Kit Sturgess
It is difficult to discuss the McKelvey report as the content has not been made public, so the exact nature and severity of the deficiencies identified is hard to quantify - making any recommendation for change guess work at best. I do believe that the College needs to be as open as possible and, if it has to make a decision that it knows, or should know, will be unpopular then more effort should be made to clarify the situation. For example with the McKelvey report – what exactly was the legal opinion? - rather than only having the college’s interpretation of the legal opinion given.
Clearly as a result of this report, improved financial governance is necessary and is being instituted and there should be clear early warning mechanisms in place rather than letting the profession know only when the work has been completed and the overspend has occurred.
Finally there needs to be a clear line of accountability, which seems to be lacking – it is never satisfactory for a current president to be apologising for an event that occurred before he was president. Those involved in the decision-making process should be able to be identified so that, as voting members of the profession, we can make a decision as to whether we want such an individual to continue to represent us.
2. The RCVS has been accused of being disconnected from its members. What do you think can be done to improve this?
There is inevitably going to be some level of disconnect between the RCVS and some of its members. Vets, I think by nature, hold strong opinions and it would be impossible for the College to meet all the needs and expectations of the profession. Having said that, I do agree that the College seems somewhat remote and secretive at times - although I do see this is slowly changing.
I would like to see the College develop clearer 5 and 10 year strategies that they communicate well to the profession, to allow interested parties early input. Such a policy then allows progress to be benchmarked against objectives in a succinct way, so that busy members of the profession can easily access the strategy and progress that has been made.
3. How would you restore trust in the RCVS, if elected?
I am not sure on what evidence you make this statement. As a general response, trust is a matter of mutual respect – for the RCVS this means respecting, listening and responding to the importance, efforts and concerns of its members; and to be as clear and open as possible with the profession about what the role of the College is and what is being done within those roles without burying busy professionals in paper.
4. How can the RCVS become more transparent in the future and what part would you play in this?
Council does try and bring information to the profession via the website and newsletter but I would want to push hard for the College to make and publish its long term aims and objectives in a clear and short format, and then benchmark its performance against those aims and objectives. This means members know what the College is hoping to achieve in advance so that they may be able to influence/lobby in the areas in which they are interested; and also to know that an issue that they are passionate about is not on the agenda, giving them an opportunity to have it included or potentially understanding that although it is an important area it is not within the College’s remit.
I do feel that there is a significant mismatch between the College’s view of their role and the membership's view of the role the College should play.
5. After closing its VN awarding body the RCVS introduced a significant "regulatory fee" for student nurses, which has been viewed by some as grossly unfair. What is your opinion?
This is not an area that I have great experience with so can only really give an opinion based on the documentation on the RCVS website. This suggests that from the RCVS perspective there has been only a minor increase in fees of £6 (3%) over the 6 year period, and that this regulatory fee has always been in existence and paid for by student nurses. I suspect that the marked increase in fees perceived is actually due to the awarding body that is now City and Guilds - that also have a requirement to regulate and quality control the qualifications that are being offered - are also now charging a fee so that students end up paying twice where previously, as Quality Control was under one roof, they only paid once.
This division of responsibility has occurred and I cannot see it going back. Whether it was made clear that this would be an effect of the decisions when it was being mooted I do not know. The RCVS maintains that any qualifications with which it is involved need to be self-funding so I do not feel a blanket and long term exception can be easily made. I would suggest that in the short term the College should consider waiving the fee for candidates with genuine hardship.
6. In the current climate of de-regulation and reducing costs, what cuts would you advise in RCVS expenditure and activities?
I suspect the area where most significant long term saving could be made would be to move the RCVS out of London.
---
MRCVS.co.uk would like to thank Kit for providing this information and wish him the best of luck in the upcoming election.
Birmingham Dogs Home has issued an urgent winter appeal as it faces more challenges over the Christmas period.
