought to be regulated both through a practice standards scheme
and on an individual basis. We are in favour of the highest possible
standards and support the continuation of the existing RCVS voluntary
Practice Standards Scheme. We would encourage the public and other
bodies such as Animal Health to use practices which participate
in the Scheme.
21. However, the BVA does not support the
introduction of a mandatory practice standards scheme,
with all the associated costs which such a scheme would entail.
Instead, the BVA would favour a form of self-regulation backed
up by disciplinary powers. We envisage the introduction of a "Guide
to Practice Standards" similar to the existing "Guide
to Professional Conduct" (and perhaps forming part of the
Guide in future). The guide should stipulate the minimum standards
which practices are expected (and obliged) to adhere to. This
scheme would be self regulated, and there would be no mandatory
inspections or licensing. However, should a complaint be made
against a practice then the RCVS should have the power to inspect
the practice concerned and judge it against the standards set
out in the guide. Adherence to these standards would be considered
in any disciplinary case which may be brought against a practice.
22. In recommending a voluntary practice
standards scheme, the BVA has given careful consideration to the
RCVS' proposal and arguments for a mandatory scheme. In deliberating
on this issue we have reached the firm opinion that a mandatory
scheme would not be in the public interest. The veterinary profession
is constituted primarily of individuals working in small practices,
the vast majority of whom are deeply conscientious and committed
to providing high quality care to their patients. The costs associated
with running small businesses are relevant and challenging, and
the BVA feels that the increased cost to practices of a mandatory
scheme would also almost certainly result in higher costs for
the animal owning public. We also believe that a voluntary scheme
is consistent with the Government's deregulation policy.
23. The BVA is, however, concerned that
the emergence of practices owned and run by non-vets has the potential
to put veterinary employees in an invidious position, if, for
example the employer institutes policies which contravene RCVS
rules. As the RCVS has no powers to regulate non-vets, a vet could
have action taken against them for simply following practice policy.
Such action might more appropriately be directed at the practice
owner. The BVA would encourage the Committee to give consideration
to how this issue might best be resolved.
(iv) Whether the RCVS and Veterinary Nurses
Council (VNC) should be given the power to require continuing
professional development and revalidation
24. The BVA supports the proposal that RCVS
and VNC should be given the power to require continuing professional
development.
25. The BVA remains unconvinced of the need
for revalidation, and could not support this proposal without
first examining a detailed overview of how meaningful revalidation
would work in practice and what costs and benefits would be involved.
The BVA could not support a revalidation proposal which limited
the current flexibility of veterinary surgeons to move within
the different specialty areas of the profession.
(v) Whether the governing body of the RCVS
and VNC ought to include appointed lay persons as well as veterinary
professionals
26. The BVA supports the appointment of
lay members to all RCVS committees. We note that RCVS Council
already has limited lay representation, and would like to see
this extended, as well as lay representation at every stage of
the disciplinary procedure.
27. The BVA feels that lay representation
at the RCVS is an important factor in maintaining public confidence
in the regulatory body; its disciplinary procedures; and the veterinary
profession at large.
(vi) Whether the RCVS and VNC ought to have
a separate conduct committee with the powers to investigate complaints,
give warnings and to make interim orders pending proceedings
28. The BVA supports the proposal that the
RCVS and VNC ought to have conduct committees separate from the
RCVS and VN Councils.
29. However, the BVA has serious reservations
about whether such a committee should have the power to make interim
orders (including suspension) pending proceedings. Although we
understand the argument for having such powers, the BVA is very
concerned about the possible consequences for a practitioner who
was suspended prior to their hearing, and subsequently found not
guilty. Such action would remove the practitioner's means of earning
a living, and could potentially jeopardise the future of their
business, neither of which are acceptable unless the individual
is actually guilty of unprofessional conduct.
30. Should a veterinary surgeon be suspended
prior to their hearing, and subsequently found not guilty, the
BVA would like to know what recompense would be available to them
for actual and further losses.
31. The BVA supports the introduction of
a more flexible disciplinary procedure for both individuals and
practices.
(vii) Whether the RCVS ought to have the
power to delegate specified procedures to people holding qualifications
recognised by the RCVS Council
32. The BVA supports the proposal that veterinary
surgeons should be able to delegate specified procedures in respect
of animals that are under the veterinary surgeon's care to people
holding qualifications recognised by the RCVS.
33. The BVA believes that such a system
would need to be tightly controlled, with the delegated person
only permitted to carry out the specific procedure recommended
by the veterinary surgeon on a particular named animal or group
of animals. The animal(s) in question should remain under the
care of the veterinary surgeon. There has been considerable debate
in recent years about the meaning of the term "animals under
care", and it would therefore be helpful for the RCVS to
publish an improved definition of "animals under our care"
so that the lines of responsibility are clearly delineated. The
BVA has produced a discussion document on what constitutes an
animal under veterinary care, which can be provided on request.
34. The BVA would wish provision to be made
for Named Veterinary Surgeons operating within Home Office licensed
premises to be given powers to delegate procedures carried out
for non-ASPA purposes to non-vets holding a Home Office licence
for that technique. Further details regarding this point can be
provided on request by the Laboratory Animal Veterinary Association,
a specialist division of BVA.
September 2007
| 
