Professor Sandy Trees, president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, outlines how the government can help the work of the veterinary profession.
What role does the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) play in promoting and protecting animal health and welfare?
The RCVS plays an absolutely pivotal role, in that we are the regulator for the veterinary profession. Many people don't fully understand the role of the college; it doesn't exist to protect and represent vets per se, instead it is here to represent the public interest by ensuring the health and welfare of animals committed to veterinary care.
We carry out our regulatory role by accrediting the quality of veterinary education and then instituting and monitoring professional standards through our disciplinary system, including setting a Guide to Professional Conduct Through this system we monitor and enforce the clinical and ethical conduct of veterinary surgeons in practice.
The RCVS seeks to promote confidence in the veterinary profession through effective regulation.
What are the most pressing issues for animal health and welfare ahead of the general election?
One of the major problems that we are battling with now, and which will continue after the general election, is the EU Working Time Directive (WTD), which has gained a lot of publicity.
The WTD creates quite a challenge for the veterinary profession. Our members do provide emergency veterinary cover 24 hours a day, 365 days a year - and that is expected by the public. But it is a challenge for practices to provide such cover within the constraints of the law, mainly in the form of the Working Time Regulations. We are working with practices to try to encourage good working practices and collaborative arrangements, which will enable vets to achieve this.
Another major issue is that of dangerous dogs. The Royal College has been discussing the issue of microchipping dogs recently, and we are producing a position statement on compulsory microchipping and compulsory scanning. On this issue we would like to see politicians give a considered response, and not rush to implement legislation without adequately thinking things through.
What obstacles does the RCVS face in protecting animal health and welfare?
We are operating under an act which is almost 44 years old. The Veterinary Surgeons Act, under which we regulate the profession, was passed in 1966. The regulatory environment for all the healthcare professions has changed dramatically in 44 years, and the act does not take that into account.
The RCVS has gone to very considerable lengths to try to extend and improve our processes to be consistent with current best practice, whilst working within the constraints of the act. We are currently seeking some amendments to that act, through a Legislative Reform Order.
Another major obstacle is the lack of an EU system of accreditation for veterinary surgeons from veterinary schools in EU member countries. In the UK, veterinary schools are professionally accredited and if they pass the accreditation process, it is accepted that their graduates are 'fit for purpose'. Conversely, if the institutions are found wanting, then the graduates of those institutions are not fit to be let loose on the public and their animals. This system does not exist elsewhere in Europe and, under EU law, we are bound to register, and thus allow to practise in the UK, individuals who have graduated from institutions in Europe that have not been accredited.
The veterinary profession in Europe has set up its own voluntary accreditation scheme, however it is not mandatory for veterinary schools to undergo accreditation, and if they undergo it and fail, we are still obliged to accept the graduates of those schools into veterinary practice in Britain. This is a serious discrepancy.
A further problem is that when the Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications Directive was implemented, our request to be able to test the language competence of new EU registrants was resisted. Following the case of Dr Daniel Ubani – the locum German doctor who was ruled incompetent and grossly negligent in February – there is now parliamentary select committee support for language testing amongst doctors. It is also understood that the Commission's view is that selective language testing can now take place. A number of the other healthcare regulators have recently taken legal advice and are challenging the UK government's view. We have indicated our support and have asked Defra to reconsider its position.
What legislative changes could help the RCVS to improve the regulation of the profession?
We have been advised by Defra and the relevant parliamentary select committee, in 2008, that it is not likely that there will be resources available for a while to get a wholesale new Veterinary Surgeons Act.
Instead we are trying to address the real priorities of what we feel is in the public's interest. These include the ability to constitute our key disciplinary committees, independent of the Royal College Council, so that the same group of people are not responsible for setting the rules, investigating complaints and adjudication.
We would like to amend the rules so that we can access a pool of appropriately-qualified veterinary surgeons and lay people, from which to draw our disciplinary panels. We may be able to do this via a Legislative Reform Order, so we have petitioned the Defra minister to seek such an order – however, this is on hold with the general election pending. We are very anxious that this is picked up by whichever party forms the next government.
What would you like to see a new government do to support the work of the RCVS?
We appreciate that any new government will have many different priorities, but we are aware that animal welfare issues feature frequently in MPs' postbags. Consequently, we hope that the next government will consider legislative changes very carefully, and will address our concerns and those of other bodies that seek to improve animal health and welfare.
The key point to remember is that any legislative changes should be evidence-based. So, post-election, the RCVS would like to pursue a Legislative Reform Order to vary the composition of the committees involved in our disciplinary process, and ensure that other legislation affecting animal health and welfare is made on a scientific basis.
Could you answer any concerns that have been made to MPs by the public over the RCVS complaints process?
Some groups are aggrieved because they feel that the College has not addressed their complaints. We have a fair, open and transparent complaints system, but are limited in the nature of misdemeanour that we can act upon. Under the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act, we can only strike veterinary surgeons off the RCVS register for serious professional misconduct (not occasional negligence), fraudulent registration and criminal convictions.
We are keen to modernise the Veterinary Surgeons Act in terms of the disciplinary mechanisms available to us. However, as far as we are aware, no other healthcare professional regulator deals with the full spectrum of negligence, or is able to order financial compensation to complainants in such cases - and such power is not something we seek. Some regulators do offer dispute-resolution services, and this is something we are looking into.
We do take all complaints seriously and they are investigated rigorously.
