Perceptions of the RCVS

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

J G Wray — Fri, 10 Nov 2017 18:42:08 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]I don't think Mr Wray's insight onto the likely length of Mr Stace's stay was at all unique - in fact everyone I knew on Council believed the same - there is some advantage to having a CEO who comes in does the job and then leaves before out staying his / her welcome.[/quote]

At what point were all on Council of the mind that Mr Stace would go? I ask because I gave a timescale, which he met, back in July 2015. Did Council feel that way back then and not let us know or were you happy to see it as a little social media forum fodder back then?

In that thing in July 2015 I mentioned some other points including what I could see as an inevitable increase in head count at RCVS. RCVS have recruited for the backlog in cases at PI. All head counts come at a cost. The retention fee has gone up. We are paying for this.

The costs from increased head count are due to rise further. It is inevitable that reduced Council size will stretch the Councillor resource, because RCVS is not reducing its work at the same time, in fact it is ambitious in its Strategic Plan to increase its reach. This will mean more support requirement. This will mean increased cost. This will mean increase in fees.

Increase in head count also creates another problem. Where do you house all these people and keep the organisation coherent? The logical answer is move to a more suitable building. That will involve capital expenditure on a scale which BVA have found so daunting they have shelved it, but then BVA don't have the pockets and revenue raising resource that RCVS has.

A grand capital expenditure was also mentioned in July 2015 and it isn't with us yet, but who will gainsay?

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

J G Wray — Fri, 10 Nov 2017 18:26:54 GMT

If you want a perception of the RCVS from the recent past then, as has been alluded to, an organisation that wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds without apologising or having accountability could be said to create perception for those who were paying.

More recently there is Mr Stace’s view on the RCVS when he arrived:

“..Another Nick, Nick Stace of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons(RCVS), found distrust, dysfunctional governance and little clarity of direction, coupled with low public confidence in the regulator judged out of touch when he arrived as CEO…” and there is a current view of RCVS which can be summarised from the Advice Notes issued by the VDS for all situations when interacting with RCVS as:

Say nothing
Make notes of when and who you were contacted by
Contact VDS

This doesn’t make for great reading and these things are not in dispute.

However, for me, history doesn’t really mean much, other than giving context and the future is probably most relevant for creating a perception of the RCVS. This is embodied in the RCVS Strategic Plan for the next three years, which is, as I have mentioned before, a light read. This is the document which, confusingly, doesn’t mention Members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons once?!?! [It does mentions members, as in members of Committees.] You’d have thought MsRCVS, the ones paying for it all would have got in there somewhere eh?

My two favourite passages from the Strategic Plan are as follows, one of which I have mentioned recently:

“…Ambition: continuing to build on the foundations that have already been laid, we will work to ensure that the legislation and regulations that support us are not only fit for purpose today, but enable us to make the UK veterinary professions, and those allied professionals who work alongside them, the best that they can be into the future.."

I struggle with the word “make”. I see a message of intention to replace a search for legitimacy of leadership with a shortcut based on authoritarianism. This is straight from the RCVS toolkit of enabling the process through compulsion, an altogether different mechanism to a compelling vision. This is not leadership; this is control and the management of subordinates or it is the use of authority to lead by compulsion.

And…..

p7 "...Help to change the public’s expectations around their interactions with veterinary professionals, including around risk, uncertainty and value.."

What does RCVS mean by risk, uncertainty and value? What is their definition of risk, uncertainty and value? Where's the evidence of a need to change expectations of risk and uncertainty?

The context for these questions is given by the RCVS which, through Vet Futures, funded surveys of the public which returned astonishing levels of trust in MsRCVS [94%]. This trust was earned by MsRCVS, not the College, along with 78% who are satisfied with their interactions with MsRCVS and "..the survey [also] found that 70% of those who use veterinary services rate the value for money offered by their veterinary practice as fair, good or excellent...". So, where's the problem with value and what’s the risk and uncertainty?

This is a Strategic Plan which looks to me (in other words, I perceive it and by extension RCVS to be) like it aims to undermine a hard-earned public trust through talking up some nebulous ideas around risk, uncertainty and value and is an articulation of a determination to “make” our fantastic profession “better” – whatever that might be and yet to be determined by an organisation in Westminster. This Plan will be undertaken by someone who is, apparently, dedicated and determined, for the person responsible for the drafting of this Plan is now the CEO of RCVS. I’m pretty sure that she wouldn’t have been appointed if she were going to abandon her own Plan after taking over. So, this is probably what we’re gonna get, something and someone committed to this Plan from RCVS and I know how that makes me feel.

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]I was always impressed by her commitment to the College.[/quote] [Note College, not MsRCVS, the ones absent from her drafting]

On another note, someone wrote that the appointment of Ms Lockett to the post of CEO RCVS might look a bit strange,...

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]Although at first sight LIzzie Lockett may seem a strange choice of CEO for the RCVS [/quote]

but I’m not sure that’s the case because all will recall Mr Stace’s words from 2016:

“Changes made to RCVS Senior Team

30 September 2016

Significant changes to the structure of the College’s Senior Team, which leads the organisation on a day-to-day basis, were agreed as part of a special meeting of RCVS Council on Thursday 29 September 2016.

The changes made were:

…...

The appointment of Lizzie Lockett as Deputy Chief Executive Officer, in addition to her role as Director of Strategic Communications and Director of the Mind Matters Initiative…

Nick Stace, the College’s CEO, said: “I am delighted to announce these appointments, which received the unanimous support of RCVS Council…”

Where’s the strangeness when RCVS Council is unanimous only a short time ago about a previous promotion?

This leads me on to another point. Is it healthy to have unanimous approval of someone, particularly when they are charged with the running of a multi million pound organisation? Where are the checks, the balances, the oversight of a CEO’s performance commonplace in commercial organisations and charities, when all are in favour of them and by extension in favour of that Strategic Plan?

There seems to be a feeling amongst some that all this will be OK, because Ms Lockett is a good egg who emails people late at night.

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]it was not unusual to receive emails from her late at night or on weekends - long after regular 'office hours' .[/quote]

I’m not so sure that’s enough – see the context I have given for my view already expressed - which is why I wrote:

“Hmmmmm we shall see….”

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

Mark Hedberg — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 17:26:48 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]I seem to remember reading somewhere that the original bill for the charter was snuck through a Parliament (last bill before holidays or something) - completely faded memory but i think it was in the BVA history book somewhere...[/quote]

Confused memory.

The Charter did not require an Act of Parliament. You are thinking of the 1881 Act which said in effect that only a member of the Royal College could call himself a veterinary surgeon. It was Fitzwygram (I think) who kept a close eye on Parliamentary business, spotted a small gap and got the Act through it.

Arlo, I recommend Iain Pattison's "The British Veterinary Profession 1791-1948". It's very readable.

[/quote]Ah, lovely, thanks for that, it was really bugging me and i couldn't find where i'd read it :)

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

Iain Richards — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 13:06:02 GMT

Picking up on Claire's point about the small number of recidivist vets. I suspect that much of what "we" feel, "they" want to see implimented, is because "they" tend to see the crap vets through PIC and naturally, "they" want to do something to control the crap vets. As the number of council members with direct experieccne of DC/PIC decreases, this may well change.

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

John Wessels — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 12:29:05 GMT

[quote user="George Cooper"]

Forgive me for butting in, for I find and always have found history to be a wonderful sleep-inducing mechanism..... I would like to address the OPs question about why some of us have opinions about RCVS.

For me personally I have for the past 15 years been a bit dismayed by the way that some elected individuals carry their own agenda and by sheer force of personality and perhaps a louder voice manage to invoke a type of corporate hysteria that carries their agenda forward.

The whole "customer protection" thing was, in effect one such example. Surely by regulating us and sticking to acceptable professional behaviour we do in fact protect the interests of the public.

Then there has been the CPD enforcement which again was an agenda carried by some of the elected. Some went much further in their personal endeavours as if to "set an example" for us all.

Then there is the "Practice Standards" enforcement... ...

I think that, by now, my objections are becoming clearer that rather than merely regulate, they are seen to be "interfering" in areas where, really, there should be none. Guidance, possibly, but not enforcement. Some of those most active in pushing for change (because it is a good idea? to protect consumers?) have risen to the froth at the top, probably by dint of being passionate.

[/quote]

George is absolutely right.

And improving customer services: there are as many if not more crooked, money grabbing vets as 40 years ago.

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

George Cooper — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 11:18:44 GMT

The whole "customer protection" thing was, in effect one such example. Surely by regulating us and sticking to acceptable professional behaviour we do in fact protect the interests of the public.

Then there has been the CPD enforcement which again was an agenda carried by some of the elected. Some went much further in their personal endeavours as if to "set an example" for us all.

Then there is the "Practice Standards" enforcement... ...

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 11:06:00 GMT

I think the other fact that we should not lose sight of is that being regulated means that the reputation of the vets behaving professionally and being in a position of trust is protected by the RCVS. As Evelyn said ( I think) They are Us , not representing us but formed by us , and the college was formed for a reason, to prevent charlatans and snake oil sellers from using our professional title. Every person I have spoken to on PIC has been completely taken aback by the behaviour of the very very small number of vets who do bring the rest of the profession into disrepute. We perceive the regulation as being “done to us” rather than it being a barrier to those vets not acting in a professional manner and undermining the rest of the profession who are bending over backwards to follow their own principles.

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

Iain Richards — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 10:59:38 GMT

It was in the visitor's book...

Anyway, if an Alauda arvensis can inspire one of the most sublime pieces of music, then I'm in good company with my sources of inspiration.

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

George Cooper — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 10:55:54 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"]

Fascinating discussion so far. No least as it fits well with the presentation I'm due to give at LVS acting as devil's advocate in the debate regarding a new VSA. I like Arlo's summing up and may, if he allows, pinch all or some of it. This isn't plagiarism, just good research.

[/quote]

As I recall, Mr Richards, pinching things like that was always a personal strength for you - even if it was off walls of Hebridean farmhouses in the shape of a poem.

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

Iain Richards — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 10:53:16 GMT

One of the fundamental problems RCVS has is being a college and a regulator. Humans have eg RCGP and then the GMC. There is an argument to hive off the disciplinary side completely, but this would mean a new act. As PIC/DC members are not RCVS council has been a good move.

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

Glen McIntosh — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 10:14:42 GMT

[quote user="Richard Carter"]

It is a model that was then copied across the world and every veterinary regulatory body is similarly charged with - setting the standards; keeping the register and routing out the bad eggs.

However in most other parts of the world, the respective presidents or chairs or elected representatives do take on a political responsibility of advancing the profession, enhancing the status of its members and advising others such as the governments on the stance of the veterinary profession on the issue of the day. i.e taking a role much close to our sister councils in the medical professions.

[/quote]

I am not sure this is true.

Veterinary regulatory bodies in Australia, New Zealand, the US, Canada and Hong Kong, like the RCVS, maintain the register of veterinary surgeons for their respective jurisdictions, set standards, recognise specialists and run disciplinary proceedings. But that is the entire extent of their activities. None of them, as far as I am aware, have taken on any political role, or have any other objectives other that protection of the public by maintaining the register, setting standards and running disciplinary committees. Nor does the UK GMC, as far as I can tell. Mostly those activities, other than the core regulatory duties, are undertaken by other professional bodies such as the AVA, the HKVA etc.

The only exceptions to this in English speaking countries, as far as I am aware, is the South African Veterinary Council, which has set itself far loftier goals, very much like the RCVS.

Veterinary regulatory bodies in English speaking countries other than the UK and South Africa have Boards/Councils made up of 6 - 10 (at most) members/councillors, and are staffed by usually less than 6 administrators. These regulatory bodies are usually housed within a government department and take up no more than 3 or 4 rooms. The Hong Kong VSB sends out a newsletter once a year (if we are lucky), and the QLD VSB hasn't sent out a newsletter since 2014. Registration renewal costs around GBP50 in Hong Kong and GBP120 in QLD. Both of these boards have only basic web sites and no CEO. These boards are typical of most veterinary regulatory bodies in the English speaking world.

Compare that with the RCVS which has 42 RCVS councillors and 76 full time equivalent administrative staff, or the South African Veterinary Council which has 19 SAVC councillors and 18 administrative staff. Registration renewal fees are GBP299 for the RCVS and GBP210 for the SAVC (and GBP425 for the UK GMC).

The RCVS (and the SAVC) are, in fact, the only veterinary regulatory bodies that have taken on roles that involve advancing the profession etc, over and above the basic regulatory remit. The GMC certainly makes no claims to be doing anything other than being a regulator.

Based on this comparison, is the RCVS good value for money for the retention fee payer? In QLD for GBP120 per year I get my registration, 3 administrative staff working out of a basement at the Department of Primary Industries, and a newsletter once every 2-3 years. For just a bit over double that in the UK I get, well, the RCVS and Belgravia House in all its glory. Seems like pretty reasonable value, comparatively.

The HKVSB still seems like the best value of the lot though, by a long shot.

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

Bob Russell — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 10:00:17 GMT

Self-regulation means we regulate us! To do this we vote for committee members to govern on our behalf.

My perception is some people at the RCVS have taken on the role of regulating us on behalf of the consumer.

I find it really depressing to see the desperately poor voting figures in elections. Perhaps we are getting what we deserve.

It is important that it is run efficiently but it is not a business nor is it a club. It is absolutely not a consumer champion.

Well run it should be able to care for its members whilst protecting the general public and our patients effectively.

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 09:32:04 GMT

[quote user="Richard Carter"]The setting up of the RCVS was as Arlo said: to recognise that veterinary science was a job needing a proper professional qualification with the 'self regulating' being that the profession would set the standard for entry (i.e. qualification level by examination), what you had to do to remain a professional and the crimes for which you could be removed from the membership (register).[/quote]

As I do more digging around, I see that the ability to remove someone from the register didn't come until a little later: 1876. Even then, it didn't specify what for!

That didn't happen till the Veterinary Surgeons Act of 1881, which also made it illegal for anyone else to style themselves as a VS and, from 1883, removed the power for anyone other than a VS to recover in court, fees for veterinary surgery, advice etc.

Then a little bit of tweaking here and there over the years until, as you say Richard, the next big thing was the 1948 Act which made it illegal for non-VSs to practice. It also created the Disciplinary Committee and recognised veterinary degrees.

Then came the 1966 Act, which created the Preliminary Investigation Committee and made a few other tweaks (number of Council members, stopped unqualified people spaying pigs and castrating horses, and a few other bits and pieces).

What I am looking for here, in my little journey of enlightenment, is how the role of the RCVS has changed, and more importantly, why its members' perception of what its role should be seems to have evolved too.

Anyway, it seems that by 1966, the original principles laid down in 1881 are very little changed, just given a more legal oomph. The sole right and expectation of members of the RCVS is that they can exclusively practice veterinary medicine. The role of the RCVS is simply to administer that. To set the rules for entry (examinations / fees) and to kick out transgressors.

What I don't know is how members of the RCVS viewed their College in 1966, and equally how it viewed them. It seems likely to me that with such a tight remit, members probably didn't expect anything more from the College than effective administration of the core functions.

In other words, it was not - apparently - in any way a representative or a lobbying organisation. I don't imagine that in 1966, veterinary surgeons on the street had any expectation that a Councillor was there to represent their interests.

Equally, I doubt (but don't know) that there was any move by the College to distance itself from its members in order to be seen by the public to be an effective regulator. It was understood to be self-regulating. Full stop.

Would be nice to find an octogenarian MRCVS to help me out here! Anyone know one?

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 01:08:55 GMT

Confused memory.

Arlo, I recommend Iain Pattison's "The British Veterinary Profession 1791-1948". It's very readable.

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

Richard Stephenson — Wed, 08 Nov 2017 22:35:13 GMT

Dear Arlo,

The big change really came with the 1948 Act (replaced by the current 1966 Act) which effectively made it illegal to practice Veterinary surgery UNLESS you were a member of the RCVS, prior to that the Act of Queen Victoria (1881 if I remember correctly) whilst giving profession status simply made it illegal to CHARGE for providing services unless you were a Member of the RCVS. The 1948 Act also established a disciplinary committee (formerly the whole of Council was the DC).

The essential difference between a Charter and the Acts of Parliament is that a Charter may grant an organisation status, rights and responsibilities whereas an Act of Parliament gives a body such as the RCVS powers to impose rules on its members and legal rights to prevent non - members practising.

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

Richard Carter — Wed, 08 Nov 2017 20:09:01 GMT

The setting up of the RCVS was as Arlo said: to recognise that veterinary science was a job needing a proper professional qualification with the 'self regulating' being that the profession would set the standard for entry (i.e. qualification level by examination), what you had to do to remain a professional and the crimes for which you could be removed from the membership (register). None of this is dissimilar to the other professional bodies being set up in the Victorian era (engineers, dentists etc) or the guilds of previous eras.

So it really was supposed to be the elite OF THE PROFESSION being elected to sit in judgement. The more recent move for the RCVS to become a consumer protection organisation has been deliberate move by various people with agendas and weak presidents and councils who were happy to go with the flow or who thought for whatever reason, that the RCVS should only be a consumer protection group.

As Evelyn has stated previously - the permanent staff are people are employed by our fees - i.e. us. There is no government subsidy 'to protect the public' or even a requirement from the government for RCVS to do so.

A well educated, qualified and respected profession will by definition be the safest option for the public to use.

It is a model that was then copied across the world and every veterinary regulatory body is similarly charged with - setting the standards; keeping the register and routing out the bad eggs.

We have had a comment on homeopathy - perhaps welcome winds of change are blowing in.

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 08 Nov 2017 19:20:40 GMT

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the original bill for the charter was snuck through a Parliament (last bill before holidays or something) - completely faded memory but i think it was in the BVA history book somewhere...

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 08 Nov 2017 18:47:33 GMT

Interesting discussion, particularly hearing the voice of someone who thinks the College is doing a good job (because from the discussion here over time, you'd think that was an extinct species).

I was going to say that I don't know enough about the history of the College to understand how it evolved, but then thought that's not really good enough, so I've started reading up properly.

Reading through the original 1844 Charter (not easy reading, given the prose of the day), it applies for veterinary art to be recognised as a profession, and for the creation of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, of which all veterinary surgeons would become members. It lays out the composition of council, and the framework for meetings. It says that no fees or fees for admission will exceed ten guineas.

As to the remit of Council, it is to encompass times and places of examinations to become a VS, the appointment of persons to examine, the admission or rejection of students, fixing and determining the admission fee, and 'all other matters relating to and connected with the said body politic and corporate'.

I suppose the salient point here is that the idea of veterinary surgeons being members of their College was enshrined from the very beginning. But it wasn't a membership which carried any fringe benefits (access to a member's bar and gym, discounted holidays, interest free loans and the like), but simply the ability to practise as a member of a recognised profession.

I'm not sure how much everyone knows about how the College evolved, but I presume not everyone has had the time or inclination to read through this stuff, so unless someone says 'shut up', I'll keep going with my potted history and see where it takes me.

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

Bob Russell — Wed, 08 Nov 2017 12:13:49 GMT

Just want someone that is genuinely interested in the well being of the profession. A good administrator preferably without a 'hidden' agenda.

Lizzie may well fit the bill so overall a welcome choice.

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

Iain Richards — Wed, 08 Nov 2017 12:01:42 GMT

Just you so far Michael! If the right person happened to have a vet degree, that's fine. I wish Lizzie well.

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 08 Nov 2017 11:04:36 GMT

I didn't think it was a strange choice at all, honestly. I think she'll do well!

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

David Mills — Wed, 08 Nov 2017 00:59:19 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]

there is some advantage to having a CEO who comes in does the job and then leaves before out staying his / her welcome.

[/quote]

Well there in a nutshell is the problem. Petard, hoisted etc.

At least there's an Oxbridge grad in charge these days.

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 08 Nov 2017 00:26:35 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]Although at first sight LIzzie Lockett may seem a strange choice of CEO for the RCVS [/quote]

Not at all.

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

Michael Woodhouse — Wed, 08 Nov 2017 00:10:30 GMT

Is it just me who thinks the CEO of the RCVS should be a veterinary surgeon? Just an 'off the wall' thought......

RE: Perceptions of the RCVS

Richard Stephenson — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 23:36:31 GMT

Although at first sight LIzzie Lockett may seem a strange choice of CEO for the RCVS I have to say that when I was on RCVS Council it was not unusual to receive emails from her late at night or on weekends - long after regular 'office hours' - I was always impressed by her commitment to the College.

I don't think Mr Wray's insight onto the likely length of Mr Stace's stay was at all unique - in fact everyone I knew on Council believed the same - there is some advantage to having a CEO who comes in does the job and then leaves before out staying his / her welcome.