Member News
Sandy Trees, president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, discusses the latest legislation affecting veterinarians.
What are your major aims for the direction of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) during your tenure as president?
I have two overarching themes which cut across everything, and then more specific aims.
The first theme is to increase awareness of what the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons does - both to the profession and the public. There has been a lot of work done in this field, but there is more to do. The public aren't as aware of our work as they could be - we are essentially the consumer watchdog for them to turn to.
Within the profession, a great many don't fully understand our role, despite the fact that they are all members of the RCVS. Some believe that we are a representative body; but we are here to regulate, not represent. We need to promote our work to vets so that they don't fear us, but understand us.
The second theme is to try to be more proactive. Regulation is our primary purpose, but we are a royal college and we operate under a royal charter similar to that of a medical royal college. I believe that we have sometimes been too reactive when we could have been defining our role and taking a lead on certain issues.
More specific areas of concern tend to be inherited, as you are only president of the RCVS for one year. This year the most obvious issue is veterinary legislative reform. We are also reviewing the 'practice standards scheme', extramural studies and veterinary nursing. It is important to carry these reviews forward and through to action. A final specific area would be widening access to the profession, which is a constant and important aim.
What changes to the Veterinary Surgeons Act are the RCVS proposing? Has the Act been successful?
The Veterinary Surgeons Act has served us well but it is 43-years-old and inevitably the shape of professional regulation has changed in that time. The RCVS needs to ensure that it is acting to the highest contemporary standards and reflecting best practice.
We are constrained somewhat by the Act. Notably it states how our Council should be constituted and that the disciplinary and investigative committees should comprise people from the Council. It is not good that the body that is attempting to resolve a problem is the body itself.
The RCVS is seeking to effect some changes now that the possibility of a new Act is on the backburner from Defra. We have instigated a review to see what the priority issues to be addressed are and how we should address them, particularly which areas can be changed without new legislation.
Our Veterinary Legislation Group has come up with three priorities, two of which can be altered without an Act. Firstly, there is the power to constitute the Preliminary Investigation Committee and the Disciplinary Committee. This is a major inhibition we have with the Act at the moment and may be capable of being rectified through a regulatory reform order.
Secondly, we may reconstitute the RCVS Council, which could also be achieved without government legislation. The third priority is to seek wider jurisdiction for the Disciplinary Committee, so that it can both widen its remit and provide more flexible sanctions. Regrettably, this will probably not be possible without an Act.
With the implementation of the European working time directive, how does the RCVS suggest veterinarians provide a 24-hour service? Is it possible to successfully balance providing excellent veterinary care whilst also working in a sustainable manner?
Veterinarians do provide excellent service 24 hours a day, seven days a week. However, the European working time directive is creating challenges for the veterinary profession. It is difficult to continue to provide excellent care that is consistent with the EU directive and UK regulations.
The RCVS has had a working group looking at this matter, but now it is time to move into action. We believe that there should still be a professional obligation that vets ensure 24/7 care is available.
The RCVS sees its role as being to facilitate and create a model system to enable practices to co-ordinate with one another to ensure 24-hour emergency care is available in any given community. Practices need to come to collaborative agreements in order to share resources and provide cover. These are competing businesses and they may be tensions there, but we can help to resolve that.
The RCVS also needs to manage expectations of both professionals and the public. For example, we need to emphasise to both sides that it may be in the best interests of the animal for it to be brought into a practice; or that, in order to comply with working time regulations, practices may be co-operating on out-of-hours, which may mean that the owner's regular practice is not always going to be physically delivering the care.
We also need to manage financial expectations. If a veterinarian makes a visit in the night it costs more and their fees should reflect that – it would be expected of other professions and services.
Could you tell us about the RCVS's concerns with the discrepancy between the accreditation of UK and EU veterinarians? Are legislative changes required to amend this issue?
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has a number of concerns about this. The RCVS can determine whether to approve UK veterinarians, but we are required to take practitioners from other EU member states without accreditation.
There is no statutory force behind the accreditation of veterinary degrees elsewhere in Europe and there is a big gap in European legislation in this regard – not only for the veterinary profession. Graduates of schools in EU member countries can practise in the UK without accreditation, something that veterinarians from the UK and non-EU member countries can not do.
One particular concern is language aptitude. Vets from outside the EU are required to take a test to prove their language and communication levels; however this is not a requirement for veterinarians from within the EU.
What are the RCVS's views on the devolution of animal health and welfare policy?
Diseases and animals don't recognise boundaries, so the devolution of animal health and welfare policy is not helpful and isn't particularly logical. Devolution in these areas inevitably leads to confusing discrepancies in different regions.
A good example of this is the differences over treatment of badgers in areas where bovine TB is prevalent. In Wales, they have decided to cull badgers; in England, they plan to vaccinate badgers; whereas Scotland has official TB-free status. In addition, differing policies across borders can expose loopholes that can be exploited, for example, with tail-docking.
In spite of this it is worth noting that the RCVS is the regulatory body for veterinary surgeons throughout the United Kingdom and we enjoy close relationships and regular contact with the chief veterinary officers in all four countries.
Aside from the Veterinary Surgeons Act, is there any forthcoming legislation or political developments that the RCVS are particularly concerned with?
As mentioned earlier, we are particularly concerned with the provision of 24-hour emergency cover within the context of the European working time directive. We are also interested in the responsibility and cost sharing agenda for managing animal health and are eager to see how this develops.
A further issue of concern is that of access to the veterinary profession through work experience. We believe bureaucracy and certain health and safety measures have made it far more difficult to gain work experience at a young age with a veterinarian and this is could close access for younger people to the profession. This is something of an unintended consequence of health and safety concerns.
Another issue is the EU animal experimentation laws, which are much more liberal than in the UK. We are keen to retain the UK laws, which are stricter, and we ideally would not wish for these to be relaxed. This is not an immediate issue, but may become one.
One particular legislative change that is of interest is the proposed creation of an independent body for animal health, whilst Defra continues to control animal welfare issues. The RCVS believes that animal health and welfare policy should be united, in order to achieve the best results.
A final point to mention is that many issues of relevance to the veterinary profession are very broad and of interest to the public as a whole. Veterinary issues cover many political areas.
Examples of this include global food supplies, as we face worldwide population increases; improving and eradicating endemic diseases, climate change and the desire to mitigate its effects, and bio-terrorism, with foot and mouth disease as a prime example of something that could be spread easily and effectively.
Are animal welfare and animal care issues adequately championed by parliamentarians? What more could be done to promote these issues in the political sphere?
Parliamentarians are aware of animal welfare issues and do promote them at a tactical level, after all animal care concerns are a major item in virtually every MP's postbag. The RCVS was encouraged recently to see the Conservatives host an animal welfare symposium, attended by David Cameron and four shadow cabinet ministers.
However, there is a sense that politicians can see merely the more domestic side of animal welfare, rather than more hard-hitting issues such as disease. It is important for MPs to realise that animal welfare is not just concerned with abuse of animals, but that disease is a welfare issue.
Are there any final points that you would like to raise?
Despite our frustrations with the Veterinary Surgeons Act, the RCVS has taken steps to do what it can to act as a responsible and proactive regulator. For example, we have developed a non-statutory regulatory system for veterinary nurses under our Charter powers.
The RCVS is also responsible for the 'practice standards scheme', which oversees the quality of practice premises that we regulate. The scheme provides the public with assurances of what facilities to expect of any given veterinary practice, which is accredited by the RCVS within the Scheme. Again, this was achieved without an Act.
A final point to raise is that veterinary surgeons offer a very cost-effective service. Each pet owner spends around £233 per year on veterinary services. By contrast, every man, woman and child contributes £1,500 to the NHS each year, regardless of whether they use it.
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.