Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-175)
MR NICK
BLAYNEY AND
MS NICKY
PAULL
3 MARCH 2008
Q160 David Taylor: What evidence
do you have that it has improved the quality of life and indeed
the longevity of companion animals?
Ms Paull: This is more of a clinical
discussion. We could look at ready made meals at Marks and Spencer
that people eat. They might be better for them than eating bags
of crisps and biscuits because they do not have time to cook.
It is trying to balance sensibly what clients are available to
do for their animals. For instance, an owner could get together
a nutritionally balanced diet or could opt for purchasing one
but I think that is a decision that has to be made between the
veterinary surgeon and the client. The pros and cons of each diet
can be discussed. To insinuate that because we happen to have
dog food available for sale in the practice means that we are
going to force this down our clients' pets' throats is not the
case. Nick is right. Some practices do sell pet food but equally
many do not. It is a commercial decision as to whether that is
something that we are going to supply to our clients just the
same as we might offer pet collars or something like that.
Q161 David Taylor: Are you aware
that out there amongst the millions of owners there are companion
animal owners—dogs and cats in particular—and there
is a fairly significant lobby that argues that vets are promoting
the sale and sometimes selling the pet foods which create the
illnesses which keep you in business?
Mr Blayney: This is complete nonsense.
Q162 David Taylor: You are aware
of the lobby?
Mr Blayney: Very much so. It is
quite a dangerous lobby because it is seriously misinformed and
very good at lobbying. The reason that vets choose to use foods
is because they have been scientifically convinced that these
foods are of value.
Q163 David Taylor: By whom?
Mr Blayney: By the data that has
been produced by the manufacturers in the same way—
Q164 David Taylor: Would these be
the same manufacturers who sponsor good numbers of the chairs
of veterinary science at universities in the UK?
Mr Blayney: They do contribute
to education. If the government funding was higher then perhaps
the universities would not have to look elsewhere for funding.
Ms Paull: You could argue the
same with pharmaceutical companies as well that give CPD lectures
to us and so on. At the end of the day, it is the responsibility
of the veterinary surgeon to make a clinical decision with the
owner of the animal as to what is the best thing for that animal.
To say that because a pharmaceutical company sponsors a course
automatically we are going to supply lots of their product and
sell it out to an owner where it is not required I would take
offence at.
Mr Blayney: Vets are very good
at seeing the woods for the trees in much the same way that I
am sure, when MPs are entertained by various lobbying groups,
you can see right through what their mission is. What we are exercised
by is good science. The pet food manufacturers have invested a
lot of money in this and it is up to veterinary surgeons, judging
by their own levels of professional integrity, to decide whether
this is appropriate for their animals in the respect that they
do absolutely everything else for the good of the animals under
their care.
Chairman: My cat is the ultimate determinant
of what it eats. It listens to the advice and then tells you what
it wants.
Q165 Miss McIntosh: I will not list
all the pet food manufacturers in my constituency but I would
like to advertise their products, if I may. Can I turn to continuing
professional development and ask, if you do have concerns about
making this mandatory, what those concerns would be?
Mr Blayney: There is a great appetite
for continuing professional development in the profession and
as evidence for that I would cite the huge amount of commercial
CPD training that is available. The universities are weighing
in as well. They are selling training courses to vets and goodness
knows what. Indeed, the BVA at the moment is looking at developing
a web based television service called Vets TV along the lines
of Teachers TV because we see it as a useful income stream for
the BVA, selling CPD to our members. The problem arises when you
try to record it in a manner that is appropriate and to mandate
that recording. Vets are governed by the guide to professional
conduct. They must keep their skills up to date and they must
only practise in areas of their competence. The outcome is made
very clear in the guide to professional conduct and vets seek
the appropriate CPD so that they are up to speed with the areas
in which they choose to practise. If they do not choose to practise
in those areas, as long as they recognise that, there is no particular
need to keep up their competence. The move from a formal registration
of CPD to validation is another area that gives us grave concern
because, if you think that through and you think about the business
plan of some sort of structure that would allow for the revalidation
of veterinary surgeons in practice, you are talking about developing
an institute the size almost of one of the veterinary schools
in order to service that with concomitant costs on top. If you
look at the complaints that come into the Royal College, there
are very few of them that would have been solved by greater attention
to CPD. There are some and every veterinary surgeon knows that,
if a complaint is found against them and there is an angle on
it that might relate to their level of training and skill, they
will be held to account upon it.
Q166 Miss McIntosh: Are you able
to put a figure on what the costs of revalidation would be?
Ms Paull: The devil would definitely
be in the detail with that. Certainly, looking at what is happening
in the NHS who are currently also struggling to look at how to
cope with revalidation, the cost depends on what the rules and
regulations became. If all it was was mandatory CPD then currently
the majority of practitioners would be doing the required amount
of CPD anyway, so the cost would only be the extra cost of recording
and letting the Royal College know evidence that we are doing
it. Obviously if the revalidation goes further than that we would
have to know what was expected before we could suggest a cost.
Q167 Miss McIntosh: Do you have a
view on mandatory CPD, whether it is desirable for para-professionals?
Mr Blayney: Well, there are several
questions that would need to be addressed before we got to that
level of detail insofar as how one would recognise what particular
bodies of para-professionals we were talking about. It would not
really be for us to say, but clearly some record of CPD and some
clear commitment to CPD is, I think, as far as my body would be
prepared to commit themselves at the moment.
Q168 Chairman: We have had the benefit
of your thoughts on various elements of what might be in a new
Veterinary Surgeons Act. Do you think there is a need for a new
one?
Mr Blayney: In a word, no. In
slightly more words, we have addressed all the shortcomings of
the current Act. We have engaged with the Royal College from their
very first consultation document in 2003 and we have put our thoughts
very openly into your own consultation document. We have tried
to look at this from the point of view of animal welfare and public
interest rather than self-interest. We recognise, and indeed we
have outlined, where we see some of the shortcomings of the current
legislation. We have also got some ideas about where a lot of
those shortcomings could be addressed within the current legislation.
Q169 Chairman: Would you like to
develop that point?
Mr Blayney: There are particular
areas. For instance, with the matters considering the Royal College
Council there are two big areas. One is lay representation and
the other is the actual disciplinary procedure. As far as lay
representation is concerned, we think that the lay representatives
on Council contribute hugely to the balance of the opinion. We
have worked with them and they are individuals who give a great
deal. The arrival of more of them would appeal to the public interest.
There are two mechanisms by which they could possibly be introduced.
One is simply by appointing lay observers to Council, whose opinion
I am sure Council would be foolish not to consider, and, secondly,
to appoint a lay committee, sub-committee, to review whatever
areas of the Royal College Council's work they chose to examine.
When it comes to discipline, we recognise there are some issues
there which need to be addressed but we feel there is a lot that
could be addressed within the current Act. We welcome the fact
that the Royal College is embarking upon a review of its disciplinary
procedures and process. We welcome this because as long as it
is broad enough and deep enough we think that it will probably
review some of these areas that in recent years have given some
cause for a bit of concern about the way the disciplinary procedures
have gone. If it is not in sufficient detail then there is always
the possibility of an external disciplinary review. Until that
has been done I really do not think that we can confirm that nothing
can be done to correct the shortcomings within the current Act.
Ms Paull: In the last 20 years
of being senior partner in my practice, when the Royal College
speak about there being a limit to what they can do and there
is a disciplinary and you go potentially to be struck off or suspended,
from personal experience in the last 20 years I have had two occasions
to go before preliminary investigation, or initially a complaint
made against the practice. I cannot stress in both situations
how concerned the whole practice is about it. It is not something
where its, "Oh, it's just one of those things that happen",
it is very serious. Not only that, but normally for many of these
preliminary investigation cases that go no further the Royal College
will actually write to the practice and suggest ways of altering
things or doing things differently, and one takes those very seriously
because you know if you do that again that would hold badly against
you. Maybe it is an area that even under the current Act the Royal
College could do a little bit more with in as much as if a complaint
is made against you there is more that could be done from the
Royal College's perspective of recommendations as to how that
may be prevented from happening again, even though it does not
go as far as misconduct.
Q170 Paddy Tipping: This is just
on the point you made, Mr Blayney, about more lay people on the
Council. How should they be appointed? Should there be an independent
body that appoints them? How would you do that?
Mr Blayney: Our preference would
be that they are utterly independent, they are not appointed by
any stakeholders. They must be there purely to represent the public
interest and, therefore, they must be utterly independent, as
they are currently.
Q171 Paddy Tipping: Would you like
to put some proportions on this?
Mr Blayney: Specific proportions,
no, other than to say that there is a considerable amount of donkey
work involved in the disciplinary procedures and it requires technical
expertise to do it. From that point of view it is likely that
the Council will still need to retain a majority of veterinary
surgeons in order that that workload can be dealt with. Beyond
saying that we think a majority of veterinary surgeons is appropriate
we do not have a number in mind.
Q172 Mr Drew: One of the reasons
people push for legislation is to highlight a particular area
of professional expertise, interest, as well as just wanting to
do something with the law which may appear to be in need of change.
Do you think this makes a statement about the veterinary profession,
that you have got a law that dates back to 1966 and there is unhappiness
out there, because we as constituency MPs find unhappiness, over
various issues to do with veterinary practice? This is a bit of
a dilemma given that we called this inquiry to be now told it
is okay, minor changes can really sort these things out. Are we
barking up completely the wrong tree?
Mr Blayney: The BVA has never
called for a review of the Veterinary Surgeons Act. As I say,
we have been involved in the consultations and have responded
to the best of our ability, and we have consulted widely throughout
our organisations. We have outlined shortcomings and we have suggested
some improvements. It is up to the Committee to decide whether
those improvements can be met within the current Act. We have
quite simply highlighted the areas that we think could be improved
on. The question about whether the legislation needs to be opened
or not is one, I think, for the Committee. Our view would be—
Q173 Mr Drew: You are here to strike
a note of professional integrity, to say to us this is an important
profession. Next to medicine, for an awful lot of people dealing
with vets is a pretty key part of their life. We have medical
legislation coming through, not quite as much as the Home Office
but if we have not got some Bill in a session to do with some
aspect of medicine various people think that is an unlikely scenario
we are pursuing. Why is this area relatively untrammelled in terms
of this need for some legislative updating?
Mr Blayney: I do not believe there
is any evidence that the Act is failing and, from that point of
view, to meddle with it for the sake of it I would see as a waste
of parliamentary time. It is not a bad thing to review what is
going on, and you may well arrive at the conclusion that the Act
does need updating. We know that medical legislation has been
changed for a number of reasons, pretty draconian ones of late,
and probably with good cause, but the medical profession is a
much bigger and in many ways more significant part of society
than the veterinary profession. There is no two ways about it,
animal welfare is important but human welfare is a much, much
bigger issue. A comparison between the two is not necessarily
the only thing. I come back to the point that we have reviewed
the Act in every way that we have been asked to and those are
our comments, we believe there is no evidence that the Act is
not working satisfactorily.
Ms Paull: The current legislation
was put forward to protect animal health and welfare and also
protection of the public. I know you say you do get complaints,
but when we get look at the figures that the Royal College have
recently produced the percentage of complaints is not high for
the number of consultations and animals treated. That is not to
say that we can never do better, because that is not our belief,
but our opinion is that the current Act is fit for purpose.
Q174 Chairman: Just so that we are
clear, as a matter of principle you would accept that if the only
way to change matters, particularly in the governance structure
of the profession, was to change the primary legislation, or you
indicated there were some areas that you did accept needed to
be improved, a revised Act might be the only way of achieving
that.
Mr Blayney: We have listed the
shortcomings and we would be bound by the decisions of the Committee
on how those issues were corrected.
Q175 Chairman: I wish we had the
final decision on all these things but our next witness is the
man who may well be able to give us the answers on those.
Ms Paull: In a way, if you ask
anybody about anything and say "Can it be improved",
the answer is going to be "Yes". Whether the improvements
that are required here are not in certain part addressed under
the current Act one could argue that possibly would be the case,
and that is how we feel.
Chairman: That is a jolly good point
at which to say thank you very much for your contribution. The
man who has the job of dealing with this is going to be our next
witness, so we look forward to hearing what Lord Rooker has to
say because he has been here all the time and he has had the benefit
of listening to what you have had to say as well. Thank you very
much indeed both for your oral and written evidence, it is much
appreciated.
| 
