The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is inviting comments on new proposals for bringing the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 up to date.
In 2005, following earlier consultations, the RCVS Council called for extensive changes in the arrangements for regulating veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses. Last year, however, the Government made clear that it had no plans to bring forward amending legislation for the time being.
Council has now considered recommendations for more limited changes in the Act. The report of the Veterinary Legislation Group advises focusing on three priority areas: the composition of Council itself; the composition of the Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees; and the jurisdiction and powers of the two committees.
Council would welcome comments on the recommendations from veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses, interested bodies and the public.
"We now know that it will not be easy to get any changes to the Veterinary Surgeons Act, so we need to think very carefully about the priorities and how to achieve them," says RCVS President Sandy Trees. "Before making any decisions, we want to hear views from a wide range of people who are affected by the work of the RCVS."
A consultation paper is online at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations. Hard copies are also available from Jeff Gill, Policy Officer, RCVS, Belgravia House, 62-64 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 2AF, j.gill@rcvs.org.uk, 020 7202 0735. The deadline for responses is 21 October 2009.
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.
That link doesn't seem to go anywhere useful, try this one:
www.rcvs.org.uk/.../Internal.asp
Looks pretty well to me. Important things that are not going to be altered - no widening of the RCVS' jurisdiction to include anyone else or regulating the business of veterinary practice.
The removal of Council members from DC looks like a reasonable move, although how they will recruit for DC is beyond me.
There is a word which isn't defined in the proposal which relates to "fitness to practice". They want to be able to use "health" as a basis of considering "fitness to practice". Does anyone have any idea what this means?
Things missing from this include a statutory requirement to provide a system of accountability, an annual review of the RCVS' "fitness to regulate" and a statutory requirement to handle enquiry and debate.
JGW