21 Jun 2021
College calls out “inaccuracies and misunderstandings” in a statement released by both associations, and labels part of their criticism “needlessly inflammatory and scaremongering”.
Paul Imrie
Job Title
RCVS president Mandisa Greene.
The RCVS has labelled “inaccurate” BVA and BVNA criticism of some aspects of its legislative reform programme as “needlessly inflammatory and scaremongering”.
In particular, it has denied that interim changes, agreed by college council, to parts of the disciplinary process will amount to the “public shaming” of vet professionals.
Although broadly supporting many of the proposals in the Legislative Working Party report approved for further development by RCVS council on 10 June, both associations jointly voiced concerns about aspects of the plans – including two interim changes made to disciplinary committee processes.
Both had previously jointly voiced some concerns during a widespread consultation of the professions on the sweeping reforms that attracted more than 1,300 responses.
Part of the extensive proposals – which will form the basis of the RCVS’ discussions with Government over future legislation to modernise provisions in the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act – refer to limited licensure, including UK graduates with disabilities.
The issue was discussed extensively at the council meeting and was kept as an option for future proposals, but the BVA and BVNA are concerned its introduction would result in a two-tier system.
Instead, they want a system of reasonable adjustments under the Equalities Act to allow disabled students to demonstrate day one competencies.
Part of the package of measures includes changes to the disciplinary structure, but the BVA and BVNA are worried about elements of these, too. In an interim move, which can be introduced without legislation, the council voted to introduce a Charter Case Protocol for more minor cases.
In their joint statement, the associations said “establishment of a Charter Case Protocol for minor transgressions via a system of published warnings seriously risks introducing an element of public shaming into the disciplinary process”.
BVA president James Russell said: “This is the culmination of a huge amount of work. Although we broadly welcome the direction of travel on legislative reform, we are concerned that a number of decisions risk undermining the college’s stated aim to develop as a compassionate regulator.”
Mr Russell added: “On powers of entry, we don’t believe the case has been made, and there’s a genuine danger that it could erode confidence in a system that vets should be supported and encouraged to engage with. And on proposals to deal with minor transgressions, we cannot support a system that will publicly name and shame veterinary professionals.
“As the reform plans progress it’s essential that there is ongoing engagement with the veterinary professions to feed in these concerns, and help shape a future regulatory system that is proportionate and fair.”
BVNA president Jo Oakden said: “There’s a huge amount to welcome in these regulatory proposals, particularly the commitment to protecting the veterinary nurse title, which the BVNA has long championed.
“However, we question some of the decisions, such as introducing limited licensure, which is an inappropriate and potentially discriminatory way for disabled students to meet day one competences.
“As the proposals are developed into new legislation it’s important that the veterinary and nursing professions are fully engaged, and have the opportunity to input, so that we can all have confidence in our regulatory and disciplinary processes.”
In its own statement, the RCVS said it was responding to “some inaccuracies and misunderstandings” put out by the BVA and BVNA.
RCVS president Mandisa Greene said: “We are disappointed that some rather unhelpful language has been put out by our colleagues in the BVA and BVNA regarding the proposals, and wish to clarify the reality of the college’s policies.
“We find the characterisation of the new Charter Case Protocol as ‘public shaming’ needlessly inflammatory and scaremongering, as well as inaccurate. As we have made clear, this protocol will exist as an alternative to holding stressful, expensive and time-consuming disciplinary committee hearings for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses whose cases meet the threshold for a hearing, but would be likely to attract a lesser sanction.
“It would not, as has been suggested, lead to the RCVS publishing the details of those guilty of ‘minor transgressions’ that would have otherwise been closed by the preliminary investigation committee. By providing a quicker and less stressful alternative to full disciplinary committee hearings – while still upholding our duty to protect animal health, welfare and the public – we firmly believe the protocol helps us to fulfil our role as a compassionate regulator.”
Dr Greene added: “On the subject of powers of entry, we have made it clear that this would be used proportionately and generally only as a last resort where a practice has declined all voluntary requests for us to conduct a visit. If we are to have a mandatory practice standards scheme in the future, the very least the public would expect is that the regulator that upholds these standards would have the appropriate and requisite powers to support it.
“Finally, regarding limited licensure, our proposals are intended to widen access to the veterinary professions, by allowing people who cannot currently fulfil all the criteria of the current day one competences, due to physical and/or other disabilities, the chance to fulfil their potential by entering vet school and becoming qualified veterinary surgeons.
“While there would be certain restrictions on areas of their practice after they qualify, there is no suggestion that this would result in a two-tier system, and we would look to the veterinary and veterinary nursing associations to support positive and inclusive culture so that this would not become the case. At present, people with such disabilities cannot become vets at all, which we feel presents a significant loss to the professions and society as a whole.”
