RCVS Proposed Legislation Reforms

RE: RCVS Proposed Legislation Reforms

Anthony Todd — Fri, 16 Jul 2021 18:30:13 GMT

Does anyone ever assess/consider/justify/explain the reasons for transgressions. Finding out why is surely an important step?

Triggered by a recent example!!

RE: RCVS Proposed Legislation Reforms

Bob Russell — Fri, 16 Jul 2021 17:22:33 GMT

Good to see the daft reform changes are being challenged by the BVA and BVNA. Nice to see that BVCIS have stated the obvious that these changes risk legal challenge for discrimination.

These changes are potentially very bad for the profession IMO. Relying on the RCVS being proportionate and last resort

I consider the RCVS are completely wrong in most aspects of these changes. In an ideal world they may have merit but in the real world they pile on the pressure whilst doing next to bugger all for animal welfare and piling on the pressure and stress for vets.

RE: RCVS Proposed Legislation Reforms

Chris Barker — Wed, 16 Jun 2021 20:22:04 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29883/rcvs-proposed-legislation-reforms/230776#230776"]

It seems to me that the 'fitness to practise model' is a good thing, so if that is true, then the change to the standard of proof may not be as bad a thing as it first appears. But only in conjunction with FTP, not in advance of.

Do you agree?

[/quote]

To join together two recent threads, while the resignation of Richard Stephenson from Council is a major loss for the practising wing of our profession, the return of Stephen May is a fair degree of compensation. In my dealings with Stephen I have found him very aware of the strengths and skills of the primary care practitioner, and of the stresses ever present in their work. Whenever I have listened to Stephen expound the benefits of the Fitness to Practice model I have come away completely convinced of the case for the proposed change. And if we can move away from the crime/punishment model of disciplinary action then there should be a greatly reduced risk of vets losing their livelihood without due justification. For to be deprived of one's right to earn one's living on the 'balance of probability' as opposed to conclusive evidence, which is the risk implicit in the proposed change in the standard of proof, is unthinkable. I feel confident that the sequential moves required to prepare for the introduction the FTP model will be better achieved with Stephen May close to hand.

RE: RCVS Proposed Legislation Reforms

Bob Russell — Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:21:35 GMT

I am actually thinking of those that have been struck off. Does the profession consider it has no responsibility once the guilty verdict is in?

Genuine question, not gunning for anyone!

RE: RCVS Proposed Legislation Reforms

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 15 Jun 2021 18:56:20 GMT

[quote userid="6353" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29883/rcvs-proposed-legislation-reforms/230787#230787"]From the RCVS website [/quote]

and in last week's video news:

www.youtube.com/watch

Which doesn't seem to have had any 'likes' this week - perhaps people found my bit at the end less amusing than I did!

But also, the support is for those who are under investigation, I think, where Bob was talking about what support exists for people after being struck off.

RE: RCVS Proposed Legislation Reforms

Chris Barker — Tue, 15 Jun 2021 18:46:58 GMT

[quote userid="6550" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29883/rcvs-proposed-legislation-reforms/230777#230777"]Does anyone know how much help is available to the suspended or struck off?[/quote]

From the RCVS website

'The RCVS is today (Wednesday 9 June 2021) launching an independent service to provide emotional support to veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who are under investigation by the RCVS following complaints about their professional conduct'.

www.rcvs.org.uk/.../

RE: RCVS Proposed Legislation Reforms

Bob Russell — Tue, 15 Jun 2021 08:44:27 GMT

If the disciplinary process is made fit for purpose then there may be an acceptance that changes in standard of proof may become fair and just.

Long way to that point.

If the DC want to do good for the profession then they need to speed up and support the 'accused'.

Even those found wanting at the end of the process are fellow professionals and deserve ongoing support even if unable to continue in their veterinary career. Does anyone know how much help is available to the suspended or struck off? They seem to be forgotten?

RE: RCVS Proposed Legislation Reforms

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 15 Jun 2021 07:41:44 GMT

[quote userid="6353" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29883/rcvs-proposed-legislation-reforms/230775#230775"]They were. And acknowledged. But I fear they could be quietly circumvented as changes are introduced.[/quote]

Funnily enough, I raised this exact point with RCVS Comms: that there is reassurance from Stephen May that the concerns raised in the consultation will be taken into consideration, but nothing more formal than that; no guarantees.

I thought there might be some caveats added to the LWP recommendations as a result of the consultation. ie for example that the idea to regulate allied professions would proceed subject to further detail about which professions, and possibly even the agreement of those professions.

Your sentence about being 'quietly circumvented' sounds to me like a suspicion that some may be quietly swept under the carpet. I'm not sure I think that (although you are far, far more experienced in the machinations than me!), but it is easy for things to get missed. By the time new legislation is being enacted, there'll likely be a completely different set of people involved.

[quote userid="6353" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29883/rcvs-proposed-legislation-reforms/230775#230775"]For example, I am pleased that Council members voted against implementing the change to the standard of proof. [/quote]

Indeed. I thought pressing on with that now would be (apart from anything else) a PR disaster. However, it is argued that the change to the standard of proof is a necessary requirement for moving to a 'fitness to practise' model.

Do you agree?

RE: RCVS Proposed Legislation Reforms

Chris Barker — Tue, 15 Jun 2021 07:23:06 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29883/rcvs-proposed-legislation-reforms"]the concerns raised by those who took part were heard. [/quote]

They were. And acknowledged. But I fear they could be quietly circumvented as changes are introduced. For example, I am pleased that Council members voted against implementing the change to the standard of proof. Given that so much of the Executive's agenda is nodded through this is a relief, and a quite proper response from Council. However, while the report acknowledges that 'a majority of responses was opposed to this recommendation' the report, in classic RCVS fashion, then seeks to highlight the support received for the original proposals despite Council having voted against them...

'There were, however, some positive responses, the reasons given for supporting this change are listed below. Many of those who supported the change did so with the caveat that this should be introduced as part of, or after, the wider suite of changes proposed in the LWP report'

Which means that the proposals will be brought back again in the future. However let's be grateful for small mercies. The RCVS has argued that a change in the standard of proof would not require primary legislation; however as much in the Legislative Reform package does, with luck the re-emergence of the standard of proof argument will have to await the finding of Parliamentary time for enactment of the broader proposals.