Chris Barker
From what one can infer from the McKelvey recommendations, it would seem that the RCVS Executive was allowed too much freedom, the Committee primarily responsible for oversight of the Executive failed to do so adequately, and the majority of Council presumed the responsible Committee had been carrying out its delegated task with due diligence. To prevent a recurrence, plans are already in place to reduce the Executive role of the Registrar, to appoint a CEO from a business background (with strict terms of reference and carefully defined responsibilities), to establish an Audit and Risk Committee (with the involvement of at least one external member with relevant financial experience), and to bring in additional external expertise when required for particular future major projects. But beyond this there has to be a greater recognition by Council Members that they have both an individual and a collective responsibility to ensure that all monies received from MRCVSs be used responsibly with minimal waste.
2. The RCVS has been accused of being disconnected from its members. What do you think can be done to improve this?
The disconnect is of little significance to many at the RCVS, who point out that the College exists solely to regulate the profession on behalf of the public. However it is difficult to understand how we are meant to function as a truly self-regulating profession when there is so little in the way of a formal communication route through which the concerns of MRCVSs can be brought to the attention of Council. Open 'consultations' tend to be held only after the major decisions have already been made – and hence disillusionment grows. To alter this situation would require a sea-change in attitude by those within the RCVS, and I can only foresee this happening should sufficient numbers of the 'old guard' be displaced through the electoral process. But this will take several years of elections, and there is a risk that the indignation of the electorate may fade as time passes. And the block vote of University appointees remains a major problem for reform.
3. How would you restore trust in the RCVS, if elected?
In carrying out its statutory role the RCVS should be more open to comments from practising MRCVSs. The decision making process needs to be more accessible – in particular papers presented to RCVS Council for decision should be made available far earlier to allow external scrutiny and, necessary, effective lobbying so that Council can make a decision informed by comments from beyond the walls of Belgravia House. All proposed changes to our system of regulation must be justified (with a proper evidence base of need), with more thorough explanation of changes made so MsRCVS can better understand the purpose and aims of the alterations.
4. How can the RCVS become more transparent in the future and what part would you play in this?
Re-structuring of the Committee structure of the RCVS post-McKelvey is already under discussion. The recently published PP+2 proposals would see a significant reduction in the size of Committees and this re-organisation to take place at much the same time that a Legislative Reform Order, splitting the Disciplinary process away from Council, will return a substantial number of Councillors from PIC and DC for 'other duties'. These Councillors will need to be kept adequately informed of Committee discussions and decisions, and a new more detailed reporting system developed to ensure proper collective responsibility for RCVS actions. It should not be beyond the wit of man to ensure this system of communication is made more available for consultation by MRCVSs.
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?
With the closure of the income stream that was provided by its activity as an awarding body, the RCVS will need to ensure an adequate income to support its remaining activity with regard to veterinary nurses. It is not allowed to draw on funds collected from MsRCVS under their registration fee system as VN matters are performed under the RCVS Charter, activities which must be self-supporting. If VNs are unhappy with the current situation then they must lobby the RCVS directly, for the only options open to the RCVS are either to levy a 'regulatory fee' to ensure an income for its VN department or to reduce the activity it carries out under the Charter and reduce RCVS staff levels proportionately.
6. In the current climate of de-regulation and reducing costs, what cuts would you advise in RCVS expenditure and activities?
It is difficult to see how in the short-term significant cost cutting can be made. Additional on-going costs have been taken on with changes to the IT system at the RCVS and in the provision of a new database to allow on-line recording of CPD, which will become compulsory in the near future. Changes recently put in place to the Code of Professional Conduct has increased the responsibilities of MsRCVS to report to the RCVS concerns regarding both the clinical performance of colleagues and practices which fail to satisfy the demand that they meet the Core standards of the PPS, whether the practice is a member of this voluntary scheme or not. Both of these new professional duties may result in a greater workload for the RCVS and increased costs. The new Committee structure will also add to the costs of governance – an estimate of £58,000 per annum simply to run the new Audit and Risk Management Committee has been made.
Consequently trimming the budget will be difficult. Post LRO there will be significant numbers of 'underused' Councillors without a post on a Committee. These numbers are set by statute and cannot be varied without the writing of a new Veterinary Surgeons Act. However it should not be beyond the ability of Council to ask the Universities to voluntarily 'retire' one of their two appointed Members of Council and thereby reduce Council expenses significantly. However whether the Universities will allow such a reduction in their ‘block vote’ remains to be seen.
---
MRCVS.co.uk would like to thank Chris for providing this information and we wish him every success in the election.
Defra has published guidance for the vet sector ahead of a proposed UK-EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary agreement.
