UKHSU - The United Kingdom Horse Shoers Union

REVIEW OF THE VETERINARY SURGEONS ACT

Working Group Meeting - UKHSU Report 

Working Group Meeting on 31/1/2006 at Medical Society of London, 11 Chandos Street at 11 am

Report by Martin Humphrey, Secretary, UKHSU

Present

Roger Eddy, Jeff Gill (RCVS), Peter Baker (elected member FRC), Steve Boddy, Martin Humphrey (UKHSU), Miles Williamson-Noble, Terry Hargreaves (FRC), Gary Burton (Nafbae), Carl Bettison, Brigadier Paul Jepson, Colonel Richard Kinsella-Bevan (WCF).

Background

The meeting was convened by the WCF as a working party with no powers, simply a talking shop. The WCF has a statutory responsibility for securing adequate standards of competence in farriery and therefore has a fundamantal interest in the Review which seeks to rationalise the provision of animal related services.

The first consideration is the welfare of the horse, then the protection of the public. Benefits to farriers are secondary.

RCVS presentation

The meeting started with a presentation by Roger Eddy, a practising vet from Dorset, who is leading the RCVS initiative into the Review of the Veterinary Surgeons Act with Jeff Gill.
The 1966 veterinary act creates a problem, in so much that it does not have enough control over its members. The government has said the 1966 act needs modernising. Most other similar organisation have up dated. There is a dissatisfied Action Group at present exacerbating the problems of the RCVS. Because of the Human Rights Act it is demanded that the formation of rules are separated from adjudication. There is seen to be the need to increase the range of sanctions to introduce provisions such as supervision or not being allowed to perform surgery. It is felt that fines do not fit in as sanctions, the RCVS are against this.

There is currently great concern about the cost to RCVS of bringing disciplinary cases. Most vets defence costs are met by insurances.

The implementation of CPD needs to be made mandatory. The RCVS can’t deal with competence so there needs to be revalidation of registration. Once you are registered you are currently registered for life, this is felt to be unsatisfactory. Veterinary surgery needs a fitness to practice clause.
RCVS have had in place voluntary practice standards for a year, which seems to be working well.Three years ago the RCVS started the process of a review, and ratcheted it up. They then decided to develop the idea of including related Para-professions, starting with veterinary nurses.Currently there are 6000 vet nurses that can provide veterinary care. There are 150 equine physiotherapists, 100 equine dental technicians, 100 bovine ultra scanners, 100 bovine hoof trimmers, 200 artificial inseminators, and 2700 farriers. Bovine foot trimmers have started to deal with lameness and are keen for recognition. Meat inspectors also are looking to participate. The RCVS has conferred with all the groups, and all wish to be regulated. All said they wouldn’t mind being regulated beside vets but not by vets.

Farriers are on the fringe as they do not offer veterinary services.There is a Health Professionals Council which regulates 13 paramedical groups. They do not allow barristers in their disciplinary hearings, only solicitors, which keeps down the costs.Roger Eddy has contact with MWN who sits on the Veterinary Nurses Council as Lantra Representative and it was MWN who suggested to Mr Eddy that farriers might wish to be included. There have already been meetings between the WCF and the RCVS and the FRC has set up its own working group. The WCF and the FRC seemed very keen to push this along.

Do farriers need a fitness to practice clause in their registration?
It was asked if farriers could use the veterinary surgeons act to amend the current Farriers Registration Act, RE thought yes but it would be dependent on the nature of the amendments which would have to be non controversial.

The areas where the Act requires amandment were outlined by MWN as being obligatory CPD, successor bodies, and registration of visiting farriers.
Quite a number of equine foot trimmers have expressed an interest in joining the RCVS indicative, but would this need a change in the definition of farriery? This opened up a brief discussion regarding farrier assistants and the FRC refusal to discuss the possibility.

It was acknowledged that future British legislation cannot overrule European Laws.

The Proposals

It is envisaged that under the RCVS scheme the various groups will be consolidated into 4 councils. The Councils will consist of appointed, elected and lay members.The Councils will maintain registers for their members and set standards and rules.
A single umbrella Board for all the groups will deal with breaches of behaviour and standards, a one stop shop for public complaint. This will have a similar role to the current FRC Investigating Committee.

The Board will consist of individual members of the councils and lay people
There will be a further body dealing with discipline, the Conduct and Competence Committee, similar to the current FRC Disciplinary Committee.

The Conduct and Competence Committee would be totally separate from the Councils. The CC Committee would have a large number of committee members but with only five at any one sitting. If a case involved a farrier there would probably be 2 farriers, 2 lay members and a vet or veterinary nurse.

For lesser cases a smaller committee of perhaps 3 members would sit. The model works in the health council. It would not be able to suspend or strike off.The enterprise would be funded by the licence to practice registration fees.
Financial matters would be under the control of a joint finance committee.
The assets of FRC would be apportioned between the new body and the FTS.

Further discussionIt can’t be said whether the Registration Fee would rise or fall. It is possible that it would fall if the costs of Disciplinary Action are reduced. MWN said that they might go up more under the existing system as the cost of Disciplinary actions are rising.

Farriers are under no pressure to join the RCVS but are welcome.
The WCF stated that they are definitely not seeking to get out of their duties laid down within part one of the registration act.
A bill is not likely to be introduced until the Parliamentary session of November 2006 but probably not even then.
Farriers do not need to join on day one. They will build into the bill the facility to add additional groups a later stage. There will also be provision within the legislation for groups to leave, something that the Nurses are keen on keeping open, and something that is built in to the existing Irish Veterinary legislation.

It was established that the regulation of farriers would apply to the same geographical areas as at present as this would be within the discretion of the Council.
Further it was envisaged training of farriers would continue under the current farrier training agency.
As far as the inclusion of farriery is concerned DEFRA will walk away and it would not happen unless there is demonstrable support from the entire craft.

It was suggested by the UKHSU delegates that a referendum of all farriers should take place before any decision was made. This was surprisingly resisted strongly by most of those present.
At the end of the meeting MWN called into doubt the fact PNB was allowed to be there by virtue of there being 3 UKHSU members present. It was pointed out that PNB had asked to come as an elected farriers representative and not as an UKHSU delegate. It was also pointed out that here were in fact 5 NAFBAE members and 6 registered farriers present. It also seems that there were three FRC members present. PJ stated that PNB was there as a guest.