Whose RCVS?

RE: Whose RCVS?

J G Wray — Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:24:48 GMT

Having a wide scope for behaviours under the Charter is a seductive thing. There is enticement and the prospect of gratification.

The choice of behaviours is all. Some choices may be directed, like EU Directives on Regulatory bodies providing ADR systems. Some may be associated with evolved "best" practice amongst professional Regulators. Some choices for behaviours at RCVS may be driven by the agenda of those in authority and because of the way the Charter is written and RCVS operates, there may be few brakes or opportunities for modification of these. There is no parliamentary style debate by appointed representatives for instance, no oversight by a second chamber. The checks and balances that exist work obscurely. Discovering the amount of and usage of thousands of pounds available to the CEO for their discretionary use is a Herculean task, for instance.

RFPs fund a number of RCVS Charter behaviours without consultation e.g. International Branding. In this specific case it is extremely difficult to see what's in it for RFPs. The idea of some kind of vicarious credit going to RFPs because of the possible success of a RCVS brand is thin.

In other cases there was some consultation, e.g. the development of the brand called Vet Futures. In this case it is difficult to see what it means for the here and now and difficult to understand future value, when its consultation and activities have not included the involvement of what most of the profession do right now. RFPs fund this.

Mind Matters grew out of Trust activities.

RFPs, at the most basic level, fund RCVS Charter activity. The choice of activities is exclusively the preserve of those at RCVS. There is no opportunity for RFPs to require any discretion on the part of those who operate under Charter licence. Elected Council members are, as we are constantly being told, not there to represent the interests of those who voted for them. Therefore RFP funding is always destined to be based on the whim of the greatest good, which is the support and promulgation of RCVS and its brands.

Ironically, the dissociation of the RCVS behaviours from RFPs was noted as far back as at EFRACOM, where a new Act was considered. Some may recall that there was no real Departmental support or even funding for the move - the loss of self-regulatory status, was , in that moment, dismissed as hooey. RCVS found another way to support its activities through a new Charter, a good thing on balance, but we are now seeing the fruits of autonomous behaviours, without check or reference to those who fund the non Statutory part of the RCVS' activities and it's not transparent, representative or, as far as I can tell accountable.

RE: Whose RCVS?

Malcolm Ness — Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:19:52 GMT

[quote user="Glen McIntosh"]Perhaps you don't mean the charter?[/quote]

Yep, I mean the charter - but the Vet Surgeons Act is not displaced by or subservient to what is written in the charter and supplement. The defining bit about the UK vet profession is that we are a self-regulating profession and the regulatory role is central to that.

It would be potentially beneficial to have a different act that is more wide ranging and encompasses all of the performance stuff but Parliament hasn't obliged, and looks unlikely so to do.

I remain very concerned by the very wooly thinking around this issue - is ADR and alternative or an addition. I don't see how it can be the former (without re-writing the legislation) and if it is the latter (potentially a very good thing) then it needs to look very, very different. Also, there is a gulf that exists in my experience between how the system should work (i.e. according to law and the College's own rules) and how it actually happens.

RE: Whose RCVS?

Glen McIntosh — Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:22:35 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]There is a need for vets to look to consumer confidence and customer care but that is not obviously the role of RCVS - certainly if reference is made back to the act and charter as being of primary importance. I appreciate that that is not a currently fashionable view but I think it behoves council and councillors to appreciate that their roles and responsibilities are defined exclusively in terms of the act and charter.[/quote]

Perhaps you don't mean the charter?

From the Supplemental Royal Charter 2015:

[quote]Activities

4. This Supplemental Charter recognises that the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (‘the Act’) makes provision for a number of activities of the College relating to the Council of the College, the College’s European functions, registration and qualification for registration, disciplinary and similar proceedings against veterinary surgeons, restriction on the practice of veterinary surgery, agreements with the Republic of Ireland and other relevant matters.

5. In addition to those functions conferred on it by or under the Act or by or under any other Act of Parliament the College may undertake any activities which seem to it necessary or expedient to help it to achieve its objects. These activities may include, but are not limited to, the following:

...j. Facilitating the resolution of disputes between registered persons and their clients;..."[/quote]

So the ADR trial, for example, while not defined by the act, does appear to fall within the remit of activities open to the RCVS as defined by the charter.

As does the PSS:

[quote]...i. Setting standards for and accrediting veterinary practices and other suppliers of veterinary services;..."[/quote]

And as does that other more recent topic of disdain that the RCVS was overreaching - the fact finding mission India:

[quote]...b. Working with others to develop, update and ensure co-ordination of international standards of veterinary education;..."[/quote]

Important clauses in the 2015 charter include:

[quote]...These activities may include, but are not limited to..."[/quote]

and

[quote]...Alteration of the Charter

26. The College may by resolution of the members voting in General Meeting alter any or all of the provisions of this Supplemental Charter by amendment, addition or deletion; but any such alteration shall come into effect only if allowed by Us, Our Heirs and Successors in Council. If this Supplemental Charter is so altered this provision shall continue to apply to the altered version andto all future altered versions.."[/quote]

The charter pretty much allows the RCVS to set its own agenda, within reason.

Of course, the RCVS has to do its primary job, as tasked by the act (its raison d'être if you like), well - first and foremost. But that primary job, as defined by the act, is only the bare minimum that the public expects of regulator in the 21st century.

If you are a doctor and your performance is substandard or negligent, not only could you be sued but the GMC will, at the very least, issue you with an official warning. If you are a vet practicing in the UK, the RCVS is bound to dismiss similar complaints/concerns (unless the issue is so bad as to constitute disgraceful conduct). This is unique to the UK veterinary profession. In virtually all other english speaking countries, local veterinary bodies are empowered to investigate substandard performance and negligence issues. Most of these types of cases that are proven are dealt with by reprimands or warnings. It is interesting that none of these veterinary regulatory bodies have chosen to follow the RCVS disciplinary model with regard to limiting its involvement in substandard performance and negligence issues, even though most of them have were legislated after the 1966 act.

[quote user="Iain Richards"]If there is a threat of losing self regulation - to whom and who will pay for it? Not the consumer, not the government. And with the Brexit guff, very little new legislation will happen.[/quote]

This is true. But something has to change and the current charter may give some room for change? Although I am not convinced that the RCVS becoming a provider of dispute resolution services is necessarily the right approach. The veterinary profession and its clients need a regulator that will deal with these lesser complaints that are not vexatious, that may have merit despite not constituting disgraceful conduct, and make a determination whether the actions of the vet were substandard or not.

RE: Whose RCVS?

Iain Richards — Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:07:41 GMT

Indeed Jo, however, I'll take issue with your statement: "Because we are a self-regulating profession, we have to be seen not to be showing any bias towards the profession in the event of a complaint/concern, and I think this is where the emphasis on the 'consumer' has come from recently; an attempt not to have our self-regulating privilege removed from us as it has been from many other professions."

The college, by definition, has to show bias for animal welfare and in in doing so, the profession. Malcolm touches on it, we've been given the legal monopoly to treat animals on the understanding we ensure best practice and due probity of the profession.

If there is a threat of losing self regulation - to whom and who will pay for it? Not the consumer, not the government. And with the Brexit guff, very little new legislation will happen.

RE: Whose RCVS?

Malcolm Ness — Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:38:06 GMT

[quote user="Jo Dyer"] Being the 'regulator' is a small part [/quote]

Perhaps (and that is debatable) but it is truly the most important part. As one of a remarkably few self-regulating liberal professions it's what sets us apart from other 'professionals' like teachers, footballers, painters or prostitutes. It is defined in law and offers certain privileges and considerable responsibilities. That law is exclusively why Belgravia House, Council etc etc exist at all - without it you would be at best a rival to BVA, SPVS, The WI or the Church Flower Rota Committee.

There is a need for vets to look to consumer confidence and customer care but that is not obviously the role of RCVS - certainly if reference is made back to the act and charter as being of primary importance. I appreciate that that is not a currently fashionable view but I think it behoves council and councillors to appreciate that their roles and responsibilities are defined exclusively in terms of the act and charter. The whim of a CEO and the political ambition of a president is, at best, of secondary importance.

[quote user="Jo Dyer"]we have to be seen not to be showing any bias towards the profession in the event of a complaint/concern[/quote]

Seen by whom? Can you point me to any evidence of historical pro-vet bias or any perception of such by outside bodies?

[quote user="Jo Dyer"]I think clarification of our 'mission' or purpose to all members of the professions, along with clarity regarding what and who we mean when we talk about RCVS, would be a major step forward. [/quote]

I think a more urgent need is clarification to council that the "mission" is defined by the act and charter.

[quote user="Jo Dyer"]. And yes, I will do my best to keep working on it![/quote]

That is reassuring.

Finally, you mentioned that self-regulatory status had been removed from "many other professions". I have heard this said before in support of the College expanding its remit into consumer championism and I think it might be propaganda. Can you tell me which formerly self-regulating professions have been stripped of that status?

RE: Whose RCVS?

Jo Dyer — Tue, 28 Mar 2017 09:25:56 GMT

My understanding, and I agree that there appears to be confusion, is that RCVS is there 'to set, uphold and advance veterinary standards.' Being the 'regulator' is a small part of the 'uphold' bit and has, as far as I am concerned, been over-emphasised recently. I said this at the last Council meeting, and requested that we drop the over-emphasis, which leads to fear amongst professionals and is not congruent with the aims of the Mind Matters Initiative and the desire to get rid of blame culture.

Because we are a self-regulating profession, we have to be seen not to be showing any bias towards the profession in the event of a complaint/concern, and I think this is where the emphasis on the 'consumer' has come from recently; an attempt not to have our self-regulating privilege removed from us as it has been from many other professions.

I think clarification of our 'mission' or purpose to all members of the professions, along with clarity regarding what and who we mean when we talk about RCVS, would be a major step forward. And yes, I will do my best to keep working on it!