Disciplinary process under the microscope

At its March meeting, a motion was put to Council by members Dr Barry Johnson and Mr Roger Eddy that it should consider the establishment of an independent investigation of the disciplinary process of the RCVS within the terms of the existing Veterinary Surgeons Act.

The aim would be to reassure the public and the members of the profession that the procedures were fair, efficient, impartial and transparent.

Dr Johnson said that he had come on to Council in 1985 as an “angry young man” intent on changing the complaints process. He had witnessed positive changes in the interim, but felt that more recently there were negative perceptions from both the public and the profession. He was, in his own words, now a “grumpy old man” still trying to change the system.

There followed a wide-ranging and often passionate debate which took in such issues as the length of time taken from receipt of complaint to closure, the restricted sanctions available to the Disciplinary Committee, the view that the system was moving too far in favour of the complainant and that almost half of complaints were dismissed at the first hurdle. Some members felt that public and professional confidence in the complaints process was being lost.

It was frequently pointed out that the hard work, integrity and dedication of the members of both the Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC) and Disciplinary Committee (DC), were beyond question.

It was also considered a positive track-record that in the last decade only seven appeals had been heard by the Privy Council from DC decisions, out of 52 inquiries conducted. The Privy Council had upheld the decision of the DC in six out of the seven cases and directed a lesser sanction in three cases.

Council also heard from one of the DC’s legal assessors, David Pittaway QC, who has extensive experience of working with other professional regulatory bodies. In his view, the DC processes were “robust ,fair and transparent”.

He praised the training undergone by the DC members and said that the Committee’s procedures were inline with those of other professions. “Members of the DC can feel a degree of pride,” he said.

He also advised that the likely outcome of any independent investigation would be a recommendation to separate regulatory from judicial functions. “Under such a change the procedures and processes would remain the same, the only change would be the structure,” he cautioned.

It was accepted that in recent years there had been more information available about complaints and disciplinary matters. An internal review of the complaints procedure had resulted in recent positive changes to the College’s complaints-handling procedures.

In addition, last year the DC had published guidance on the purpose and function of the DC. These documents have been in preparation for some time, with the help of lay observers to PIC and DC legal assessors. They are in part the product of internal reviews that took onboard the impact of the Shipman Inquiry on the General Medical Council and how the RCVS might proactively learn from this.

An initial amendment, to broaden the terms of the motion beyond the existing Veterinary Surgeons Act, was agreed, but the motion itself was defeated. However, there was no sense of complacency.

There was no resistance to a proposal that the recently-established changes to the disciplinary system be reviewed in two years, once they had had time to bed in. All being well, this will become the responsibility of newly-elected Junior Vice-President.