Proposals for altering the VSA

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:33:18 GMT

I agree with Evelyn. The role of DC is to discipline veterinary surgeons who are in the wrong-not to please the public at all costs

Wynne

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:53:56 GMT

Now the consultation is closed, we get another collection of comments from senior RCVS officers who have clearly made up their minds already; or so it seems from the front page of Veterinary Times. Some extraordinary new views that we've not heard before are presented.

Mrs. Jill Nute, senior vice-president, says - apparently - "If you come up against the DC because a member of the public is unhappy about something you have done, and you are found guilty of professional misconduct, various things happen to you - but you also have the right to appeal. The person who made that complaint has no right of appeal. He or she has no right of redress"

Huh?

A DC hearing is not to somehow "give satisfaction" to the complainant or to allow them to "get their revenge". It's to decide whether you are guilty of serious professional misconduct, and if you are then to strike you off or apply suitable lesser sanction. The complainant is just that, the complainant; the chief prosecution witness if you like. Now if you are found guilty you can appeal to the Privy Council against the verdict, or more likely against the sanction. If you are not found guilty, or if you are guilty but only receive a warning, that's nothing to do with the complainant even if he or she does feel peeved off.

If you complain to the police that Joe Bloggs burnt your house down, and at Joe's trial for arson he is found guilty and sentenced to five years, he can appeal (if he can show grounds) against either the conviction or the sentence. The prosecution (not you the complainant) can appeal against the leniency of the sentence. If Joe is found not guilty, you can't appeal against that: why should you be able to?

If you are still sure that Joe dun it; or, maybe, that he dun it but through carelessness not intent: you can sue him for your loss (or your insurance company can).

I fail to see why the disciplinary system for Members of the RCVS should lean much more in favour of the complainant than the general criminal justice system does.

Is this just Mrs. Nute's weird idea or is it a formal proposal that they forgot to put in the consultation document?

If the complainant gets some sort of right to appeal, expect to see the malicious or vindictive complainant (DC have had a couple of those quite recently) pursuing appeals simply out of malice. They won't be bothered about the final outcome, they've nothing to lose; they will be interested in causing as much trouble and worry to the veterinary surgeon as possible, for as long as possible.

Mrs. Nute pursues her peculiar ideas of "fairness" thus : " what is the point of a member of the public with a hamster valued at £2.50, who feels he or she has been very badly served by the treatment you have given the hamster, taking a civil case?"

Well, Mrs. Nute, that's the real world. If your loss is only £2.50, you don't bother suing for it.

If you can make a case for the loss being much greater; all the time you took off work to spend with the hamster, emotional distress, having to buy the children a horse to take their minds off the hamster, you can sue for all that and if your case is good enough you will win.

Mrs. Nute added: "[the current system] is not compatible with what the public perceives as a fair and ethical system." Really? Who says? Which bits of the public?Have the public actually been asked in any meaningful manner?

Of course the RCVS (that's all of us) does have a duty to consider and respond to genuine public concerns, if there are any. That doesn't mean rolling over on your back in the mire, waving your legs in the air for them and licking their sweaty feet.

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

J G Wray — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:51:29 GMT

Apparently it's the last day for responding to the RCVS VSA consultation which is due to close on the 31st. I don't quite understand why the 21st is the last day , but there you are.

Some are getting aerated that there has only been 15 responses, whereas the POM-EA thing and the Nurse thing has had so many more.

There is no need for a rush for this VSA consultation. It could wait a year or even two.

I think accepting 15 responses as adequate renders the process a sham in this case.

We'll see whether RCVS Councillors and RCVS Executive feel the same and call for a re run with a tad more groundwork

By their deeds shall ye know them

Regs

JGW

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

J G Wray — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:06:12 GMT

Dear Mr Stephenson,

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]I think you may have misunderstood the process here.[/quote]

I've been to RCVS last week, spoken to the Pres, SVP and Registrar and communicated with members of the VLG on and off the record. I'm not sure I can do any more to understand the process. If after all that the process is obscure then frankly, the process is obscure. That is a bad thing.

No wonder so few are capable of replying or willing.

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]Both myself and Colleagues are members of the College and thus stake holders and have a legitimate right to participate actively in any consultation process - indeed I would think those who elected us would expect us to do so.[/quote]

So why haven't the other eleven on your side or the seventeen on the other contributed? Are they apathetic, or do they feel it isn't important, or do they feel that as guardians of the public interest they shouldn't? You may not know. I certainly don't because it is all so murky.

RCVS is profoundly confused and confusing.

Regs

JGW

PS The "double jeopardy" point is not mine.

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

Richard Stephenson — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:33:39 GMT

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"]They have indulged in a bit of "double-jeopardy" as it was described to me, by debating the issues in Council, being outvoted and repeating their concerns at consultation.[/quote]

Dear Jonathon,

I think you may have misunderstood the process here.

RCVS Council voted only to CONSULT on the proposals. They do not represent RCVS policy and will not do so unless and until the consultation has been concluded and a final report approved by .

The vote was concerned only with what parts of the proposals were worth consulting on further at this stage.

Both myself and Colleagues are members of the College and thus stake holders and have a legitimate right to participate actively in any consultation process - indeed I would think those who elected us would expect us to do so.

Yours,

Richard S.

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

J G Wray — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:32:10 GMT

The Six-Pack are the six RCVS Councillors who have responded to the VSA consultation. They have indulged in a bit of "double-jeopardy" as it was described to me, by debating the issues in Council, being outvoted and repeating their concerns at consultation. Not sure what I think about that philosophically.

Mr Stephenson can tell you who the Six-Pack are.

Regs

JGW

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:34:11 GMT

Sorry Jonathan I'm bewildered by what you are trying to say !

If by Six- Pack, you mean those members of Council who voted against the VLG proposals, there were actually 17

Wynne

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

J G Wray — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:27:32 GMT

After a bit more digging a number of issues are a bit clearer. The consultation document is a distillation of the VLG report generated by the executive officers of the RCVS, not the VLG i.e. the VLG is not responsible for this.

Now when I was at RCVS on Tuesday, this is not exactly what the Executive Officers told me, but being given a version is nothing new.

It is not obvious that this is what happened, because it clearly passed the Six-Pack of RCVS Councillors led by Mr Stephenson who have lodged a Corporate objection by They are all, effectively, having a second go at this. They all voted at the Council meeting which discussed the matter, but clearly feel that they are not subsequently bound by Council's decision, following debate. Hmmmmm.

I am told that the priority for the VLG was reform of the Disciplinary machinery, the process and separation from Council in particular. This looks to me to be non-contentious.

However, the executive have chosen to cherry pick other matters from the VLG report, some of which looks reasonable to me and some of which looks crass. Now that it has been explained why RCVS exec dropped the discussion of a mediation/conciliation service from the consultation document, this makes sense - the Six-Pack could amend their document in this respect. However, by summarising new areas over which the RCVS should have Disciplinary control - the second major area in the VSA review docuement - without providing clear definitions of the limits of scope i.e. what is meant by regulation based on clinical competence or adequate health, the RCVS exec are, once again, going too far. This is exactly what they were reproached for at EFRACOM i.e. devising plans without bringing the profession with them. Crass.

The VLG, I am told, saw the Composition of Council as the third major issue coming from their report. Thus, it is included in the review because the law requires Defra to create the reform order to change the Council composition. The detail of the VLG report shows how they reached a conclusion which has two recommendations:
1. That between 30% and 50% of the members of Council should be non-veterinarians.
2. That at least half of the veterinary members of Council should be elected.
The Six-Pack and others believe that this will lead to a regulatory system, not Disciplinary system ( because that would be separate), where elected members would be in the significant minority and this would be inherently detrimental to the profession. I sort of agree with this, but having thought a bit harder about this I am no longer absolutely sure. To believe it would be detrimental requires you to believe that having elected members is a current and substantial benefit to the profession. That's where the argument falls down. Whilst there are members who are elected, once they are elected, they no longer represent the interests of the profession or even those that elected them, but instead they serve the interests of the public.

It may just be better for the profession to have people on Council who are bound through modern Governance and practice to consult more effectively with the profession and public before regulating. In other words the consitution of the Council, elected vs appointed may become a non argument if the institution were to modernise.

I'm going to have to change what I think now I know a little more. Good thing I didn't shoot from the hip and just posted my original thoughts on this site.

JGW

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:47:47 GMT

I don't know, but I would hope both ! The PSS and veterinary nurse training are both important topics, but fade into insignificance, when compared to the potential harm that could be caused by a new VSA Talk about rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic !!!!

Wynne

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

J G Wray — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 13:05:26 GMT

Dear Mr Stephenson,

What is the criterion required for a change in RCVS' point of view? Is it determined by numbers or quality of argument?

Regs

JGW

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

Richard Stephenson — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 11:40:42 GMT

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"]I have not submitted these; I don't see the point [/quote]

It would seem that in this at least Mr Wray is in the majority.

There have been only 14 submissions to the consultation process so far (only one from someone outside the profession) and non from any of the profession's representative bodies - there are still a few days left so perhaps there might be a last minute rush!

This compares to 158 responses covering the views of around 1,250 people on the VN training consultation.

So I would urge those that have views (some of them strongly expressed in this forum and in a the parallel debate on PSS) to email them to the RCVS.

Yours,

Richard Stephenson.

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

Richard Stephenson — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:42:49 GMT

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"]Yup. Interesting that the most important parts of what I would like to see passed you by,[/quote]

Not at all - they didn't pass me by - its just that I wasn't clear on your view of the role of lay members in the regulation of the profession.

Yours,

Richard Stephenson

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:16:15 GMT

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"]to some extent livelihood[/quote]

Currently 100%

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"] RCVS have no forum. Ms Lockett has indicated there are "problems" with the RCVS Website. Vetsurgeon.org is a commercial enterprise, sort of, and RCVS cannot be associated with commercial activities.[/quote]

Not sure I follow your line of argument. VetSurgeon is a commercial enterprise (nothing 'sort of' about it). There is no difference between RCVS being associated with Vet Times, Vet Record or VetSurgeon. We're all just publishers.

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"]I think was expedient for RCVS, cheap, and illuminating[/quote]

I don't view life through quite such cynical eyes.

Will a future forum be on VetSurgeon or elsewhere? Well, I suppose that depends on how good a job I do. This site is already operating on the most advanced networking system in the world. Other professions are starting to do something similar (dentists, nurses, farmers etc), but I haven't yet seen it bettered by ANY other profession.

Technology is just one side of things, and that's why I am working my backside off to encourage participation, collaboration etc. But who knows, maybe you're right, maybe someone will start doing it better than me. If they do, I am sure that the 'audience', be it you or the RCVS will just move elsewhere.

One thing that gives me a little hope is that anyone wanting to replicate what VetSurgeon offers (let alone improve upon it), would probably now have to invest the best part of £250,000.

We're staying off-topic. If you want to continue this discussion, we should start a new thread

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

J G Wray — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:05:16 GMT

Dear Mr Stephenson,

You wrote:

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]Why not? How many extra seconds can it take to email that to the RCVS? if we all took that approach we may as well just accept whatever The VLG suggests.[/quote]

[sigh] It isn't a proper consultation, because there is no dialogue with RCVS , no debate with RCVS, no explanation of how the GUI's on VLG at RCVS reached their conclusions. Nuts to them if them if they don't think they should communicate with the profession. I don't want to "legitimise" a silly process. There will be a reckoning at some later date when RCVS process like this will be shown to be flummery, probably by EFRACOM.

You also wrote:

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]Suggest you send your proposals into Mr. Gill.[/quote]

For all that don't know Mr G is an excellent fellow referred to as the Estimable Mr Gill in another forum. I wish there were more like him. I'm sure he would process the comments in a professional manner, it's what the VLG would do that I'm not sure of.

And:

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]I'm not clear as to how you envisage the breakdown between lay appointed and VS appointed members. Presumably you are suggesting 8 plus a VN and a University Prof.[/quote].

Yup. Interesting that the most important parts of what I would like to see passed you by, but then you have declared an agenda.

Regs

JGW

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

J G Wray — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:51:11 GMT

Dear Mr Guthrie,

I realise this is your baby and to some extent livelihood. But.....

RCVS have no forum. Ms Lockett has indicated there are "problems" with the RCVS Website. Vetsurgeon.org is a commercial enterprise, sort of, and RCVS cannot be associated with commercial activities.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]The RCVS election forum was demonstrative of that.[/quote]

I think was expedient for RCVS, cheap, and illuminating. Mr Swayne didin't use it much. He wasn't elected. Mr Grey and Mr Tuffnell on the other hand, despite their tender years and admitted naivety of RCVS procedure, did. They got elected. I'm sure they will advocate a forum for the future, but whether it will be vetsurgeon.org. who knows?

This isn't personal

Regs

JGW

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

Richard Stephenson — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:19:21 GMT

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"]I have not submitted these; I don't see the point [/quote]

Why not? How many extra seconds can it take to email that to the RCVS? if we all took that approach we may as well just accept whatever The VLG suggests.

Suggest you send your proposals into Mr. Gill.

R S.

P.S. I'm not clear as to how you envisage the breakdown between lay appointed and VS appointed members. Presumably you are suggesting 8 plus a VN and a University Prof.

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 07:58:02 GMT

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"] I've always had a clear idea of the value of these forums. They're a bit of fun.[/quote]

Off-topic, but I think you should be open to the idea that the value of forums is a changing thing, and that as membership and participation in VetSurgeon.org grows, so it is taken more seriously by, er, everyone, but not least the powers-that-be.

The RCVS election forum was demonstrative of that.

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

J G Wray — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 07:20:15 GMT

Ah, the deafening silence.

I've always had a clear idea of the value of these forums.

They're a bit of fun.

JGW

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

J G Wray — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:46:26 GMT

Dear Mr Stephenson,

You wrote:

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]What are your views on the specifics of the proposals?[/quote]

Here they are, in blessed summary:

Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Disciplinary machinery

• The Act should be amended to give the RCVS Council discretion to make rules determining the composition of the Preliminary Investigation (PIC) and Disciplinary Committees (DC).

• Council members should not be eligible to be members of DC.

• The rules should be subject to approval by Government. Disciplinary jurisdiction and powers

The DC should have jurisdiction over:

• professional conduct;

• clinical performance within clearly defined parameters;

• health within clearly defined parameters;

• criminal convictions relevant to fitness to practise.

The PIC should have power to dispose of a complaint by:

• giving a caution, with the respondent's agreement; or

• giving advice.

• Referral to a new RCVS mediation service

The DC should have power to:

• give a warning as to future conduct; or

• impose conditions or restrictions on future practice by the respondent.

Composition of the RCVS Council

• Council should have no more than 20 members.

• 50% of the members should be elected veterinary surgeons.

• Council should include a veterinary nurse as an appointed member.

• There should be one Council member nominated jointly by the UK universities with recognised veterinary degrees.

• Council members other than elected members and the member to be nominated jointly by the universities should be appointed by the Government of the day.

• Newly elected or appointed members only jto oin Council after a probationary year served on RCVS Committee and governance duties

I have not submitted these; I don't see the point and there may be some persuasive arguments for the VLG's forthright views, maybe.

Regs

JGW

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

Richard Stephenson — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:15:06 GMT

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"]It is a proxy engineered by Mr S who started it and in itself will not change matters. [/quote]

Dear Jonathon,

I do think that is a bit insulting to Mr Barbour - Hill who started this debate. I'm sure that neither he nor the redoutable Wynne Richards need any goading from me to express their views!

True I have done my best to highlight the issues and dangers (as I see them). I hope that I have been very open and transparent by publishing my views in Veterinary Practice July 2009 - 'VSA : is it a case of reviving the dead?', Vet record 22 August 2009 - 'Updating veterinary legislation', Vet Management for today 2008 - 'Do we need a new VSA', and my speech to RCVS Council reported in the Vet Record June 13th. 2009.

If that is 'engineering' the debate then I must say 'mea culpa'.

What are your views on the specifics of the proposals?

Yours,

Richard Stephenson.

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:03:56 GMT

This thread was started by Evelyn, who feels as strongly as I do, that RCVS must not be allowed to degenerate into a quango. I have no personal objection to the proposed DC reforms, but this is as far as it should be allowed to go.

The viewpoints of a few more people would be welcome. I think everyone knows where I stand on this issue, so I'll keep quiet from now on

Wynne

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

J G Wray — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:19:12 GMT

Dear Mike - ah - what - a - night - that - was,

You wrote:

[quote user="Mike Martin"]Above are some extracts from the doc. Its a big doc to read. But in my opinion, these are presented in typical ctte-style one-sidedness. The reasons for change are not satisfactorily argued or presented (which is disappointing for a scientific profession). More importantly the objectives seem to be aimed at empowering the RCVS to burden the honest hard working vet, rather than raking out any rogues in our profession. [/quote]

You now, sort of, know who authored the review report. You didn't before. You've met a lot of these people and they are Good and Upright and Intelligent - The GUIs. They must have a compelling argument to have reached these conclusions.

Mr Stephenson has an agenda, publicly stated that the Review should be rejected, particularly in respect of reform of the composition of Council. That is one side of the argument. Wouldn't you like to know what the GUI argument is? It may be persuasive.

So far, the arguments contrary to the Review are largely based upon equal conviction and opposite view to that expressed in the RCVS Review document e.g.

[quote user="Mike Martin"]We are convinced[/quote]....etc

If these two polar viewpoints do not concede some ground to debate then it will all be rant, p*** and wind. This forum is not a RCVS forum. It is a proxy engineered by Mr S who started it and in itself will not change matters. We shouldn't lose sight of that by elevating it to an inappropriate level of gravitas.

I think both the GUIs and the ANTIs, particularly those who are elected, should be selling their point of view. If no calm compelling argument comes forth then you and any other member of the profession will know that the RCVS have not operated in the manner of a modern regulatory body, that the consultation was froth.

Regs

JGW

PS You did't finish with a question. Are you all right?

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

Mike Martin — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:24:09 GMT

Extracts from RVCS doc....

>>>>>>>>

4. There is general support for the view that RCVS should pursue the reform of disciplinary machinery: item (a) above. There is also general support for the view that Council should formally withdraw the complex package of proposals which it endorsed in 2005, in order to avoid confusion about the College's position. There is less support for pursuing items (b) and (c).

7. Focussing on item (a), the reform of the disciplinary machinery, is an easy option. An independent Disciplinary Committee should be welcomed both by the public at large and by the veterinary profession.

2. We are convinced that the legislation needs to be brought up to date, in order to enable the College to do its job as statutory regulator of the veterinary profession in a way that measures up to present-day expectations. RCVS has a public duty to press for the changes which are needed. We have identified the following as the most urgent priorities:

- new disciplinary machinery for veterinary surgeons;

- a wider disciplinary jurisdiction and more flexible disciplinary powers; and

- a new composition for the RCVS Council.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Thanks to Lizzie for posting the link to this.

I agree with Richard, we need to keep on subject or Arlo might relegate this debate to controversial (and so hidden).

Above are some extracts from the doc. Its a big doc to read. But in my opinion, these are presented in typical ctte-style one-sidedness. The reasons for change are not satisfactorily argued or presented (which is disappointing for a scientific profession). More importantly the objectives seem to be aimed at empowering the RCVS to burden the honest hard working vet, rather than raking out any rogues in our profession.

Like a lot of modern public legislation, it will not actually tackle the criminals in society, but only alienate the honest public who end up being the easier to prosecute in order to meet various gov targets. Sorry....ranting.....need a coffee!

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

Richard Stephenson — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:42:20 GMT

If you don't mind me mentioning it, I think this forum has gone off topic.

Wasn't the initial point of this thread to discuss what your opinions are of the VSA proposals?

I wonder if any other vetsugeon .org members have a view on this?

Yours,

Richard S.

Re: Proposals for altering the VSA

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:06:54 GMT

On the other hand Barbara Saunders sounds like just the sort of professional quangocrat we DON'T want

Wynne