Richard was elected to RCVS Council in 2020, having previously served as an elected member from 2008 to 2016.
Over the years, he has also been a significant and valued contributor to VetSurgeon.org, and his insight will be missed.
RCVS President Mandisa Greene said: “We thank Richard for his service to the RCVS over the past year and in his previous terms. We particularly thank him for his contribution to a number of committees he has served on during both his periods on Council including the Disciplinary, Finance & Resources and Preliminary Investigation Committees. We wish him all the best for the future.”
Professor Stephen May has now taken up the remainder of Richard’s term on Council, to July 2024, as he received the next largest amount of votes in the 2020 RCVS Council election.
Mr Eccles had first appeared before the Disciplinary Committee in November 2018 where he admitted a number of clinical failings regarding his diagnosis of a cat, the keeping of accurate and detailed clinical records, giving the animal appropriate treatment, surgery and care, and failing to provide the cat’s owners with adequate information on the cat’s care upon discharge.
After Mr Eccles admitted the two charges against him, and the Committee found him guilty of serious professional misconduct, the Committee then postponed its decision on sanction on the condition that Mr Eccles agreed to abide by a set of undertakings in the interim. They included: the preparation of a personal development plan, the enrolment of his practice in the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme, the appointment of a veterinary mentor, the completion of additional training and CPD, and his agreement to pay any costs of complying with the undertakings, including the appointment of and work undertaken by the appointed mentor.
At the resumed hearing last week, the Committee received evidence from Mr Eccles confirming that he had complied with all the original undertakings agreed to in 2018. It also considered some further undertakings that Mr Eccles had agreed to in October 2020 when his reconvened hearing was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic. They included: confirming his compliance with the personal development plan he had drawn up in 2019, his practice achieving the Core Standards accreditation level within the Practice Standards Scheme, continuing to meet with his veterinary mentor, and undertaking additional CPD – all of which were found to be completed.
The Committee also heard evidence from both the veterinary mentor and Mr Eccles himself. In his evidence, Mr Eccles apologised to the owners of the cat for the care he had provided, admitting that he had let them and himself down by not having sufficient knowledge to recognise the cat’s needs and to provide him with a sufficient level of care. He also confirmed he was continuing to make improvements to his practice and that he had enjoyed the process of being mentored.
Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In November 2018, Mr Eccles practice had fallen significantly short of an acceptable and adequate standard. He was a sole practitioner who had drifted away from professional standards.”
“The Committee today considers that Mr Eccles has met the undertakings which he accepted in November 2018 and again in October 2020 when the resumed hearing was adjourned owing to Covid-19. It accepts the College’s analysis as to how those standards have been met. It notes that Mr Eccles’ practice has achieved accreditation in Core Standards under the Practice Standard Scheme, something which is voluntary in ordinary practice. That is an exacting scheme. He has engaged with his mentor and had indicated that he will continue to do so as the need arises in order to maintain his development.”
Dr Whiting added: “The Committee also recognises that this was a single incident in a long career. It accepts that he has shown insight into his shortcomings. He understands what went wrong and why. The Committee was impressed with Mr Eccles’ statement of apology in his oral evidence today.”
“The Committee found the language which he used in answering its questions, as to the effect compliance with the undertakings has had upon him professionally, reassuring. He said he had been rejuvenated and stimulated; he had renewed enthusiasm for the profession. The Committee commends him for exceeding the minimum requirement of the undertakings, despite the stressful context of the Covid-19 pandemic.”
In considering its sanction for the original admitted charges from November 2018, the Committee considered that a reprimand and warning as to future conduct was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.
The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
From now on, accredited General Practices will need to employ at least one Registered Veterinary Nurse (RVN), whilst at Veterinary Hospitals all patients should now have a nursing plan in place, and an RVN will need to be on duty at all times.
Other changes to the PSS requirements include:
The full list of changes to the Practice Standards Scheme, together with the new module and award documents, can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/PSSreview.
David Ashcroft leads the team of PSS Assessors responsible for undertaking practice visits and assessing if they meet the required standards. He said: “The changes will come into force later in the year, at the same time as we are planning to return to in-person assessments, and so timings will be subject to government guidance on coronavirus and the easing of lockdown restrictions.
“As the PSS returns to in-person assessments, practices will have the usual three-month period between booking the assessment and the assessment taking place with which to familiarise themselves with the changes and the modules documents relevant to their accreditation.
“If anyone has any questions about the changes then please make sure to contact the Practice Standards Team on pss@rcvs.org.uk and we will be happy to help in any way we can.”
Mr Chalkley faced three charges against him. The first was that he failed to identify some or all of the animals tested with Intradermal Comparative Tuberculin (ICT) tests at the farm.
The second charge was that Mr Chalkley had certified that he had carried out ICT tests on 279 animals at the farm and recorded the results on the accompanying paperwork but had, in fact, not adequately identified some or all of the 279 animals and had fabricated the skin thickness measurements recorded for some of them.
In addition, the charge alleged that Mr Chalkley’s conduct was dishonest, misleading and risked undermining government testing procedures designed to promote public health.
The third charge was that between June 2011 and September 2018, Mr Chalkley received payment of approximately £20,000 for ICT tests when, as a result of his conduct in relation to ICT tests at the farm, he was not entitled to such payment.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Chalkley admitted the first charge, that he had not adequately identified some of the animals.
On the third day of the hearing, during his evidence to the Committee, he admitted that his certification of the ICT testing was therefore misleading.
He denied the rest of the charges including that his conduct had been dishonest and that it had risked undermining government testing procedures designed to promote public health.
In considering the charges against Mr Chalkley, the Committee heard that discrepancies regarding the tests that were carried out on the farm in March 2018 were originally raised by the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), on whose behalf Mr Chalkley carried out ICT testing in his capacity as an Official Veterinarian.
When Mr Chalkley gave evidence during the hearing, he explained that he had taken over TB testing for the farm in 2008 and that working conditions on the farm had been difficult throughout the whole period 2008 to 2018. He stated that due to the harsh weather conditions of early 2018, TB testing was difficult, and that the farmer needed to complete the test by March 2018 to avoid a financial penalty.
Mr Chalkley explained that one of the reasons for there being limited time available for him to carry out the test within the time required by the farmer was that he was due to provide veterinary cover at the Cheltenham races the following week and he was unable to find anyone else to cover the tests. Mr Chalkley also explained that during the tests on 5 and 8 March there had been limited farmhands available to assist in processing the cattle through the tests.
In the course of being asked questions by counsel for the RCVS, Mr Chalkley accepted that he had failed to identify some 45% of the animals he had injected on 5 March 2018 and had, in respect of each of the skin thickness measurements for those animals, randomly chosen a figure that he believed would be appropriate based on the breed, age and sex of the animal.
The APHA guidelines state that specific measurements should be made and recorded for each individual animal using callipers. Mr Chalkley said that he could not remember seeing the “pop-up” declaration which appeared when submitting the results to the APHA online and had never read it. He stated that he was not aware that he was making a declaration. However, he accepted that as an Official Veterinarian he was confirming that he had carried out the test properly. While he agreed that he knew that the test contained inaccuracies, he did not accept that he was being dishonest when he submitted the results.
Having considered all the evidence put forward by the RCVS and Mr Chalkley in his own defence, the Committee found that Mr Chalkley had acted dishonestly in deliberately choosing not to take the measurements on 5 March and had instead submitted fabricated alternatives, and so risked undermining public health by failing to carry out his duties as an OV.
The Committee also concluded that Mr Chalkley had been acting dishonestly, as he knew that he was submitting the test results as if they were the authentic outcome of a properly conducted test when in reality, they were no such thing.
The Committee did not accept Mr Chalkley’s evidence that he was unaware of the declaration which accompanied the submission of the test outcome. The Committee therefore found both the first and second charges proved.
In respect of the third charge the Committee found that this was not proven noting that the RCVS had not disproved Mr Chalkley’s explanation regarding his reasons for returning the £20,000 in fees he had received for carrying out TB testing at the farm from the APHA since 2011.
The Committee then considered whether the first two charges, both of which had been found proven, amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was prepared to accept that the respondent considered the risk arising from his actions as negligible. Nonetheless, in the Committee’s assessment a real risk existed due to the respondent’s actions and it was precisely the risk which the authorised testing procedure was designed to negate. The simple fact is the respondent could not be sure that each animal he assessed on 8 March 2018 had also been seen by him on 5 March 2018.
“However, the wider point with which the Committee was concerned related to the importance of any member of the profession or public being able to rely absolutely on the integrity of veterinary certification. Those parts of the Code and supporting guidance [concerning certification]… were unequivocal. It was very difficult to conceive of circumstances in which it could ever be justifiable to certify the outcome of a test which had not, in fact, been conducted in a way which was demonstrably valid and reliable. Such conduct was bound to be regarded as disgraceful by members of the profession and the general public.
“Honesty is the bedrock of appropriate certification and the Code and Guidance for the Disciplinary Committee is also unequivocal. Dishonesty in professional practice is always an extremely serious matter and the respondent’s responsibilities in the discharge of his functions as an Official Veterinarian were clear. On this occasion those responsibilities had been compromised.
“For these reasons, the Committee has come to the conclusion that the respondent’s conduct in relation to the facts found proved was disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
The Committee then went on to consider the sanction for Mr Chalkley.
The Committee heard oral evidence in mitigation, including from a former colleague who had worked with him in practice since 2006, as well as receiving a large number of written testimonials from various sources that attested to his honesty, integrity, willingness to help others, and charitable work in support of animal welfare.
Mr Chalkley’s counsel, in mitigation, highlighted his long and previously unblemished career, and characterised the conduct as an inexcusable but explicable error of judgement that was entirely isolated and out-of-character. Mr Chalkley’s counsel added that he had not done anything that he thought was seriously wrong, and there was no evidence that any harm had been done and that any risk to public health was not serious.
The Committee accepted that the conduct was isolated and out-of-character and that, furthermore, Mr Chalkley had made early and frank admissions to the APHA and that he had displayed a degree of insight, although the Committee was less confident that he truly understood the seriousness of the potential consequences of his dishonest conduct.
The Committee took into account the aggravating factors, including Mr Chalkley’s breach of trust of his position as an OV, the undermining of the integrity of veterinary certification, dishonesty and the potential public health impacts of his conduct.
Ian Arundale added: “The Committee considered that, having regard to the mitigating features which it had identified, a suspension order would be sufficient to send to the profession and the public a clear signal about the importance to be attached to accurate certification. The Committee considered that in the particular circumstances of this case, a period of three months suspension would be sufficient to achieve this objective.”
The first meeting takes place on Thursday 27th May from 12.30pm to 1.30pm. It will look at how veterinary practices have had to work differently and adapt to the challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic.
Chris Tufnell, RCVS Council Member and Innovation Lead (pictured right), will be chairing the session. He said: “In the past 15 months we have been in innovation overdrive, adapting at a unprecedented pace to transform how we work, serve our clients and patients, and continue to function as veterinary businesses in less-than-ideal circumstances.
"This event is an opportunity to take a step back, look at what has happened, how we have changed and consider what aspects of these changes we might carry over when we return to near normal working conditions.
"For those who join us, we would like to know what kind of innovation solutions you and your colleagues have developed, and share your stories and ideas to help and inspire others.”
Joining Chris on the panel will be a selection of veterinary professionals who will share their own experience of how they have had to adapt the way they work during the pandemic. Participants include Anita Patel, an RCVS-recognised Specialist in Veterinary Dermatology, who runs her own dermatology referral service, and Richard Artingstall, Clinical Director of Vale Referrals in Gloucestershire.
The event, which will feature short presentations followed by a reflective discussion, is free to attend and can be signed up to via its Eventbrite page at: www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/152857028487
More meetings are planned for later in the year:
If you have any questions about the sessions or would like to take part as a speaker, email the ViVet Manager, Sophie Rogers on s.rogers@rcvs.org.uk or info@vivet.org.uk
The updated guidance follows a public campaign known as ‘Tuk’s Law’, which was started after a healthy dog by that name was euthanased despite its microchip being dually registered with a rehoming centre as a 'rescue backup'.
In response, the RCVS and the BVA agreed that more should be done to prevent occasions where a dog might be needlessly put to sleep, but voiced concerns that a legislative approach could undermine a vet’s clinical judgement, unfairly involve veterinary surgeons in ownership disputes or potential criminality, and leave vets unfairly exposed to financial sanctions.
In consultation with Defra, the RCVS and BVA therefore jointly agreed to strengthen the Code of Professional Conduct as follows:
Chapter 8 (para 8.9)
There may be circumstances where a request is made by a client for the destruction of a dog, where in the clinical/professional judgement of the veterinary surgeon destruction of the dog is not necessary, for instance where there are no health or welfare reasons for the dog to be euthanised.
In these circumstances, before carrying out the request for euthanasia the veterinary surgeon should scan the dog for a microchip and check the relevant database if a microchip is found.
Chapter (paras 29.25 -29.27)
Clients may have a contract with the shelter from which they acquired the dog such that it can be returned to that shelter, and that it may be appropriate to discuss this with them prior to euthanasia. Alternatively, there may be another individual willing to take responsibility for the dog (who may be named on the microchip database), and this may also be discussed with the client.
The updated guidance supports existing best practice in terms of discussing alternatives to euthanasia with clients, and give vets flexibility where, in their professional judgment, scanning is not appropriate; this might be if scanning would itself cause a welfare problem, or where a vulnerable client might be involved.
The RCVS Standards Committee says it recognised the difficulties experienced by veterinary surgeons in dealing with the current microchip database system, but felt that introducing these provisions into the guidance was a more proportionate response than the alternative of legislation with substantial fines.
BVA Senior Vice President Dr Daniella Dos Santos MRCVS said: “One of the most important jobs as a vet is having those difficult conversations with clients about euthanasia where we talk through all the options that are in the animal’s best interests. But where the vet doesn’t consider that euthanasia is necessary, the new guidance clearly sets out the steps we need to take. We support this constructive approach that addresses the campaigners’ concerns without undermining veterinary judgement.”
Ms Burrows faced 11 charges against her.
The first alleged that in November 2017 she had allowed or caused her horse to be re-registered at the Cardiff equine practice where she worked under a different patient name, and had failed to consolidate and cross-reference this new record with the previous one.
The second charge alleged that between November 2017 and March 2018 she failed to make entries into the practice’s clinical records for her horse about its epistaxis and the investigations into the condition.
Charges 3 to 9 related to various telephone conversations and email exchanges Ms Burrows had with NFU Mutual in 2018 in which she failed to disclose the horse’s full clinical history and knowingly gave false statements to the effect that the horse’s condition of epistaxis had started more recently than it actually had. These charges also include asking an administrative colleague in the practice to, unknowingly, provide the insurance company with false information.
Charge 10 alleged that Ms Burrows asked a colleague to provide incorrect and/or dishonest information to the insurance company about the date of an endoscopy that had been performed on her horse in or around November or December 2017.
The final charge (Charge 11) alleged that, in regard to all previous charges, Ms Burrows had acted dishonestly.
At the outset of the hearing Ms Burrows admitted to Charges 2 to 9, as well as charge 11 in so far as it related to these charges.
However, she denied that she had allowed the creation of a new record for her horse under a different name for the purposes of concealing its clinical history or that she had attempted to induce a veterinary surgeon colleague to provide false information about the treatment of her horse.
Nevertheless, the Committee found all the charges proven.
Next the Committee considered whether the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In doing so the Committee considered the pre-meditated nature of Ms Burrows’ conduct in setting up the second record for her horse with the intention of benefitting financially by providing false information. Likewise, the Committee considered that Ms Burrows had abused her professional position by asking her colleague who was a practice administrator to, unknowingly, provide false information to the insurance company on her behalf and in attempting to induce a veterinary surgeon colleague to lie on her behalf.
The Committee found her guilty of serious professional misconduct in respect of all 11 charges and stated that her conduct could be characterised as deplorable.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that, in the event, no actual harm had been occasioned to any animal or person. There had been an attempt at, but no actual, financial gain. The Committee had not been informed of any previous regulatory findings against Ms Burrows. In addition Ms Burrows had made some, limited, admissions to the College in her responses to it and has admitted a number of the Charges, including her dishonesty, before the Committee. Ms Burrows has apologised for that to which she admitted and in the Committee’s view has displayed a limited degree of insight.”
Having determined serious professional misconduct, the Committee then went on to consider the appropriate sanction for Ms Burrows. Ahead of the decision she made representations to the Committee in which she acknowledged that she had let the profession down, multiple breaches of the Code, and highlighted that her actions had prejudiced the delicate relationship between the public and the profession and had tarnished the reputation of the profession. She asked the Committee for the opportunity for a second chance, saying that she had started her own veterinary practice now and that honesty and integrity were now integral to her practice.
The Committee also heard several character witnesses as well as testimonials from both professional colleagues and clients attesting to her integrity and capabilities as a veterinary surgeon. Ms Burrows’ counsel also highlighted that at the time of the misconduct she was young and relatively new to veterinary practice and had been going through a difficult time, both professionally and personally.
Ultimately, however, the Committee decided that removal from the Register was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.
Cerys Jones, speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: “In the view of the Committee, honesty in a veterinary surgeon is a fundamental professional issue, and that is the case regardless of age and experience. The public, other professionals and insurers all at times rely on the word of a professional veterinary surgeon to honestly attest to matters of importance. All need to be able to trust the veterinary surgeon. Any departure from a standard of honesty undermines public confidence in the profession.
“In the Committee’s determination, Ms Burrows had shown a repeated disregard for the principle of honesty on a number of occasions when dealing with the insurance claim in her telephone calls. Moreover, the Committee had found that Dr Burrows had caused or allowed the preparation of documentation concealing the full history of her horse and attempted to involve another professional in the matter.
“The Committee had found that Ms Burrows’ dishonesty had extended over approximately five months, and she had had several opportunities to resile from it. However, it took until [a colleague] raised the issue with Ms Burrows before she took steps to end the claim.
“The Committee determined that Ms Burrows had put her own interests ahead of those of the public and undermined the trust that underpins the relationship with insurers.”
She added: “In the Committee’s determination, the repeated dishonesty in the case in all the circumstances could not be met other than by directing that Ms Burrows’ registration be removed from the Register.”
Ms Burrows has 28 days from being informed of the outcome of the hearing to appeal the Committee’s decision.
The survey is the second stage of a three stage review recommended to RCVS Council by the College’s Standards Committee in 2019, after it looked at the implications of new technologies for both animal welfare and veterinary regulation.
The main areas under consideration include the provision of 24/7 emergency cover and the interpretation and application of an animal being under the care of a veterinary surgeon. The review also encompasses remote consulting.
In stage one of the review, the RCVS commissioned a research agency to conduct a series of focus group discussions with veterinary professionals working in a variety of roles and sectors. The information gleaned from the discussions was then used to develop the questions for this survey.
The survey will ask veterinary professionals to reflect on what, for them, should underpin good regulations and guidelines for practice.
It will then ask respondents how these principles should be applied in particular situations relating to 24/7 emergency cover and 'under care' before inviting their views on how they would like regulations on these two areas to deal with any tensions between different desirable regulatory aims.
The survey results will be used to help produce any changes to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance concerning ‘under care’ and the provision of 24/7 emergency cover, which will then be put out for full public consultation later this year.
Chair of the RCVS Standards Committee, Dr Melissa Donald, said: “This review addresses fundamental questions about how we should continue to interpret ‘under care’ in a profession, and a society, that is largely unrecognisable to the one that first defined the term, and, at the same time, how we can continue to provide 24/7 emergency cover for those animals under our care.
“The original Vet Futures report also emphasised the impact that technological advances may have on the veterinary professions, so we must ensure we have in place a regulatory framework that gives consideration to these potential changes whilst ensuring animal health and welfare remain at its heart.
“These are challenging but hugely important questions on which we are hoping to receive as much feedback as possible. I do understand the huge pressures my vet and vet nurse colleagues continue to work under at the moment, so would like to thank them in advance for taking a little time out of their busy days to send us their views.”
The survey will open on Wednesday, 19th May 2021 for all UK-based veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
All responses will be used and reported anonymously, so respondents will not be identified.
The survey will be open for four weeks, closing at 5pm on Wednesday, 16 June 2021.
It should take 15-20 minutes to complete, but can be returned to and completed in stages if preferred.
Further background information about the Under Care Review is available at www.rcvs.org.uk/undercare.
The ‘Introduction to the UK veterinary professions’ is a two-part online course run in partnership with VDS Training, designed to equip vets and nurses with the insight needed to work in the UK veterinary profession.
Due to the coronavirus pandemic, the course has been moved online. It includes a series of free online pre-recorded talks from representatives at a number of different veterinary organisations, including the RCVS, VDS Training, the British Veterinary Association, Vetlife, and VetAbroad.
The talks cover a variety of topics such as the Code of Professional Conduct, how to find the right job for you, how to look after mental health and wellbeing, and recognising and understanding cultural differences.
There will then be a number of live Question and Answer sessions across different dates over the coming months [see below], which are also free to attend, so those who have watched the videos can ask further questions from some of the speakers themselves.
Part 2 of the course is an optional practical and participatory paid-for online live communications skills training session run by VDS Training, looking at how to navigate some of the most common pitfalls encountered during client consultations, helping to equip you with the skills and confidence to communicate effectively in practice.
Ian Holloway, RCVS Director of Communications, said: “While we enjoyed running this course in person and meeting veterinary professionals from all over the world, the coronavirus pandemic has also given us the opportunity to look at how we can make this course even more accessible for a greater number of people.
“While there is still a significant live element, albeit online for the time being, the pre-recorded talks enable those veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to do much of the learning in their own time, without having to take time off work or travel to London for the day, meaning that more people can engage with this crucial information on working in the UK.”
Elly Russell MRCVS, a consultant at VDS Training, added: “Communicating with clients can be one of the most rewarding, but also challenging parts of our jobs as veterinary professionals. Communication problems lead to complaints, increase your stress at work and can impact the care our patients receive. Join VDS training for a highly interactive, online 4-hour workshop. Work in small groups with our experienced facilitators and role players using realistic scenarios to practise and develop your communication skills. Let us help you feel more confident managing common communication challenges in UK practice: improved communication will help you, your clients, and your patients.”
The dates for the free live 2021 Q&A sessions are:
The dates and times for the paid-for live online communications skills workshops from VDS Training are:
The cost for attending the communication skills session (Part 2) is £150 +VAT per person. It is not mandatory to complete both parts of the course, but those who are interested may choose the part of the course most suitable for them.
For further information: www.rcvs.org.uk/overseas-cpd
The FAQs cover everything within the College’s guidance on veterinary medicines, including questions around controlled drugs, their storage, destruction and prescription, supplying medicines under the cascade, and prescriptions in general including topics such as what written information to provide, broach dates, and repeat prescriptions.
Lisa Price, RCVS Head of Standards, said: “Queries about veterinary medicines are some of the most frequent questions that our Standards & Advice Team deal with and we recognise that this is quite a complex and potentially confusing area of practice, with information being contained in a variety of places including the RCVS Codes of Professional Conduct, the Veterinary Medicines Regulations and the Practice Standards Guidance.
“We felt it would be helpful to try and draw much of this information into one place and provide answers to questions applicable to common scenarios that veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses encounter within everyday practice.
“The 17 questions and answers have all been approved by the RCVS Standards Committee and we hope members of the professions find them useful.
"We are also open to feedback and suggestions for further questions to be added to the FAQs and you can contact us on advice@rcvs.org.uk if you have any.”
The full FAQs can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/medicines-faqs
The RCVS Code of Professional Conduct’s chapter of supporting guidance on veterinary medicines can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/medicines
Fourteen veterinary surgeons stood for election this year and 8,542 voted, a turnout of 24.5% of eligible voters. That compares with a turnout of 26.2% in 2020, 25.5% in 2019 and 22.7% in 2018.
Danny scored a total of 4,759 votes, leaving the other successful candidates Tshidi Gardiner, Colin Whiting and Louise Allum nevertheless trailing in his wake, with 3,228 votes, 2,957 votes and 2,368 votes respectively.
The VN Council election also had fourteen candidates standing for one elected place, the other having been taken by Susan Howarth RVN who was automatically re-elected as the only candidate standing at the time of the original deadline in January.
Donna Lewis was elected with 404 votes from those cast by 2,341 veterinary nurses, which amounted to a turnout of 12.4% of eligible voters. That compares with a turnout of 17.1% in 2020, 14.5% in 2017 and 10.9% in 2016.
All of those elected to either RCVS or VN Councils will formally take up their seats at the RCVS Annual General Meeting on Friday 9 July 2021.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for both elections, said: “Thank you to all those who stood as candidates and all those who voted in this year’s elections, especially in view of all the extra demands on everyone’s time at the moment. Many congratulations to our five successful candidates with whom we look forward to working over the coming months and years.
“Even though the elections were held during the ongoing pandemic, the RCVS Council election still produced the third highest turnout on record, and turnout in both elections was above the average for those held over the last ten years.
“As always, we made concerted efforts to let people know about this year’s election, which included additional reminder emails sent on behalf of the RCVS by our election provider Civica Election Services, as well as regular email reminders and social media posts from the RCVS. We do, of course, always endeavour to improve turnout, and will continue to review this going forward.”
Photo: Left to right, Danny Chambers, Tshidi Gardiner, Colin Whiting and Louise Allum.
The awards were:
Queen’s Medal - to Dr John (Iain) Glen MRCVS (pictured right) who, at AstraZeneca, was responsible for the discovery and development of the anaesthetic drug propofol, one of the world’s most common anaesthetics for medical and veterinary use.
Honorary Associateships - Two were awarded this year. The first went to Professor Stuart Carter, Emeritus Professor of Veterinary Pathology at the University of Liverpool’s Institution of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences. The second was awarded to Anthony Martin, a philanthropist with a particular interest in supporting national and international charities working with the veterinary profession to improve animal welfare.
Impact Award - Two were awarded this year. The first went to Alison Lambert, the founder and owner of veterinary business consultancy Onswitch which helps veterinary businesses create customer-centred practice so that pets, horses and livestock receive the best care. The second was awarded to Dr Gwenllian Rees for her involvement in the Arwain Vet Cymru (AVC) project, a collaborative national antimicrobial stewardship program for farm vets in Wales.
Inspiration Awards - Daniella Dos Santos MRCVS was nominated for her leadership role at the BVA during the early stage of the coronavirus pandemic. The second award went to Professor Mandy Peffers, a Wellcome Trust Clinical Intermediate Fellow in Musculoskeletal & Ageing Science at the Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences at the University of Liverpool.
The International Award was posthumously awarded to Emeritus Professor Michael Day, the prolific researcher and writer.
A new award this year is the Compassion Award, which was given to David Martin MRCVS for his work helping practitioners identify the signs of non-accidental injury.
Another new award this year is the Student Community Award, given to Jack Church, who - on top of his studies - has been volunteering on a covid ward, and Lavinia Economu, for her work to inspire young people from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) and different socio-economic backgrounds into the veterinary professions..
Dr Mandisa Greene MRCVS, RCVS President, said: “I am so impressed by the breadth and depth of the awards nominations that we received this year which demonstrate the very best that the veterinary professions have to offer.
“From veterinary students to veterinary surgeons and nurses who have been practising for decades, all our award winners demonstrate that veterinary professionals and veterinary science has a profound and positive impact not only on animal health and welfare but also wider society. I am immensely happy and proud for them all and look forward to formally being able to present them with their awards later this year.”
A formal awards ceremony, hosted by Mandisa, will take place on Thursday, 23 September 2021. Further details on the event and how to attend will be published later this year.
Kate’s election means that, come July and subject to ratification by RCVS Council, the offices of RCVS President, Senior-Vice President and Junior Vice-President will all be held by women for the first time in the College’s 177-year history.
A graduate of Edinburgh’s Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, Kate was a farm vet for 15 years, a partner in a 15 vet practice in Aberdeen. She then moved to the pharmaceutical industry as a veterinary advisor before joining the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra). From there, she moved into non-veterinary Senior Civil Service (SCS) roles in several Whitehall departments including the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Justice. As a senior civil servant she was Principal Private Secretary to three Secretaries of State for Scotland, handling a diverse policy portfolio and working across Whitehall, including No.10 Downing Street and the Devolved Administrations.
First elected to RCVS Council in 2015 for a four year term and again in 2020, Kate has previously served as Chair of the RCVS Standards Committee and RCVS representative on the UK co-ordination group for the Federation of Vets of Europe (FVE). Currently Vice Chair of the Education Committee, member of the Registration Committee and the Environment & Sustainability Working Party, Kate is an appointed veterinary member of Veterinary Nurses’ Council.
Kate is a qualified Official Veterinarian (OV), a Non-Executive Director on the Moredun Foundation and Scottish Agriculture College (SAC) Commercial Boards, a veterinary advisor on a Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) mental health project and on the Council of the Association of Government Veterinarians. She’s a member of the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and the Veterinary Public Health Association. A Council member of the British Cattle Veterinary Association (2004-10), Kate served as a Trustee of the BVA Animal Welfare Foundation (2014-17).
Current RCVS President Dr Mandisa Greene will become Senior Vice-President, and joining Kate and Mandisa on the Officer team will be Dr Melissa Donald, who last month was elected Junior Vice-President for 2021-22. Current Senior Vice-President Dr Niall Connell was recently elected RCVS Treasurer.
The vacancy in the RCVS Officer team arose following Professor David Argyle’s decision to resign from Council in March, meaning that Council needed to hold two votes in quick succession: one at its scheduled meeting in March for the 2021-22 JVP position; and one today for the current JVP vacancy.
Kate said: “I am delighted to be elected JVP. It’s been an exceptionally challenging year for those in all walks of veterinary life, including students aspiring to join our profession. It will be an honour to lead the RCVS as its tenth female president, working with veterinary colleagues as well as reaching out to allied professionals acknowledging that there will be challenges to navigate as well as triumphs to celebrate.”
In a statement issued this morning, the College explained that a review carried out after tea yesterday afternoon concluded that in the post pandemic world, most of its staff will continue to work from home. The need for office space is therefore limited to three meeting rooms and a kitchenette.
VetSurgeon.org understands that as a result, negotiations are already well advanced between the College and the owners of Ugland House in the Cayman Islands (pictured right) over the sale of one floor of the building, which is also home to 20,000 companies based on the tax-efficient island.
RCVS spokesperson Flora Olip said: “This move makes all sorts of sense. It represents a considerable cost-saving over our London premises and it puts the College at the very centre of the global veterinary community.
RCVS CEO Lizzie Lockett was last seen browsing the beachwear section of www.harrods.com.
The deal includes an option for the College to lease the building for up to two years to give it time to consider its options for the future, and how they may have changed as a result of the pandemic.
The decision to sell the property was made back in November 2018, when Council decided that the building was rapidly becoming unfit for purpose and the College needed more up-to-date and modern facilities with more room for a growing workforce. The College’s Estates Strategy Project Board was tasked with managing the process, chaired by former RCVS President Barry Johnson.
RCVS Treasurer Susan Dawson said: “Council recognised that this deal realised maximum value for the building, especially considering the impact the pandemic has had on property prices in Central London.
“It also provides a very valuable opportunity to reflect on the changing needs of the organisation and the professions and public it serves, and to consider the requirements and different working patterns of the College staff going forwards.
“It is likely that many staff members will wish to continue to work at home more than they did pre-Covid, so the need for pure desk-space may not be as great as we had planned for the 10-15 years ahead. However, the importance of in-person meetings for collaboration, creativity and the maintenance of good corporate culture is not to be underestimated, so our new requirements are likely to be different to that anticipated back in 2018.”
The College says it expects to welcome limited numbers of staff back to the office in June, to work in a socially distanced way, including virtual or partly-virtual meetings.
Changes to working patterns over the coming months will also help inform decisions around future remote working policies and the type and size of building that will best suit the future needs of the College and its workforce.
201 practices took part in the survey between 25th February and 4th March 2021. The main findings were:
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “Although this survey took place in the midst of the lockdown and before the schools re-opened, there were some positive results here around staffing and the financial situation for practices. Hopefully this will mean that, as the restrictions ease going from spring into summer, many practices and practice staff will be in a position to return to a near-normal level of service and business.
"There were, however, still a few areas of concern, some of which will hopefully be resolved by the forthcoming easing of restrictions, for example, the difficulty in obtaining independent witnesses for the destruction of controlled drugs, with some 34% of practices reporting difficulties, compared to 20% in December.
“Once again, I would like to thank all those practices who responded to this and previous surveys, and continue to provide invaluable evidence and feedback about the current state of veterinary practice.”
The full results of the survey can be downloaded at: www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
The new guidance, which can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/coronavirus, will gradually replace the current emergency guidance and aims to help veterinary practices begin a phased return to near-normal operations:
Alongside the College’s guidance, the BVA is also publishing guidance for practices on working safely as lockdown restrictions are eased. [www.bva.co.uk/coronavirus/]
RCVS President Mandisa Greene said: “None of us could have predicted quite what an extraordinary and extraordinarily challenging 12 months this has been for everyone.
"On behalf of the whole of RCVS Council, I would like to thank sincerely once again all our veterinary and veterinary nursing colleagues, and all those in practice teams around the UK, for their awe-inspiring commitment, adaptability, resilience and sheer hard work in continuing to provide essential veterinary services and look after the health and welfare of the nation’s animals, in what have been the most difficult of times.
“Whilst I sincerely hope that we are at last beginning to see light at the end of the tunnel, if there is one thing we have learnt, it is that things can deteriorate rapidly if we don’t all continue to play our part and follow all relevant guidelines.
“I therefore urge my colleagues to continue to use their professional judgement and think very carefully about their gradual return to more normal working patterns over the coming weeks and months, according to their individual circumstances and the best interests of their teams, clients, and the animals they care for.”
RCVS Council has also agreed that the policy and guidance changes made in response to the pandemic over the past 12 months will now be reviewed, and decisions made as to whether to retain, amend or reverse them.
Melissa graduated from the University of Glasgow in 1987 and, after working as a food animal intern at Iowa State University in the United States for a stint, in 1990 joined a two-person traditional mixed-animal veterinary practice on the Ayrshire coast. Over the next 25 years she developed it into a 4.5 person small-animal practice with a focus on dentistry, before moving away from clinical work in 2015.
Melissa was first elected to Council in 2016 and re-elected in 2020 and, since joining, has sat on a number of committees including the Education Committee, Finance & Resources Committee, and Preliminary Investigation Committee/Disciplinary Committee Liaison Committee. Since 2019 she has chaired the Standards Committee where she has led the Review of ‘Under Care’ and Out-of-Hours Emergency Cover and also chairs the Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice Subcommittee.
As well as her work with RCVS she has also been President of the British Veterinary Association’s Scottish Branch and is currently a Non-Executive Director of the Red Tractor Assured Food Standards Scheme and a Trustee of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Outside of work, she enjoys running, swimming, cooking, reading and hopes to have the patience one day to write children’s books.
Melissa said: “I’m delighted and humbled to have been voted in as JVP from July. Thank you to my peers on Council and, as with everything I have done in my career, you, the profession, will see me put all my energy and commitment into the role.
"Themes that I'm keen to develop as a member of the RCVS Officer Team will be: communication, as that can always be improved; community, including within the profession, within the workplace and within the society in which you live; and continuing with the ‘blame culture’ theme originally set out in Chris Tufnell's presidency by looking into how we can use veterinary human factors to improve patient safety."
Other appointments that were confirmed by election at the same meeting of Council was Dr Niall Connell MRCVS as RCVS Treasurer, a role he will take up at the July AGM after completing his year as Senior Vice-President.
Niall: “It is a tremendous honour for me to be elected Treasurer. The RCVS has an exciting strategy which I am looking forward to playing my part in ensuring we remain on a sound financial footing, supporting projects within the RCVS Strategic Plan and continuing to play a wider role within the RCVS Officer Team.”
In terms of committee chairs, Dr Sue Paterson FRCVS was reconfirmed as Chair of the Education Committee, Dr Melissa Donald was reconfirmed as Chair of the Standards Committee and current RCVS President Dr Mandisa Greene MRCVS was elected as Chair of the Advancement of the Professions Committee, replacing Professor David Argyle in that post from July 2021.
Following Professor Argyle stepping down as Junior Vice-President earlier in March 2021, an election to replace him as Junior Vice-President for the remainder of the presidential year will take place in April 2021. Subject to the usual approval from Council, this person will take up the position of RCVS President 2021-22 following the AGM in July.
There are 14 candidates standing in this year’s election, including one current RCVS Council member eligible for re-election and 13 candidates not currently on Council. They are:
In 2018 changes were made to the governance arrangements of the RCVS after a Legislative Reform Order changing the size and composition of Council was passed by Parliament. The changes mean that, in most years, there will be three elected places available for the candidates. However, this year the four candidates with the most votes will be starting their four-year terms on Council. This is to ensure that elected RCVS Council members remain in the majority.
Emails containing links to the secure election voting websites which are unique to each member of the electorate, were sent on 17 March 2021 by Civica Election Services (CES) (formerly Electoral Reform Services) which runs the election on behalf of the College.
All votes must be cast online by 5pm on Friday 23 April 2021. The small numbers of veterinary surgeons for whom the RCVS does not hold email addresses have been sent letters in the post containing instructions on how they can vote online, including contact details for CES to provide further advice.
The biographies and statements for each candidate can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote21.
This year the College invited RCVS Council candidates to produce a video in which they answered up to two questions submitted directly to the RCVS from members of the electorate. The videos have been published on the RCVS website as well as on the RCVS YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos).
The PIC decision marked the conclusion of its investigation into a concern that was raised formally last November involving allegations of bullying at Professor Argyle’s workplace, the University of Edinburgh.
Professor Argyle, who had previously decided to step aside from his JVP and Council duties until the concern was investigated and concluded, said: “Despite this outcome from the PIC discussions, I have now made the challenging decision to stand down from my position at the RCVS. This is to ensure there is no further distraction to the College’s important work and activities and that whoever becomes the next JVP has the full support of Council and RCVS members.
"It is also to reduce the toll this situation has taken on my family, colleagues and students, and on me personally. I am proud and privileged to have served on RCVS Council for nearly ten years and wish it well as it navigates the next chapter in its history."
RCVS President Mandisa Greene said: “I appreciate that this has been an exceptionally difficult situation and very upsetting for all involved.
"I understand why David has taken the difficult decision to stand down from RCVS Council and would like to thank him for his many years of service to the RCVS since joining Council in 2012.
"I would also like to reassure colleagues once again that, throughout, the College has remained firmly committed to following due, proper and fair process in all its regulatory activities."
Following Professor Argyle’s decision to step down, the process for electing a new JVP for the current presidential year will commence.
As Professor Argyle was a Veterinary Schools Council appointee on RCVS Council, it will be for that body to elect a replacement Council member.
Further details will be announced in due course.
The Disciplinary Committee took the unusual step of granting an application by the respondent for anonymity, after seeing evidence of a real and immediate threat to the individual’s security if their details were made public.
For the purposes of the hearing, the respondent was therefore referred to as 'X'.
The Committee heard that the individual pleaded guilty in court in 2020 to intentionally and knowingly attempting to communicate with a person under 16 years for the purposes of sexual gratification.
Following this they were sentenced to a two-year probation order, were ordered to register on the Sexual Offences Register for five years; and were made subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order for five years.
At the outset of the hearing the individual admitted to all the charges against them and the Committee also noted that there was a certified copy of the conviction available.
The Committee then considered whether the conviction amounted to serious professional misconduct. In considering this, it set out the aggravating factors surrounding the case, these being that there was the risk of actual harm to a minor, that the misconduct was premeditated as the respondent had sent a number of messages via a number of online platforms over several days, that the individual displayed predatory behaviour including sending pictures and making comments of a sexual nature, and that it involved what the respondent believed to be a vulnerable individual, namely a 15-year-old child.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that there had been no actual harm caused to a human or animal in light of the fact that the 15-year-old child, who the respondent believed they were communicating with, was not real. It also took into account that the conduct related to a single isolated incident and that the individual had made open and frank admissions at an early stage.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was satisfied that the sentence imposed on X, which included X being subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order until 2025, resulted in the profession of veterinary nurses being brought into disrepute and, in the Committee’s judgement, public confidence in the profession would be undermined if the Committee did not find that the conviction rendered X unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.”
In considering the individual’s sanction, the Committee heard from a character witness who said that the respondent’s actions were out of character, that they had a previously long and unblemished career, that they had made full admissions and demonstrated insight, and that they had a low risk of reoffending in the future.
Cerys said: “The Committee accepted that X had been an excellent veterinary nurse and that X’s criminal conduct did not relate to X’s practice as a veterinary nurse. However, in the Committee’s judgement, the aggravating factors outweighed the considerable mitigating factors in this case.”
She added: “The Committee decided that a suspension order was not the appropriate sanction for such a serious offence because it did not reflect the gravity of X’s conduct. In the Committee’s judgement, the wider public interest, that is the maintenance of the reputation of the profession and the College as a regulator, required a sanction of removal from the Register. The Committee considered that X had much mitigation and was clearly a dedicated veterinary nurse but the reputation of the profession was more important than the interests of X.
“Further, the Committee noted that in circumstances where X’s probation order expired in 2022, and where the ancillary orders, a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and a requirement to register on the Sexual Offences Register did not expire until 2025; the only proportionate sanction was to direct the Registrar to remove X’s name from the Register of Veterinary Nurses.”
Dr Fures was convicted of driving with excess alcohol in the Dublin Criminal Courts of Justice in December 2018.
Later, when renewing his UK RCVS registration, Dr Fures told the RCVS Chief Investigator that on the day of his offence, he'd been on a flight from Frankfurt to Dublin which suffered engine failure, causing the pilot to perform a forced emergency landing in Amsterdam. There, he claimed, the passengers switched to an airworthy plane for the rest of the journey, during which he had several drinks to calm his nerves.
In a remarkably detailed and complex investigation, the RCVS Chief Investigator rang Lufthansa and discovered that the flight had not suffered engine failure and had flown direct from Frankfurt to Dublin without incident.
In May and July 2020, the RCVS Chief Investigator wrote to Dr Fures setting out the result of his investigations and research. In his responses Dr Fures accepted that his memory of the incident was wrong.
At the outset of the hearing Dr Fures made an application to the Committee enter into undertakings to voluntarily remove himself from the UK Register and to not apply to re-join. However, the Committee did not accept these undertakings in part on the basis that he was not of retirement age and intended to continue to practise in Ireland.
The Committee considered that if it were to accept his undertakings, then there would be no judgement or findings that could be passed on to the Veterinary Council of Ireland for consideration via its own disciplinary procedures.
Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee decided that this is a case in which the public interest, confidence in the profession, and, potentially, the welfare of animals, demands that there be a full hearing, with determinations made by the Disciplinary Committee."
The Committee then went on to consider the facts of the case.
Dr Fures admitted that he had supplied the RCVS with false information about his conviction for drink driving but denied that this was dishonest at the time that he supplied the information. He accepted that the information he provided was wrong, in that his flight between Frankfurt and Dublin, while delayed by just over an hour, did not have to land in Amsterdam as he had previously claimed.
He said that his false statement was based on misremembering the circumstances and that he had genuinely believed his statement was true at the time it was made to the RCVS. He said that, due to shame over his conviction and the negative impact it had on the life of him and his family, he had created a false memory of the circumstances.
However, the Committee was not persuaded that there was any other explanation in this case, other than that Dr Fures deliberately and dishonestly gave false information to the RCVS, to excuse his behaviour.
The Committee then considered if the admitted and proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Ian said: “The Committee was of the view that Dr Fures’ actions in dishonestly giving false details to his regulator was serious. While it was the case that there was no actual harm or risk to animals arising out of his conduct, the Committee took into account that the dishonest account was given deliberately.
“In addition, it was sustained, in that it was relied upon and expanded upon on several occasions when the College sought further clarity. Dr Fures had the opportunity to correct the situation, and give the truthful account, but he did not do so. The dishonesty was designed to achieve personal gain to Dr Fures, in that he wished to minimise the actions which the College may take against him, and, in consequence, safeguard his career.
“Dr Fures’ action in dishonestly giving false information to his regulator struck at the heart of his obligation, as a registered professional, to be open and honest with his regulator. This obligation is necessary to allow the College, as regulator, to carry out its crucial and statutory functions in ensuring that it investigates concerns properly.”
In considering the sanction for Dr Fures, the Committee took into account the mitigating factors, including the fact that there were no previous regulatory findings against Dr Fures or any previous conviction for dishonesty, that he had demonstrated remorse for his actions, that there was no actual harm or risk of harm to any animal, that no concerns raised about Dr Fures’ practice, that there was no repetition of the dishonest conduct and that he had demonstrated some insight.
However, in terms of aggravating factors it considered that there was deliberate and sustained dishonesty and that he had sought personal gain as a result of his actions.
After considering various options, the Committee decided that a reprimand and warning as to future conduct was the most appropriate sanction for Dr Fures.
At the hearing, Dr Crawford made no admissions to the charges against him which involved allegations of: failing to provide adequate and appropriate care; failing to provide adequate clinical histories to another practice in respect of several animals; failing to treat fellow veterinary professionals and other members of staff from another practice with courtesy and respect; failing to maintain adequate clinical records; failing to have in place Professional Indemnity Insurance or equivalent arrangements; and, failing to respond to reasonable requests from the RCVS.
Dr Crawford’s representative drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that Mr Crawford was 71 years old, had no previous disciplinary findings against him and had now ceased practising, including closing his practice premises and notifying his previous clients of the closure.
His representative confirmed that Mr Crawford was fully aware that if his application was accepted, he would no longer be able to practise as a veterinary surgeon or identify as a veterinary surgeon. The Committee also noted that the RCVS had consulted with the complainants who were satisfied with the case being disposed of in this way.
Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee, and speaking on its behalf, said: “Having weighed the public interest in a hearing with the registrant’s interests, the Committee determined that this is not a case in which the public interest required there to be a full hearing. Protection of the welfare of animals would also not be further served by a full hearing. The Committee decided to accede to the respondent’s application.
"The Committee considered that the adjournment on undertakings served to protect the public interest, confidence in the profession and the welfare of animals.
"The Committee carefully considered the detail of the undertakings. It decided, after due consideration that it would accept the respondent’s undertakings in the terms offered and signed."
The Committee also heard that if Dr Crawford were to apply to re-join the Register at a future point, then the adjourned case would be re-opened and a full, public Disciplinary Committee hearing would be held.
The full documentation for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The charity reports that 2020 was its busiest year ever, with 3,921 calls to its Helpline - a 25% increase over 2019.
Similarly, Vetlife's Health Support service saw a record number of referrals in 2020. There were 190 referrals made over the year, compared to 149 in 2019.
At the same time, the charity says it has seen a decrease in income, putting a strain on its resources. The pledge from the RCVS comes in addition to the annual donation of £100,000 made by the Mind Matters Initiative towards the Health Support service. On top of this, the Mind Matters Initiative also helps to fund other essential running costs for the charity, including the Helpline call directing service and by its contribution to the annual Helpline training for volunteers.
Graham Dick, Vetlife President (pictured right) said: “The last 12 months have brought significant challenges for Vetlife as restrictions in fundraising have combined with a significant uplift in demand for our Vetlife Helpline and Health Support services. Against this background the substantial ongoing financial support provided by the RCVS through MMI, both for the costs of professional mental health support and for the necessary call-handling facilities which underpin our Helpline, continues to be an invaluable contribution to the wellbeing of the veterinary community we serve."
Veterinary surgeons who want to pay in full must do so before before 1st June 2021. For those UK-practising vets who want to pay the fee in three instalments, the first payment should be received before 1st June, the second payment before 1st October and the final payment before the end of the year.
Any vets who do not pay either the fee in full or the first instalment before 1st June will be removed from the Register. If they want to be restored, they'll need to pay an additional restoration fee as well as the registration fee.
Professor Susan Dawson, RCVS Treasurer, said: “Due to the ongoing disruption to the profession because of the lockdown, we are glad to say that RCVS Council has again approved the ability for members of the profession to pay their fee in instalments and therefore spread the cost during this already difficult year.
"We would like to remind members of the profession that the option to pay in instalments is only available to UK-practising veterinary surgeons. For any UK-practising veterinary surgeons who have a Direct Debit set up but who wish to pay by instalments, please make sure to cancel your Direct Debit as soon as possible."
Payments can be made via the My Account area of the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/myaccount) where you will also need to confirm that you meet the annual continuing professional development (CPD) requirement and declare any convictions, cautions and/or adverse findings.
Any questions, contact the Registration Department: registration@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0707.
For advice about making payments or submitting a remittance form, contact the Finance Department on finance@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0723.
Further details about paying in instalments can also be found in a series of FAQs at: www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/coronavirus-covid-19/retention-fee-faqs/