Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Ben Walker — Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:29:26 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246664#246664"]My point was just that in any negotiation, you don't wish to show all your cards at the start, even to your own side.[/quote]

I understand. The reason I quoted the minutes is that I don’t think that’s what is happening here. I think they are showing their cards but they aren’t doing a good job of explaining it to the profession (or bringing the profession with them).

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Gerry Henry — Sat, 22 Feb 2025 10:42:38 GMT

Anyone wishing to see just how awful the ‘independently appointed’ GMC really is, can I suggest you look up the Dr. Theodore (Beth) Upton scandal here in sunny fife. Change your name, change your gender and the GMC will give you a freshly minted identity with all previous black marks/disciplinary actions expunged. All ‘independently’ appointed will fall victim to O’Sullivan’s law eventually.

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Arlo Guthrie — Sat, 22 Feb 2025 09:07:27 GMT

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246660#246660"]I'm afraid I don't follow. This isn't cloak and dagger stuff.[/quote]

LOL, I wasn't meaning quite that far. I mean, the RCVS is not MI6. Or maybe it is. Maybe it's an elaborate cover and Lizzie Lockett was M all along.

My point was just that in any negotiation, you don't wish to show all your cards at the start, even to your own side.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246660#246660"]The minuted discussion covers pretty much all the points that have been raised so it's not as though the vote didn't consider these points. But it's also worth remembering that members of council also probably have an understanding of DEFRA's current viewpoint since the CVO is in contact with both parties.[/quote]

Yeah, well, I think as in many of these kinds of situations, there's a lot more to the story than what has been communicated to the profession - and probably that is the real issue.

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Ben Walker — Fri, 21 Feb 2025 16:56:05 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246658#246658"]I wasn't aware of 3, although 'government thinking' is quite an amorphous concept. I wonder which department (if there is such a thing) is having this thinking and imposing it on regulators.[/quote]

It came out of the Shipman enquiry originally. The Department of Health and Social Care is the one that has informed this opinion (the line I used about being seen to be independent came from one of the early white papers on this topic).

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246658#246658"]Public confidence is a perfectly noble aim, but I am not sure I have seen any evidence that public confidence in the veterinary profession or its regulation has been failing.[/quote]

I'd agree to a point. Is anyone looking for evidence? I'd be surprised if many people who make complaints are satisfied with the RCVS's response, and there is evidence from the DHSC papers that the public don't like the idea of regulators having councils dominated by those it regulates.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246658#246658"] I think doing things for appearances and not to improve things is usually the wrong motive.[/quote]

What's being improved is the (imagined) public perception of impartiality. The concern is whether it will do more harm than good. The profession also needs to have confidence in its regulator.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246658#246658"]the College can't communicate its real thinking to the profession at large for fear of showing its hand.[/quote]

I'm afraid I don't follow. This isn't cloak and dagger stuff. If we want a new VSA then someone has to spend time and money drafting it before it goes before parliament. DEFRA might take that on but they'd probably prefer the RCVS to do it for them and then haggle out the details. Or for the RCVS to draft it and persuade someone to pitch it as a private member's bill.

The RCVS is pretty clear on the strategy. From the latest minutes of RCVS Council:

56. Council was reminded governance reform would require changes to, or a replacement of, the Veterinary Surgeons Act (VSA) 1966. Any detailed recommendations on governance reform would form part of the College’s package of legislative reform recommendations for government. Ultimately, the details of future governance reform would be in the hands of government and parliament and might differ from the College’s preferred option as they had clear principles on what the governance of a regulator should look like. The College had tried to develop principles that brought it closer to that kind of regulatory norm whilst allowing some difference to reflect its role as a Royal College that regulated.

The minuted discussion covers pretty much all the points that have been raised so it's not as though the vote didn't consider these points. But it's also worth remembering that members of council also probably have an understanding of DEFRA's current viewpoint since the CVO is in contact with both parties.

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:28:58 GMT

Ben Walker interesting, thank you.

Yes, aware of 1 and 2.

I wasn't aware of 3, although 'government thinking' is quite an amorphous concept. I wonder which department (if there is such a thing) is having this thinking and imposing it on regulators.

I'm not really clear how much influence the College will have on legislation - ie how much it is a done deal that the prevailing govt view will be imposed regardless of what the College thinks.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246657#246657"]I don't think it overly matters to either the government or the RCVS whether the process leads to a more effective governance structure. The arguments are more about public perception and "better" in this context really means more readily trusted. Sometimes you have to be pragmatic.[/quote]

Public confidence is a perfectly noble aim, but I am not sure I have seen any evidence that public confidence in the veterinary profession or its regulation has been failing. Is it broken? Does it need fixing? I think the biggest issue seems to be that of regulatory power over veterinary businesses and not just MsRCVS, but that's not about appointed vs elected.

And I think doing things for appearances and not to improve things is usually the wrong motive.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246657#246657"]5. There are other priorities for the college. Maintaining professional representation (perhaps of >50%), maintaining the RCVS' status as a Royal College that regulates. These are also at risk and by conceding the concepts that are most likely to be rejected anyway the RCVS can better negotiate some of its other desires.[/quote]

... which, if true, would mean the College can't communicate its real thinking to the profession at large for fear of showing its hand. I do wonder whether individual Councillors voted for it precisely because of the rationale you present here.

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Ben Walker — Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:39:41 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246654#246654"]Seriously, how can anyone reasonably agree to the concept of 'an independently appointed council' without knowing who exactly is the 'independently' in that sentence.[/quote]

The best version of the argument that I can put forward is the following:

1. There is a (I think reasonably held) opinion that the VSA is in need of updating. The CMA working paper on our regulation gives a pretty good summary of the current limitations. Some examples: practices are only regulated via the VMR and the (voluntary) PSS; the regulator can only act in instances of "serious professional misconduct", meaning a large number of consumer issues aren't eligible for redress; and to open up regulation for the allied professions.

2. Any serious change to the VSA is going to require a bill to go through parliament.

3. Current government thinking in healthcare regulation is that regulators don't just need to be independent of their membership; they need to be seen to be independent of their membership. They require healthcare regulator councils to be entirely appointed and there is a good chance they would require the same of us. They also require a minimum lay membership of 50%.

4. Therefore, any change to the VSA is likely to lead us down a path that leads to some form of appointment system for RCVS Council whether we like it or not.

5. There are other priorities for the college. Maintaining professional representation (perhaps of >50%), maintaining the RCVS' status as a Royal College that regulates. These are also at risk and by conceding the concepts that are most likely to be rejected anyway the RCVS can better negotiate some of its other desires.

I don't think it overly matters to either the government or the RCVS whether the process leads to a more effective governance structure. The arguments are more about public perception and "better" in this context really means more readily trusted. Sometimes you have to be pragmatic.

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 21 Feb 2025 10:24:43 GMT

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246649#246649"]Maybe. I don’t think validity is the point. I think you can support a concept before knowing the details.[/quote]

I would agree, except when the concept relies on such a wide variability over the manner of its execution.

Seriously, how can anyone reasonably agree to the concept of 'an independently appointed council' without knowing who exactly is the 'independently' in that sentence.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246649#246649"] I think it wasn’t very strategic.[/quote]

For sure.

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Ben Walker — Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:56:07 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246648#246648"]Which raises a question over the validity of the Council vote to move to an appointed system, surely?[/quote]

Maybe. I don’t think validity is the point. I think you can support a concept before knowing the details. I don’t think the vote was invalid but I think it wasn’t very strategic.

RCVS have taken a misguided approach to the whole affair. This is a legislative change so it’s not really up to the college anyway. The end game is that DEFRA or individual MPs will draft a bill that goes through parliament. RCVS could have a say in the details, but they aren’t the only group that will be consulted. Their proposals would carry a lot more weight if they can show the professional membership is in support. They have made that very difficult in the way they have gone about it.

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:43:02 GMT

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246646#246646"]I think my summary was fair.[/quote]

You said he was overstating ...

Well, I am reminded again about the written word being entirely about the subjective interpretation of the reader, rather than what the author may or may not have meant. But I think I tend to agree with you. There is a nuance in the manifestos, an acceptance in the first one that the candidate did not know how they would vote, for example.

But the thing I am really struck by, and I was discussing this with a very seasoned member of the profession at lunch today, is the lack of debate and, more than anything else, the way this proposal has been carried through without the detail that is necessary for members (or indeed Councillors) to make an informed decision.

How can you possible say whether an appointment system is going to be an improvement without knowing the criteria for being appointed and knowing who exactly is doing the appointing, how long they are being appointed for, what safeguards are in place if they fail to do their job well and how many vets (exactly) will be appointed. These are fundamental questions without the answer to which, who can say?

Which raises a question over the validity of the Council vote to move to an appointed system, surely?

I think the biggest risk in an appointed system is of over-regulation. You would hope that the remaining MsRCVS on Council might act as a brake on that, but again, without knowing how they would be selected, who knows?

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Ben Walker — Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:07:22 GMT

He also wrote:

“I can’t know how I would have voted”

and

“The democratic process is not working as it should”

I think my summary was fair.

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Gerry Henry — Thu, 20 Feb 2025 17:59:12 GMT

No. It is not misinformed and it is entirely relevant. I worked hard to embarrass the College into quitting (stop sending money to) Stonewall to foster the ‘trans’ agenda. The GMC has been ideologically captured to the fury of most of the practiticing profession, but there’s nothing they can do,

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Malcolm Ness — Thu, 20 Feb 2025 17:52:23 GMT

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246641#246641"]Not exactly strong opposition to an appointed council, but he was leaning that way.[/quote]

He wrote, "If you believe that we should have an elected Council as I do ..."

Most folk would interpret that as more than 'leaning that way'

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Ben Walker — Thu, 20 Feb 2025 17:01:25 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246594#246594"]Your post relies on your subjective interpretation of those manifestos and it would be hugely strengthened if you shared what each candidate said on the matter.[/quote]

David Barrett's manifesto said:

I can’t know how I would have voted on the proposed changes to the method of selecting Council members as the professions, as a whole, were not party to all the arguments put forward. However, I can say that I think Council discussions should be more openly reported and members of Council should not be bound by ‘Cabinet Collective Responsibility’ and open to express their views and the positions they take on votes such as this. A decision as wide reaching as changes to how Council members are selected or appointed should not have been made without significant consultation throughout the veterinary professions. It is my fundamental belief that members of the RCVS should have a voice regarding who sits on Council. The democratic way to achieve this would seem to be via this election, imperfect as it might be! However, we must acknowledge, with the very low turnout seen in recent years, that the democratic process is not working as it should. If you believe we should have an elected Council as I do, then use this opportunity to vote for me now and exercise your democratic right. If we get a significant turnout of votes it will strengthen the argument in favour of future elections, even if the candidate selection process is in need of change.

Not exactly strong opposition to an appointed council, but he was leaning that way.

Sinéad Bennett's manifesto said:

No, I do not agree with the RCVS moving to an appointment only system. I firmly believe that we should retain a democratic election process to have veterinary surgeons in the majority when making decisions about the governance and future of the profession. I can see that there may be space to change the system to ensure fair representation for all, however, I do not think that the answer to this is to remove the democratic process. I believe that it is really important that general practitioners are more proportionately represented on council, as these are the people who understand fully the day-to-day stressors on the profession. I also believe that an appointment system is more open to potential abuse and risks a greater corporate sway over the profession as a whole. Part of our governance of the profession is not just in creating an environment in which people feel that they can be open and honest about their mistakes, using them as a platform to learn from, but also about keeping a cap on corporate influence within the profession.

So, she disagreed with a wholly appointed council, wanted veterinary surgeons to remain in the majority on council, but seemed to support a partially appointed council (as she wanted greater general practitioner representation).

Gerry Henry is overstating (though not mis-stating) their positions. His take on the Dr Beth Upton case is, however, misinformed and was not relevant to this thread.

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Malcolm Ness — Thu, 20 Feb 2025 14:42:51 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246633#246633"]Good point, but the plan (as I understand it) is for there to be MsRCVS appointed to Council (parity of lay and professional members) - so its not like decisions over the direction of the profession are being completely removed from MsRCVS.[/quote]

The Chinese have such a system. They will assure you that it works well.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246633#246633"] I dont agree that the conflict between being representative and representing is just a PR spin, because I have seen it with my own eyes! I used Mr Lonsdale merely to illustrate the point. There have been many times when I’ve read manifestos and thought they are voicing thoughts which a) place unrealistic expectations in voters’ minds, and b) suggest the candidates themselves don’t always realise the limitations of the role, so I’m not sure I agree that the overwhelming majority of common or garden vets are fully informed of the features, limitations etc etc[/quote]

I retain my position on this. Appointed people will do just what those who appoint them require them to do. If they don't, they will be replaced by more compliant lickspittles.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246633#246633"] selects for the right people[/quote]

Democracy neither prejudges who the 'right people' are neither does it 'select'. You are confusing it with despotism.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246633#246633"]But then I dont think the proposed appointed system has been well enough described to justify its introduction[/quote]

That is true. But despite that manifest shortcoming the notion seems to be attracting supporters and apologists in disturbing numbers.

Proponents of this proposal who cannot define 'the right people', who cannot specify who will make the appointments, and who can neither describe the criteria required for appointment nor articulate the direction that their puppet-council will take do not deserve to be taken seriously.

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 20 Feb 2025 08:50:48 GMT

[quote userid="3607" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246630#246630"]Who decides which direction Council should be going and, by consequence, what skills and experience are needed? Bear in mind that an elected councillor is, of necessity, a Member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and therefore already blessed with the key underpinning skills and experience, and inevitably responsive to a wider body of similarly knowledgeable, experienced and informed individuals in the shape of their electorate.[/quote]

a) Good point, but the plan (as I understand it) is for there to be MsRCVS appointed to Council (parity of lay and professional members) - so its not like decisions over the direction of the profession are being completely removed from MsRCVS.

b) I dont agree that the conflict between being representative and representing is just a PR spin, because I have seen it with my own eyes! I used Mr Lonsdale merely to illustrate the point. There have been many times when I’ve read manifestos and thought they are voicing thoughts which a) place unrealistic expectations in voters’ minds, and b) suggest the candidates themselves don’t always realise the limitations of the role, so I’m not sure I agree that the overwhelming majority of common or garden vets are fully informed of the features, limitations etc etc.

[quote userid="2131" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246632#246632"]If somebody has some skills or knowledge that the profession's governing body could really use, and that somebody wants to be on the Council – why should they not be required to submit themselves for election? [/quote]

Evelyn Barbour-Hill Perhaps they should, but there are still the problems of:

a) whether good people can be arsed

b) whether good people, if they can be arsed, can be as representative of the profession as people selected on the basis of experience / geography etc.

c) whether in any event the electoral system itself selects for the right people. The voting system selects for people who like running for elections, and in small profession like this (more so than the general elections), for people who are good at marketing themselves.

I’m not saying the the elected system is entirely flawed, or that the appointed one would be overall better or worse, only that I can see benefits in both.

But then I dont think the proposed appointed system has been well enough described to justify its introduction.

I do think the appointed system runs the risk of leading to a more regulated profession, which would be an entirely bad thing, out of proportion to the companion animal species being treated.

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 20 Feb 2025 00:33:50 GMT

One of the beauties of genuine elections (as opposed to rigged ones such as the National Trust operates – ignore this remark if you aren't a member of the National Trust)to a Council is that the permanent staff (who are, despite their delusions, there to serve and not to govern), and the "lay" (who are mostly professional lay people) appointees, don't know who they are going to get!

If somebody has some skills or knowledge that the profession's governing body could really use, and that somebody wants to be on the Council – why should they not be required to submit themselves for election? Why should they expect just to be appointed – even if, perhaps, 75% of the veterinary profession detests them?

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Malcolm Ness — Wed, 19 Feb 2025 17:13:20 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246627#246627"]Incidentally, it is under the watchful eye of the elected system[/quote]

Yes ... but ....

More than 30 years ago I was being encouraged, even cajoled by a couple of RCVS presidents to stand for council to bolster their resistance to what they saw as the erosion of the ability of Veterinary Surgeons, especially practicing VS, to influence the business of Council. I was seen as 'young blood' back then. The problem, as they saw it, was that too much influence was falling to the appointed University and MAFF people, who had more time to commit and who were in tune with the 'civil service' mindset of the senior College staffers. I declined their invitation, first because my interests were primarily clinical rather than political but mainly because I had already bumped up against the monolith of the Vet School 'interest' on RCVS council taking over the Cert and Diploma schemes and moving into the VN scheme in order to place them within their 'Academic' sphere of influence and control. The strategy involved preferentially appointing (that word again!!) the [appointed] University councillors to chair the important/powerful committees within RCVS, while the elected councillors were thrown the scraps. This represented a gradual strangling of the veterinary regulatory democratic process, and if you keep strangling something for long enough, eventually it stops breathing and that is where we are now. Those in Belgravia House with their vested interest, and the blood of PR coursing through their veins, spin the story differently.

wrt to your points above:

a. Who decides which direction Council should be going and, by consequence, what skills and experience are needed? Bear in mind that an elected councillor is, of necessity, a Member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and therefore already blessed with the key underpinning skills and experience, and inevitably responsive to a wider body of similarly knowledgeable, experienced and informed individuals in the shape of their electorate.

b. This is a line spun by individuals of limited understanding within Belgravia Ho. in pursuance of their agenda. Tom Lonsdale is both an arse, and a distraction. He never came close to being elected and his existence and escapades are as relevant to this debate as the existence of the Monster Raving Loony Party was to wider democracy. There is a wider debate about the difference between delegatory democracy, in which the elected member is required to little more than parrot the views of their electorate within the forum, and representative democracy. The overwhelming majority of veterinary surgeons appreciate to a very large extent, the features, limitations, requirements and responsibilities of members elected to council. This misleading nonsense harks back 25 years or so to a time when one of the College's least able Registrars insisted on referring to Members as 'stakeholders' in an attempt to redefine the body that she was supposed to be serving. Such people, along with a raft of Humanities and Law graduates and career-stalled middle managers from the NHS, and worse, are the people who will, from hereonin, both be doing the appointing and benefitting from being appointed.

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 19 Feb 2025 15:08:11 GMT

[quote userid="2131" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246625#246625"]Ah.[/quote]

Ah, there you are Evelyn Barbour-Hill, was wondering where you were ... good to hear from you!

[quote userid="2131" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246625#246625"]I am entirely in agreement with Judith, Malcolm and Gerry.[/quote]

I'm not in disagreement!

[quote userid="2131" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246625#246625"]Work better at doing what, exactly?[/quote]

Well, I think I've made my case already ... that possible benefits could lie in:

a) Being able to select for specific skills and experience to sit on Council

b) To remove the conflict between the expectations that people have of an electoral system (that you vote for people to represent) and reality (which is that people are elected to be representative of, not to represent).

But I also see the risks in switching to an appointed system.

Incidentally, it is under the watchful eye of the elected system that the profession has been allowed to metamorphosise from offering affordable care to the masses, to offering increasingly expensive treatment for the privileged few.

I doubt there are many in the profession who think that is an altogether good thing.

I'm not saying it would have been better under an appointed system, but it is hard to imagine it being a lot worse!

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 19 Feb 2025 14:42:43 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246599#246599"]It could equally just be that it genuinely believes an appointed system would work better.[/quote]

Ah. Work better at doing what, exactly?

I am entirely in agreement with Judith, Malcolm and Gerry.

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:25:19 GMT

[quote userid="3607" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246606#246606"]The nature of the improvements that this change will drive have not been defined; the method of selecting appointees and the criteria that will be used has not been aired; the individuals who will have the power to define and appoint have not been named; the criteria against which performance will be measured have not been stated.[/quote]

Yes, I find that suprising that a change of this magnitude has been proposed without sharing precise details of these very fundamental points. Talk about loading the gun and pointing it at your own feet.

[quote userid="3607" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246606#246606"]Call me old fashioned, but for all its faults and manifest shortcomings, I am still firmly wedded to the concept of democracy. We will have to disagree on this Arlo - aside from my abhorrence of the administration of power without consent, you will not convince me that governance by a group of career-stalled mediocre middle-managers with no specific knowledge or experience of the hard yards run by Veterinary professionals is, by any stretch of the imagination, a good thing.[/quote]

I am not sure that we are in disagreement, actually. Of course I am a fan of democracy too. But in the context of veterinary regulation, I do think it has its shortcomings too.

Probably the biggest of these is the way that an election fosters the idea that those who are elected have the ability to represent, rather than being representative.

That of course is a whole different argument: whether MsRCVS on Council should be able to represent, rather than just be representative of.

I can see the argument why they should not represent, in a self-regulating profession.

So if you agree (and I am not assuming that to be the case), that Councillors should be representative of vets in general and not represent particular issues and viewpoints, then elections are problematic ...

... because in other elections, we elect people specifically to represent our viewpoint.

In my experience, this conflict between being representative and representing has been a problem for as long as I have worked alongside this profession.

It's how you end up with characters like Tom Lonsdale putting themselves forward, a man who is primarily concerned with dog food, which is not something which he could influence were he to be elected.

He's just an extreme example, of course. There are lots of others where candidates who have expressed views which kind of indicate that they possibly don't understand the role they are seeking to be elected for, and I think elections propagate that same misunderstanding amongst the electorate.

Plus of course we have the problem that so few MsRCVS or RVNs are engaged in the election process.

And I do think that vets are not always going to have the best skill set or experience for the job of regulating, so in any event, you need non-vets on Council.

Difficult.

From where I sit, I DO prefer a democratic process because for all its faults, we know it provides safeguards.

That said, I also think that if there was transparency and agreement over the selection process, and proper safeguards, appointed could remove the misunderstanding of the role of a Councillor, and possibly candidates who can bring more relevant skills to the table, and who might even be MORE representative (because you can appoint people based on geography or their place in the profession, ie new grads).

The RCVS consultation says:

Appointment systems may seek to achieve coverage from all four nations of the UK, along with ensuring that members bring expertise from across the relevant sector (for instance general practice, public health, new graduates, etc.) – criteria that are not guaranteed to be met by an electoral process. These criteria are set by the regulator, but the choice of appointees would be made by an independent panel. The PSA’s key principles for independent appointment are merit, fairness, transparency and openness, and inspiring confidence. While the regulator sets the criteria for appointment, the selection is made by an independent panel, and approved by the Privy Council. Appointments would be made for a fixed term, with term limits.

So, they hint at (rather than saying explicitly) appointments being made by an independent panel, for a fixed term, and that the principles merit, fairness etc. will apply.

I think the College thinks that is enough info to put people's minds at rest, which I think assumes a greater level of trust in the College than actually exists.

I think the College should have considered exactly how the independent panel would be put together (ie how the panelists will be selected), and the precise criteria for selecting appointed councillors, and the duration of their term, and what safeguards would be put in place, and then presented these things for discussion with the profession BEFORE deciding irreversibly on the principle of an appointed system.

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Judith Joyce — Tue, 18 Feb 2025 09:07:35 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246599#246599"]Maybe. Personally, I see propaganda as something usually purporting to be something it is not. Like a radio station being forced behind the scenes to put out the government line. [/quote]

I agree with Gerry and Malcolm, The webinar (not all Sue) before the consultation survey the webinar was a pretty good illustration of the OED definition I thought. 'The systematic dissemination of information, esp. in a biased or misleading way, in order to promote a particular cause or point of view, often a political agenda'. It disingenuously assumed appointment was better without saying why - it was kind of fudged into the need to open VSA to improve regulation.

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Malcolm Ness — Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:28:10 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246604#246604"]So even if an appointed system DID have decent safeguards and IS the better system, it will never have your blessing because you don't trust the people driving it. Fair enough, but it's a position which seems to preclude something which may be better, under any circumstances.[/quote]

There can be no credible 'safeguards' in this kind of 'closed-loop' construct. Bear in mind that this is now a fait accompli, yet you (a commentator who has taken a serious interest in things veterinary for twenty years or more) and I (a veterinary surgeon of 40 years standing who has served on College committees of one kind or another for most of the last 25 years) can discuss this issue only conceptually. The nature of the improvements that this change will drive have not been defined; the method of selecting appointees and the criteria that will be used has not been aired; the individuals who will have the power to define and appoint have not been named; the criteria against which performance will be measured have not been stated. The whole thing has been conceived and developed behind closed doors and there will now be no possibility of any of these people, appointees or appointers, to be held to any kind of account - it is their ball and their game - the erstwhile Members of this Royal College have been completely frozen out.

Call me old fashioned, but for all its faults and manifest shortcomings, I am still firmly wedded to the concept of democracy. We will have to disagree on this Arlo - aside from my abhorrence of the administration of power without consent, you will not convince me that governance by a group of career-stalled mediocre middle-managers with no specific knowledge or experience of the hard yards run by Veterinary professionals is, by any stretch of the imagination, a good thing.

Of course the record will come to show that a system of appointed grandees will be better. We will come to know that because 'they' will tell us that it is so. Who 'they' are, and the criteria they use for their assessment will remain shrouded in the mystery that has already descended upon much of what the College does.

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 17 Feb 2025 15:42:25 GMT

[quote userid="13891" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246603#246603"]I'm not sure it was that simple, she is/was an Officer of RCVS so I think more likely following the already agreed party line. [/quote]

Possibly, but that wasn't my assessment.

[quote userid="3607" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246602#246602"]

Arlo Guthrie said:
Would you be less opposed to the idea if there was clarity over who appoints, what criteria and what safeguards

No, because I have no confidence in the motives or the integrity of those seeking this change. Consequently, there can be no credible safeguards.

[/quote]

So even if an appointed system DID have decent safeguards and IS the better system, it will never have your blessing because you don't trust the people driving it. Fair enough, but it's a position which seems to preclude something which may be better, under any circumstances.

[quote userid="3607" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246602#246602"]It is nothing more than a grubby power-grab.[/quote]

I struggle with this idea. I mean I can understand individuals' lust for power of consequence, ie politicians, prime ministers, CEOs of vast corporates.

But who precisely lusts for administrational power over the veterinary profession, I wonder?

If I was a power-hungry sort of person, veterinary wouldn't make it onto my shortlist.

The only people I can think of who would want the power are those who stand to gain financially, and one would assume that the selection process would exclude anyone with that conflict.

[quote userid="13891" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246603#246603"]I responded to the consultation last year and certainly got the imipression that the decision had been made,[/quote]

That is my impression ... that it is a fait accompli. Not sure how you would now be able to stop it (though never say never).

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Judith Joyce — Mon, 17 Feb 2025 14:40:04 GMT

In response to your bit earlier Arlo, about Sue Paterson expressing her view. I'm not sure it was that simple, she is/was an Officer of RCVS so I think more likely following the already agreed party line.

I responded to the consultation last year and certainly got the imipression that the decision had been made, I couldn't remember the detail of the Consultation so I've picked some bits out of my response at the time.

I listened to the statements as instructed and found them fairly biassed and in places contradictory, as well as hyperbolic - 'hopefessly out of date' and 'dilapidated' were used without evidence. It was quite conceptual without much detail, especially not the risks of opening VSA.

What about the Royal Charter?I think we are in danger of losing it and it wasn't really addressed. So many stakeholders other than vets will have a say in what happens when VSA 1966 is opened. Also there is increasing codification of our governance, the most obvious example perhaps being the change from 'Guide' to 'Code' of Professional Conduct. That change has been insidious and at odds with the Charter objective "advancing the study and practice of the art and science…”

Although VSA is quite mature, there have been numerous updates since, so it isn't that out of date, although a bit messy to read. It's the corporate ownership of the profession which is making it less fit for purpose. Being flippant I could argue we could leave VSA 1966 alone and that Companies Act 2006 with its s,172 for CSR should deal with the corporates, but it is toothless as far as we are concerned, so something does need changing, and I guess its VSA 1966.

The appointed Council wan't well defended and the process not well defined. There are probably a lot of us who have been on the receiving end of bad decisions by appointed committee members. Mention of rigorous scrutiny of CVs not personalities is not that reassuring

The current lay membership seems to be dominated by NHS representatives - is that in preparation? Should it not be more representative of our stakeholders

I think in trying to ape other professions, we have forgotten that we are unique. We have our combined Charter and Regulatory responsibilities and, quite unlike the medical professions, people legally exploit (? all) and eat some of our patients - it gives us a whole extra specific set of responsibilities.

RE: Do we really want to be governed by the GMC ?

Malcolm Ness — Mon, 17 Feb 2025 14:03:54 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246599#246599"] her main point was about being able to appoint people with the right skills and experience[/quote]

My question was about the provenance of her views and the information that might underpin her position. My main point is that I question the authority that Sue Paterson, and/or her flunkies might claim to have to be deciding who should be appointed and according to what criteria. It is nothing more than a grubby power-grab.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246599#246599"]It seems utterly senseless [/quote]

That is because it is indeed utterly senseless. As well as being intellectually incoherent and morally corrupt.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246599#246599"]Would you be less opposed to the idea if there was clarity over who appoints, what criteria and what safeguards[/quote]

No, because I have no confidence in the motives or the integrity of those seeking this change. Consequently, there can be no credible safeguards.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246599#246599"]safeguards are in place to remove 'faulty' appointees[/quote]

You mean like an electorate of qualified and experienced veterinary surgeons who know and understand the profession (not least because they are living it) who can choose to vote against individuals who have obtained their position by wit of an election and who, likewise, will be removed if they turn out to be 'faulty'. Importantly, 'faulty' will be defined by the consensus of qualified and experienced voters, not merely the prejudice and interest of an individual or a small oligarchy.

My best understanding is that the present change is being driven by a bunch of wannabe civil servants headed by a graduate of English literature with a background in PR none of whom have any significant or substantial knowledge or understanding of the day-to-day activities of 'coal-face' veterinary surgeons. The opacity of the business of 'our' College precludes a better assessment.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31137/do-we-really-want-to-be-governed-by-the-gmc/246599#246599"]the current elected system?[/quote]

The 'current' electoral system exists as a consequence of the step-wise erosion of the system conceived and described in the extant VS Act. The diminution of power afforded the elected members as key committee roles and influence has been given preferentially given to appointed (University DEFRA etc) councillors while the machinations of RCVS have become essentially hidden from its membership/electorate through redaction, secrecy and 'cabinet responsibility'. The agenda for too long has been set and driven by others than the elected membership as a sort of Fuhrerprinzip has come to characterise the workings of RCVS - the process seems to have started with the last all-powerful Registrar, but the project has been enthusiastically embraced by the two subsequent Chief Executives.

A council dominated numerically by elected members should be restored without delay, the University appointed members should be recognised for what they are - a conflicted group with a shared, commercially-significant single interest. Council agendas should be created by council and the minutes of meetings should be made available to members. Redactions and 'meetings in private' should happen only with the approval of the elected members of council and any ensuing secrecy should be time-limited such that the minutes of such meetings are released after 1-3 years maximum.