Advice requested on integration of farriers with RCVS act.

For farriers to raise concerns with elected Farriers Registration Council representative Peter Baker. Anonymous postings will be deleted.
PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Advice requested on integration of farriers with RCVS act.

Postby PNB » Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:17 pm

All,

Below is an editable copy of the RCVS proposals for farriery within the review of the veterinary surgeons bill / act.

YOUR COMMENTS are requested as UKHSU are meeting the reviewing group shortly to try any find common ground. Your comments will also be used for the guidence of your representative on FRC.


The document / decision / data will have a long reaching effect and will shape the future of farrier registration. This needs URGENTLY addressing, otherwise the craft will get what it is given rather than what it needs or wants.

Sorry it is so long but I feel it best you view the entire document rather than an edited version.

PNB.


The DOCUMENT:-


Dear Colleague


REVIEW OF THE VETERINARY SURGEONS ACT 1966
Two years ago the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons sought the views of veterinary
surgeons on possible changes in the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. At the same time
veterinary nurses were consulted about options for how they might be regulated as a
profession.
There are a number of reasons for taking a fresh look at the way in which veterinary surgeons
and veterinary nurses are regulated. Within the framework of the present Act it is difficult
for us to bring the professional conduct arrangements up to date in the light of the Human
Rights Act 1998 or to respond to current public expectations. Self-regulation by the
professions has come under criticism in recent years, particularly as a result of scandals
involving doctors, and the Shipman Inquiry has questioned the effectiveness of the General
Medical Council's arrangements for protecting patients. Following that inquiry the Chief
Medical Officer for England has been commissioned to report to Ministers this year with
recommendations for more effective procedures to assure the safety of patients, including a
reconfiguration of the role, structure and functions of the General Medical Council. A
parallel review is looking at the other human health professions. Other professions have
come under scrutiny in recent years, notably solicitors, barristers and other legal
professionals whose regulatory arrangements have been examined in the Clementi Report.
Happily the veterinary profession has not yet come under similar pressure, so we have had
time to debate how our regulatory arrangements might be improved rather than having
change imposed upon us. This document is part of that debate. The object is to find ways
to strengthen veterinary self-regulation so that we can be confident that we are protecting
the welfare of animals and the interests of the public.
In March last year the RCVS Council took stock of the responses to the 2003 consultations.
It took a view on some of the questions before it and commissioned further work on others.
One of the major questions for further consideration was how professional regulation might
be extended to all those non-veterinarians who provide veterinary services. Now, following
discussions with organisations representing some of those service-providers and a further
debate in Council, RCVS has identified the broad direction in which it proposes to move.
The attached paper explains what we propose. We invite the views of veterinary surgeons,
veterinary nurses and other providers of veterinary services.
1
It is not yet known when the Government will proceed with new legislation. Our aim is to
have the proposals of the Royal College ready by the end of this year.
Please send your comments by 1 August 2005. For details of how to respond, please see
paragraph 48 of the paper. This paper is available on the RCVS website, www.rcvs.org.uk.
John Parker
President


2

REVIEW OF THE VETERINARY SURGEONS ACT 1966

I: INTRODUCTION

1. The consultation paper of February 2003 raised a number of questions about ways in which the legislation might be brought up to date. The main issues concerned the
composition of the RCVS Council, the arrangements for the supervision of professional
conduct, the definition of veterinary surgery, the financing of the activities carried out
by the College under the Royal Charter, and the regulation of veterinary nurses and
other groups of non-veterinarians providing veterinary services. This note sets out our
proposals under three main headings:

• regulating the veterinary team: this covers possible structures for regulating
veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and other groups;

• supervision of conduct and competence: this looks at questions on
professional conduct and competence which arise under any regulatory
structure;

• other issues: this picks up three other questions posed in the 2003
consultation paper and not dealt with under either of the previous headings.

II: REGULATING THE VETERINARY TEAM

2. The regulation of a profession has traditionally meant two things: standards for
admission, with membership of the profession being restricted to people with
recognised education and training, and supervision of conduct, to ensure that members
observe certain standards of behaviour. The veterinary profession has been subject to
statutory regulation since 1881, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons being
responsible for keeping a register of qualified persons and overseeing their professional
conduct. RCVS also keeps the list of qualified veterinary nurses, but their conduct is
not statutorily regulated. Other providers of veterinary services such as bovine
ultrasound scanner operators, AI technicians, physiotherapists and equine dental
technicians are for the most part required to have recognised training, but their work
with animals is not subject to full statutory regulation.

3. We take the view that all the disciplines which provide veterinary services ought to be
regulated, in the interests of animal welfare and for the protection of the public. All
those who provide veterinary services should be competent and accountable for their
actions. There is more than one way in which the public could be assured of this, and
the different groups are free to pursue whatever regulatory arrangements seem right to
them. We do, however, see advantage in veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and
other practitioners being regulated side by side, with a common point of entry for
enquiries or complaints from members of the public. The aim should be for the
veterinary team to present a single face to users of veterinary services and the public at
large. We have therefore given thought to ways in which the different groups might
become self-regulating professions while developing mutually consistent standards.

3

Some constraints

4. In looking at options we have been guided by a number of principles.

5. One is that we think it is right to keep together the setting of standards for education,
registration, clinical performance and conduct. If animal welfare and the public interest
are to be protected effectively, practitioners need to be properly qualified, up to date
and fit to practise (as regards their conduct, competence and health). We believe that
the veterinary profession should be subject to a single, coherent set of standards
covering all these aspects of performance, and similarly for veterinary nurses and each
of the other new professions. There have been suggestions for regulating education and
conduct separately, but we do not think this would work.

6. Setting the standards is one job, ensuring that they are observed is another. Under the
present legislation the professional conduct of veterinary surgeons comes under scrutiny
only if complaints are received. It will still be necessary to respond to complaints about
veterinary surgeons and members of the new professions, but to comply with current
public expectations for regulation in other professions we need to move toward
arrangements which are more pro-active and give a positive assurance that standards
are being met. That could mean, for example, self-certification of compliance with
requirements for continuing professional development, revalidation, and periodical
inspections under a statutory equivalent of the Practice Standards Scheme. The 2003
consultation paper mentioned that we envisage that the legislation would give power to
set up a statutory counterpart of the present voluntary Practice Standards Scheme.

7. The work of ensuring that standards are met could be organised in a number of ways,
but there are two considerations which have influenced our thinking.

8. One concerns detachment. Current regulatory practice demands that monitoring and
trouble-shooting are managed separately from the writing of the rules, so that both
practitioners and the public are assured that performance is assessed fairly and
objectively. An independent assessment is in any case necessary when an adjudication
may lead to loss of livelihood or other sanctions.

9. The other issue is accessibility for members of the public. If a complaint relates to the
work of a team of practitioners belonging to different professions it would not be
reasonable for the complainant to have to deal with a multiplicity of regulatory systems.
There should be a one-stop shop for anyone with concerns about veterinary services.

10. A further consideration is that many of the occupations aspiring to be professions will
wish to regulate themselves. We have had discussions with a number of groups, and
they have made clear that they wish to be regulated and are willing to consider
regulation alongside the veterinary profession. Self-management presents a practical
challenge to the smaller groups - it costs time and money - but it is natural and proper
that they should wish to manage their own affairs. That is why RCVS set up the
Veterinary Nurses Council as a first step toward self-regulation for veterinary nurses.

4

The structure we propose

11. If RCVS, or any other single body, were to regulate veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses
and other professions it would be difficult to ensure that the smaller groups had
appropriate responsibility for the decisions which concerned them. We therefore
envisage two or more bodies setting standards. The RCVS Council would be the
standard-setting body for veterinary surgeons. Another body would do this job for
veterinary nurses, and there could be further such bodies for other groups. In this note
we refer to these standard-setting bodies as "councils".

12. Monitoring compliance with the standards set by the councils would be the task of a
separate body, which we refer to as the "board". There are three main reasons for
proposing this separation of functions:

• the enforcement of standards would be the job of a body with separate terms
of reference from those of the councils specifically linked to veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses or any other group of practitioners;

• the board would offer a single portal for complaints about the provision of
veterinary services by any of the practitioners regulated by the councils, who
in any event frequently work together as a team;

• by providing a common enforcement service the board would make it
considerably easier for the smaller groups to achieve self-regulation, in that
they would be relieved of a task which can be onerous.

13. This is how the suggested structure would look, in outline:
RCVS Council
Sets standards for
entry, continuing
competence and
conduct for
veterinary surgeons


Veterinary nurses’
council
Sets standards for
entry, continuing
competence and
conduct for veterinary
nurses


Council for...
Sets standards for
entry, continuing
competence and
conduct for one or
more other groups


Board
Monitors compliance with standards for all professions,
investigates complaints against
individual practitioners
5
How standards would be set

14. Each council would regulate entry to the profession(s) for which it was responsible,
determining who was entitled to be registered, setting fees and maintaining the register.
For veterinary surgeons the accreditation of UK veterinary schools and approval of
overseas veterinary qualifications would continue as now, and appropriate procedures
would be introduced for the other professions. Each council would issue guidance and
make rules for the maintenance of continuing competence (for example through
continuing professional development and revalidation) and for professional conduct.
How compliance with standards would be monitored

15. The board would receive and investigate complaints against individual practitioners.
Where preliminary investigation of a complaint indicated that there was a case to
answer the board would refer the case for adjudication by an independent tribunal,
which might be called the Conduct and Competence Committee. To safeguard its
independence we envisage that the members of the Conduct and Competence
Committee would be selected by an appointments commission set up by the board.
Serving members of the councils or the board would probably not be eligible for
appointment to the Conduct and Competence Committee.

16. The board would also be responsible for enforcing practice standards through regular
inspections and spot-checks and by investigating complaints. In the case of a practice
falling below the standards set by an agreed and mandatory Practice Standards
Scheme, the practice would either be given advice and a time-frame within which to
rectify any problems or, in the case of serious shortfalls, have its licence to operate
removed until any such problems had been rectified.
How the councils and the board would be made up

17. There are a number of ways in which a structure of this kind could be implemented,
and in particular there is room for debate over the composition of the councils and the
board. The legislation would need to build in flexibility to allow it to be varied from
time to time. Our present thoughts are set out below.

18. The 2003 consultation invited views on the composition of the RCVS
Council: what lay
membership would be appropriate, whether organisations representing animal owners
should have a right to nominate members to Council, whether the UK universities with
veterinary schools should be represented on Council as they are now, and whether there
should be regional elections for Council members. Under the structure we propose the
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons would work within a new framework as the body
setting standards for veterinary surgeons and would cease to have a responsibility for
monitoring and enforcement. The issues debated in 2003 would nevertheless still be
relevant. Most respondents thought that a quarter of the seats on the RCVS Council should go to lay members, and that the UK veterinary schools should have reduced
representation. There was some support for an electoral scheme which would take
account of the various subdivisions of the profession. Respondents did not generally
favour giving organisations representing animal owners a right to nominate members to
Council but suggested that such bodies could put forward candidates for appointment
as lay members on merit through a transparent public process.

6

19. Under the suggested new structure the RCVS Council and the other council(s) would be
the bodies through which veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and other groups would
set standards for themselves, so it would be appropriate for a majority of their members
to be drawn from the relevant profession. Most would be elected, but we also see a
place for appointed members of the profession who would serve in the public interest
and not be perceived as being answerable to an electorate or representing their
profession. In the Fifth Report of the Shipman Inquiry Dame Janet Smith put a case
for the General Medical Council to have a significant number of appointed rather than
elected medical members, and the argument is applicable more widely. There would be
a significant proportion of appointed lay members - perhaps a quarter of the total
membership, as favoured in the response to the consultation - to represent the
viewpoint of users and the public at large. It would also be important for the councils
to have some cross-representation to assist communications between them. On the
basis of these considerations an RCVS Council of 30 could have, say, 12 elected and
seven appointed veterinary surgeons, three members appointed by the other council(s)
and eight lay members. The council(s) for veterinary nurses and other professions could
be constituted on similar lines.

20. We see the board being made up of lay members and members of the relevant
professions, with no one group predominating. There might be 10 members of the
different professions and six lay members. They would all have a remit to pursue the
public interest, but in doing so the members of the professions would be assisted by
their familiarity with different areas of practice. It is for consideration whether the
majority of the members of the board should be appointed by the Government, through
the usual public appointment process, or by the councils. If most of the members were
appointed by the Government we envisage that the board would also include some
members nominated by the councils. Our present view is that most of the members of
the board should be members of the councils, if only to ensure that the lessons of
enforcement are fed into the standard-setting process.
Which professions would be regulated

21. It is not for RCVS to say what form regulation should take for practitioners other than
veterinary surgeons. Our object is to put in place a framework which could
accommodate different groups if they thought fit to take advantage of it.

The legislation would need to provide a mechanism for recognising new groups as
professions and specifying their areas of practice. The aim should be to ensure that
new groups providing veterinary services are recognised and brought within regulation
promptly, for the protection of animals and the public.

22. In the past Government Ministers have made exemption orders, after consultation with
RCVS, allowing trained people other than veterinary surgeons to carry out specified
minor procedures which amount to the practice of veterinary surgery. Exemption orders
cannot regulate conduct, and making them has proved a slow process. To provide an
alternative to exemption orders RCVS proposed five years ago that veterinary surgeons
"should be empowered to delegate appropriate acts of veterinary surgery, in respect of
an animal under their care, to a person holding a qualification recognised by RCVS".

23. Under new legislation the Government might be given power to make orders recognising
new professions, establishing their lawful area of practice and bringing them within the
7

remit of the appropriate council, but in the light of experience with exemption orders
there is a question whether this would work quickly enough. It would be helpful for the
councils also to have power jointly to recognise new groups in accordance with agreed
criteria.
How the board and the councils would relate to each other

24. The new bodies would be independently responsible for doing their defined jobs, but
there would need to be important links between them.

25. The councils would want to ensure that the standards set for the different professions
were mutually consistent and formed part of a coherent strategy for the regulation of
veterinary care. They would also need to act together to set standards for the delivery of
veterinary services, because practice standards would apply across all relevant areas of
the professions and so could not be the responsibility of one council.

26. The work of the board would be quite different from that of the councils, but liaison and
consultation between them would be important and it would be right for the board to
offer formal feedback to the councils. In the course of its work it would have to refer
repeatedly to the standards which they had set, so it would become aware of any
inconsistencies, gaps or lack of clarity. It would also be able to judge how far the
expectations of the public were being met, because it would be in the front line dealing
with enquiries and complaints.

27. The new bodies would need to be supported by a common administrative structure, with
shared staff and accommodation. In theory they could set up separate establishments,
but in practice that would be prohibitively expensive. There would need to be a single
organisation with systems for controlling expenditure and ensuring co-ordination.

28. What arrangements would give the councils and the board proper responsibility for doing
their own jobs while making sure that they worked together? Devising the right
structure is a challenge. It would be much easier to say that the different groups
should go their separate ways and regulate themselves, or alternatively that they should
be regulated together, by a single body, with all questions decided by a simple majority
vote. But the first option would not be in the best interests of patients or clients, and
the second would not respect the proper desire of the different groups to manage
themselves independently as professions. We think it is worth finding a middle course.

29. We propose that the legislation should give the councils and the board their own jobs to
do but also stipulate arrangements designed to promote the necessary co-ordination.
Such arrangements could include:

• cross-membership as already proposed, with each body nominating
representatives to be involved in the detailed work of its neighbours;

• a duty on the board to draw the attention of the councils to any respects in
which, in its view, the standards set by them individually or jointly fell short
of what was necessary for the protection of animal welfare and the public
interest; and

8


• a joint committee of the councils to encourage the development of
standards on consistent and coherent lines for the different professions, to
act as a forum for consultation on questions of common interest and to make
decisions on matters such as practice standards for which the councils were
jointly responsible.

30. Financial management could also be the responsibility of a joint committee, but the
board too would need to be represented on it. The joint finance committee would
control expenditure and decide how costs were to be apportioned between the different
professions, while the councils would decide what fees to set in order to finance their
contribution.

31. The suggested structure would look like this:


RCVS Council
Sets standards for
entry, continuing
competence and
conduct for
veterinary surgeons


Veterinary nurses’
council
Sets standards for entry,
continuing competence and
conduct for veterinary
nurses


Council for...
Sets standards for
entry, continuing
competence and
conduct for one or
more other groups


Board
Monitors compliance with standards for all
professions, investigates complaints against
individual practitioners, refers cases to
Conduct and Competence Committee
Joint finance committee
of councils and boards
Sets budget for councils and board,
controls expenditure, apportions
costs between professions
Joint committee of the councils
Debates strategy for standardsetting
and other common issues,
makes decisions on practice
standards
Conduct and Competence Committee
Adjudicates complaints against individuals
referred to it by Board
9

32. There is more than one way in which the suggested arrangements could be put in place.
The legislation could establish the new councils and board as legally independent
bodies while requiring them to set up joint machinery and consult and co-operate with
each other. It would be simpler, however, to take the existing RCVS Council as the
starting point and require it to set up the new bodies as statutory committees with their
own defined areas of autonomy. That is how the present Act deals with the supervision
of the professional conduct of veterinary surgeons. The legislation requires the RCVS
Council to have a Preliminary Investigation Committee and a Disciplinary Committee
which carry out certain functions in their own right. PI Committee decides whether or
not to refer cases to the Disciplinary Committee, which in turn decides whether or not
to direct removal or suspension from the Register. Because the Act specifically gives
those tasks to the Committees, they are not answerable to the RCVS Council in respect
of them. Similarly, the council(s) for veterinary nurses and other groups and the board,
and the joint committees proposed above, could all be, formally speaking, committees
of the RCVS Council without reporting to it or being controlled by it. This approach
would be a natural development from the present arrangements, in that the Veterinary
Nurses Council as it stands is a committee of the RCVS Council. Under the new
legislation it would continue to have that status but would become the final arbiter of
matters within its defined remit. The RCVS Council would continue to be the formal
employer of staff and provider of other resources.


33. Would a structure of this kind work? With goodwill and mutual respect we think it
could. We would like to know the views of veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and
members of the other groups aspiring to become professions.


III: SUPERVISION OF CONDUCT AND COMPETENCE


34. The questions concerning the supervision of professional conduct which were discussed
in the 2003 consultation paper would continue to arise if the structure set out above
were adopted. The independent Conduct and Competence Committee would be the
counterpart of the present RCVS Disciplinary Committee but with a broader jurisdiction.
The arrangements for investigating complaints would be a matter for the board to
decide, but it would probably choose to set up a body corresponding to the present
Preliminary Investigation Committee to determine which cases should be referred to the
Conduct and Competence Committee. The Preliminary Investigation Committee would
consist of members of all the professions being regulated and appointed lay members
from which the Board would appoint panels of, say, three to five persons to investigate
complaints. The balance of professional membership of the panels would reflect the
profession of the person being investigated.
Investigation of complaints

35. The present legislation does not give RCVS any special powers to look into allegations
against a veterinary surgeon. We have considered the investigatory powers available to
other regulatory bodies and concluded that it would be reasonable for the board to have
power to require persons other than the respondent to disclose information relevant to a
preliminary investigation. This power would not extend to the respondent, in order to
avoid self-incrimination. The practitioner who was the subject of a complaint ought,
however, to answer the allegations. We therefore propose that the Conduct and
10


Competence Committee should be free to draw an adverse inference from any failure by
the respondent to answer enquiries or any refusal to comply with reasonable requests for
information.
Preliminary proceedings


36. The 2003 consultation proposed that the Preliminary Investigation Committee should
have power to issue a formal warning, by agreement with the respondent, instead of
referring a case to the Disciplinary Committee. The proposal was strongly supported.
We therefore envisage that the board (or any counterpart to the Preliminary Investigation
Committee which it might set up) should have such a power. It should also have power
to dispose of a case by giving advice without the respondent's agreement, so long as the
advice was not such as to imply a finding of fault.


37. There will be cases which the board (acting through whatever machinery it sets up)
decides not to refer to the Conduct and Competence Committee, whether because the
facts alleged would not fall within the Committee's jurisdiction or because the evidence
is insufficient to establish that there is a case to answer. Present experience is that in
such cases the complainant often feels aggrieved. We propose that the legislation
should at least provide the power to set up arrangements through which complainants
could seek an independent review of decisions not to refer matters to the Conduct and
Competence Committee. Whether the power will be needed will depend on the
demand. The reviewer could call for the decision to be reconsidered if there were
specific grounds for regarding it as flawed, for instance procedural irregularities.
Composition of the Conduct and Competence Committee


38. It would not be appropriate for the main legislation to lay this down in detail: it should
be specified in regulations made by the board, subject to Ministerial confirmation. The
Act should, however, require the Committee, as constituted for a particular hearing, to
include at least one member of the same profession as the respondent and also at least
one lay member. We see advantage in including also a member of a profession other
than the respondent's, for the sake of a wider perspective, but this would be for the
board to consider.


39. The regulations might provide for the appointment of a Committee with more members
than would be needed for a particular hearing, panels being constituted for hearings as
necessary. The regulations might also give the Committee discretion to form panels
with reduced numbers and limited disposal powers to deal with cases not thought to
call for the more serious sanctions such as preventing a member from practising. A full
panel, for serious cases, might have five members and a reduced panel three.
The jurisdiction and disposal powers of the Conduct and Competence Committee


40. The current Act defines the jurisdiction of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee quite
narrowly. The only grounds for removal or suspension from the Register are a criminal
conviction which renders the member unfit to practise, disgraceful conduct in a
professional respect, and fraudulent registration. We propose that the Conduct and
11

Competence Committee should have a broader scope, covering criminal convictions
relevant to fitness to practise, professional conduct, clinical performance and health.

41. The Committee should also have wider disposal powers. It should have power to
conclude a case with a warning, impose conditions or restrictions on continued practice
by the member, or direct that the member should cease to practise for a period or
indefinitely. In the light of the response to the consultation, however, we do not
propose that there should be power to impose financial penalties.
Interim orders

42. The consultation proposed giving the present Preliminary Investigation Committee
power, where very serious allegations had been made, to suspend a member during
investigations and pending a disciplinary hearing or inquiry. This raised difficult issues
and respondents expressed strong views, but on balance the proposal was supported,
subject to safeguards. The General Medical Council has a similar power, and also a
power to suspend following professional conduct proceedings with immediate effect.
Normally striking off or suspension comes into effect only following the expiry of the
time during which an appeal may be lodged. If an appeal is made the respondent may
continue to practise until it is dealt with, which can take several months.

43. We propose that the Conduct and Competence Committee should have power to make
an interim order pending proceedings, on the application of the board. The order could
suspend the respondent or impose conditions or restrictions on continued practice by
the respondent. The Committee should also have power to suspend or impose
conditions or restrictions with immediate effect following proceedings. Such powers
would be for use in exceptional cases, in the public interest or in the best interests of
the respondent. Normally the respondent would remain free to practise pending any
appeal.
Restoration to the Register

44. The consultation paper suggested that a member removed from the Register should
have to wait for longer than the present period of ten months before applying to be
restored. This proposal was not generally supported and we do not propose to take it
further. The applicant would still have to satisfy the Conduct and Competence
Committee that restoration was appropriate.


IV: OTHER ISSUES

45. The consultation paper of 2003 asked whether the Act should apply to all animals,
including fish, that regularly enter the human food chain or are kept for commercial or
sporting purposes or as companion animals. The current legislation does not define
"animal", but it says that animals include birds and reptiles. This is unnecessary, since
birds and reptiles are clearly animals, and it creates uncertainty over the status of other

12


groups of species. We therefore propose that new legislation should apply to animals in
general and refrain from defining this expression.


46. The consultation paper also asked whether it would be possible to improve the statutory
definition of "veterinary surgery". The Act says that this means "the art and science of
veterinary surgery and medicine", and it goes on to give examples of the major
veterinary activities. The significance of the definition is that it determines the area of
activity within which people other than veterinary surgeons can only practise with
specific legal authority. Most respondents thought the definition satisfactory, and after
considering various possible amendments we have concluded that it is better to leave it
alone. It is broadly sound, and any amendment would be liable to have unexpected
effects.


47. Finally, the consultation paper asked whether, for veterinary surgeons, membership of
RCVS might be separated from the licence to practise, with separate membership and
registration fees. The reasons for suggesting this specifically concerned the financing of
the statutory and Charter functions of the College, but we see other advantages and not
only for veterinary surgeons. We propose that being registered by the appropriate
council would signal membership of the relevant profession, and allow the use of the
post-nominals, but not of itself confer the right to practise. For this it would be
necessary to hold a current licence to practise, and that would mean satisfying whatever
were the requirements at the time in respect of continuing competence.
Distinguishing registration from licensing in this way would make it possible for people
to continue to play a part in their profession after retiring from practice or choosing
other employment. Practitioners would normally hold a general licence but there could
also be limited licences to cover, for example, new graduates or visiting overseas
practitioners and licences for recognised specialists. Following conduct or competence
proceedings, a licence to practise might be withdrawn or made subject to conditions or
restrictions. In some cases it might be appropriate for the Conduct and Competence
Committee to direct removal from the register as well as revocation of the licence to
practise, if the conclusion of the proceedings was that the respondent was not fit to be
a member of the profession.


V: INVITATION TO COMMENT


48. Comments on the proposals set out in this paper are invited by 1 August 2005. Please
e-mail j.gill@rcvs.org.uk (telephone 020 7202 0735) or write to:
Jeff Gill
External Affairs Department
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
Belgravia House
62-64 Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 2AF.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:34 pm

Peter, I have copied the Review of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 2005 and will digest all of it over this weekend. I did note though in the first paragraph that vet nurses were consulted before any action was taken. It may be an idea as your first priority on council, to bring this point up with members of the FRC, especially MWN to make sure registered farrier members of our trade are consulted first?

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Fri Jan 06, 2006 8:26 pm

John,

There is a fear that this is a done and dusted deal. A lantra committee chaired by MWN has been talking about this for a couple of years.

But I tell you what they can't take us without our consent, Just at this moment its a three way toss, as has just been explained to me.

1, Stay with what we have got [ Sefton House], but use the RCVS bargining chip to sink the current dictatatorial attitude of FRC to achieve / get a true farrier led democracy.

2, Go with the Royal Collage, dump FRC and accept the RCVS version of true democracy as is on offer.

3, Approach the WCF who in the past have served us well, to work with the RCVS to accord with the proposed review of the veterinary surgeons act as set out in the document, and request the WCF afford us a true democracy, a true elected farrier council and registration process.

Its down to the CRAFT, so we need to talk to each other.

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Fri Jan 06, 2006 9:37 pm

Well Peter first of all read the first page of the document slowly and try and take it all in. What I have said all along (Farriers Running Their Own Affairs Should Never Happen) seems to have already infiltrated into the RCVS, and that is why they are trying to take the lead before a government enforces such changes. The one thing I don’t like about this proposal is that from what we have at the moment, in an ever growing very costly dictatorial FRC which at least has six farrier representatives sitting. Could become one colossal organisation with very few or no working farriers representing us. It is my opinion that the FRC etc should stay separate, and focus in toning down their powers and then concentrating their efforts in improving the skills of farriery within the trade.

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Fri Jan 06, 2006 9:49 pm

John,

I suggest you read and consider the whole document before you comment again, that way you won't have a red face at the end of it.

PNB.

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 8:32 pm

Postby admin » Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:36 pm

I actually agreed with Fordy that time. It would seem that what is proposed is going to be a huge bureacracy with little knowledge or understanding of farriery.

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:08 am

Martin,

Hugely bureaucratic and expensive I agree.

The proposed Farriers Council, do I understand wrongly but it appears it would consist of farriers or is my perception incorrect??

PNB.

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 8:32 pm

Postby admin » Sat Jan 07, 2006 8:29 am

The Farriers Council would have a majority of farriers but the RCVS would have a strong influence. We are told that "The councils would want to ensure that the standards set for the different professions were mutually consistent and formed part of a coherent strategy for the regulation of veterinary care. They would also need to act together to set standards for the delivery of veterinary services, because practice standards would apply across all relevant areas of the professions and so could not be the responsibility of one council". It does not look as if the Farriers Council would have much independence.

Do farriers want to be held to the same standards as vets? The two jobs are chalk and cheese surely. Farriers don't sign certificates. Horse owners want someone who can get the job done, they don't want the Archbishop of Canterbury.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:40 am

Peter & Martin, I have now read the complete document, and will still stick to my original views on the subject. I will not agree to farriers self regulation as outlined in the report with concerns within the medical profession, and perhaps goes on within the veterinary profession to some degree. I am also a little sceptical about the timing of the chairman change on the FRC to Simon Curtis FWCF. Simon is now a Honorary Associate of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, what a smart move from those at the top to get a person in to advance this process. Don’t anyone be fooled in thinking that Simon is there for the normal everyday registered farrier. Once again I can see this ever growing empire for the very few self indulgent people, who have little or no regard for the good of the profession as a whole.

Giles
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:41 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

Farrier Bun fight

Postby Giles » Sat Jan 07, 2006 1:00 pm

All,
I think that Simon Curtis is more likely the fall guy in all this, because if the powers that be have their way it will all be cut and dried as far as the farriers are concerned. Don’t forget we have just seen a reorganisation of the FRC and the farriers training, with MWN moving of his own accord out of the FRC as such. Now why do you think he did that voluntarily. People like him don’t do things like that unless there is something in it for them. He is with LANTRA and has had a sight of what is proposed for some time, very clever our MWN don’t you think.

On the other hand the WCF is being pushed out I think, with the training board taking over examinations as well as every thing else, which leaves Simon Curtis holding the baby and getting the blame from the WCF, who now have no reason to be involved at all. This is a power struggle and which ever way it goes, we, the Farriers are going to be the loser, unless we can control our own destiny.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Sat Jan 07, 2006 1:24 pm

I think you could be showing a little naivety towards Simon Curtis Giles. Never-the-less it’s going to take a brave person or a group of brave persons to stop this from becoming a formality.

Giles
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:41 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

Bun Fight

Postby Giles » Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:03 pm

John,
two things, first Simon Curtis will not be chairman until April, and it could be all over bar the shouting by then. Two who would you like to be in charge of Farriers, and how would you see this group/person/council ?

sun tzu

Postby sun tzu » Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:41 pm

This is a power struggle and which ever way it goes, we, the Farriers are going to be the loser, unless we can control our own destiny.


Not a power struggle, its motivated by financial gain for one party and the other party (the farriers) get by way of a thank you, a farrier as chair person.

Its too late to think farriers can take back control of its own destiny.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:42 pm

I would like to see the FRC stick to registration and disciplinary, and for the WCF to run everything else including the training of farriers

sooty
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:56 pm
Location: North West England

Postby sooty » Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:44 pm

Hang on a min, are you guys saying MWM new the FRC was about to be closed down and replaced by the RCVS so he jumped ship to the FTS were I might add all the money is! because other wise he would loose his power base. well sneaky if its true.

Regards, sooty.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:55 pm

MWM is behind everything my friend, and he has an incredible way of hiding the fact, and then getting everyone on board to agree.
You had better believe it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Sat Jan 07, 2006 4:38 pm

It may interest you Giles to see what Martin has posted on this board, looks as though, in his words that it will take years not months to go through. http://ukhsu.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3242#3242

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:29 pm

John,

It will take years for the RCVS review to get onto the statute book, however a BILL the preliminary document and the ground work has been under way for 3 years already.

There has been a LANTRA committee in place for at least 2+ years to do the background work, the committee is currently chaired by MWN.

UKHSU quite recently had a member co-oped onto this committee [ Stuart CRAIG ]. Stuart stated that he had obtained a categoric denial that FARRIERY was to be included in the RCVS review, which proved to be an out and out lie, [ see statement in Dec 05 Horse and Hound ] demonstrated by the British Equine Veterinary Association's [ BEVA] president.

The Craft / Lantra contact person I am told has just resigned [ Mrs S McQueen ], so can there be a continuity route by which to make a formal complaint against the persons that perpetuated this LIE?? ARE Farriers getting stuffed again?? But this time by yet someone else??

PNB.

PS It was not Mrs McQueen that resigned.
Last edited by PNB on Sun Feb 05, 2006 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Endorsment of SJ Curtis's efforts.

Postby PNB » Sat Jan 07, 2006 6:31 pm

John,

I feel the craft should fully endorse SJ Curtis, I understand he fought hard to get the appointment, and we should when looking towards the future fully support him!!

I will not stand idly / silently by and watch the efforts of another dedicated and enthusiastic member of our craft who is prepared give his time and put his name on the line become the object of petty whingers.

I suggest you look forwards to the battle the craft, no our craft has soon to wage as a unified group. PLEASE DON'T disparage the efforts of others who a working hard to establish an honest democracy within our craft!!

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Sat Jan 07, 2006 6:34 pm

This gets better by the day. So anyone who attempts to spill the beans or rock the boat is forced to resign, and those who tell lies to protect their schemes and their own backs stay put in the job, ready to attack the next person who tries it on. Didn’t this use to happen in the old Soviet Union ?

Giles
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:41 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

Stuffed

Postby Giles » Sat Jan 07, 2006 6:59 pm

John, All,
This has always been the case with a certain type of person and group of people. that also was the case with the soviet union and now with Russia. The last on the boat is left to bale on his own, (Simon Curtis) but I bet they take the bung when they jump ship. As soon as someone leaves of his own volition you know something is coming down. The problem as I see it is, some of theses clever buggers are going to be in charge of Farriers yet again, unless we move lock stock and barrel to the WCF. We must let it be known that we won’t go with the ones that want to control everything. Only where everything is controlled by Farriers and not one person and a few cronies, by dictat.

sooty
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:56 pm
Location: North West England

Postby sooty » Sun Jan 08, 2006 12:17 pm

john ford wrote:MWM is behind everything my friend, and he has an incredible way of hiding the fact, and then getting everyone on board to agree.
You had better believe it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


John, I dont understand how MWN got all this power from something that is ment for the wellfair of Horses, the FRC is ment to stop unqualified persons from shoeing Horses (unless they are from the EEC, its so wrong!) the WCF regulates exams FTS the training and that should be that, but MWN is into everything. Why dont we Farriers have a say in who is the Registrar. I think the Registrar should be elected by the craft and should also have been a Farrier of high ranking (AWCF or above) I think things would be much better, what do you think?

Regards, sooty.

awc
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 9:47 am

Postby awc » Sun Jan 08, 2006 12:35 pm

i agree with you sooty and said as much in my address. mwn is clever and only advertises these positions on the jockey club notice board and the times, and he's still doing everything and pulling the strings. the only way forward is for us to cut those strings. we are all aware of the damage he's done, some might tell you that i am one of his victims and maybe i am. i dont get angry i get even, and where there's a will there's a way, its not too late for us and we will win out in the end i promise.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:23 pm

Unfortunately AWC we can only get rid of him IF and only IF HE SLIPS UP. That was the only way we got rid of the last registrar, but in that case he was very mild compared to MWN and was led up the garden path by the Chairman at the time, who also got the push. What is very interesting is that nothing has been learnt by that incident which started by having backroom meetings and handshakes amongst a very few.

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:11 pm

John,

Has not he walked away to pastures greener??

I ask WHY?? or has he actually gone?? I think so, on all known facts anyway. A strong case could be made to demonstrate that, though he still may have one precautionary foot on his old saddle.

The trick John is as in all cases of this type, when the full facts are established to make certain there is no route for the vanquished to return by [ Sadaam 1991 ]. You seem to be doing a pretty cool job there, rightly or wrongly.

For my part I feel I shall wait, watch and enjoy the chase, which one could feel matches that of some of our recently prosecuted craftsmen whom I have befriended.

PNB.
Last edited by PNB on Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

awc
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 9:47 am

Postby awc » Sun Jan 08, 2006 9:16 pm

how do you know that he hasn't slipped all ready. no ones invincable and i for one wont give up till justice is done, and normality restored. beware your sins will find you out.

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Lifted, from Dr G Holtom's Boards. Thank you Giles.

Postby PNB » Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:29 am

Background enquiries from other equine technicians.

PNB

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:45 pm Post subject: Mushrooms

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder if we know all that is going on or has been going on, and what perhaps decisions have been made in our name without being consulted. I somehow feel we are being treated like mushrooms ( kept in the dark and fed horses**t ) What meeting and get gatherings have there been that we don’t know about yet or ever will perhaps.
_________________
Giles
www,farrier-giles.co.uk

Dyn deallus gwybod pryd dim i siarad.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


John Ford



Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:03 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter, Dawn & Giles, it won’t happen for the following reasons. First the vets are having to review there status because they are a self governing organization just like the medical profession, and they need as many outsiders in with them to make it more open to criticism or scrutiny. The farriers on the other hand are not self governing and therefore already have their house in order, so why change. Secondly I have faith in the farrier representatives on council to make sure that it won’t even get to a second reading.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dawn Tibble

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:41 pm

John

quote: 'The farriers on the other hand are not self governing and therefore already have their house in order, so why change.' unquote:

My thoughts exactly, which is why I have been suggesting on both boards, that those involved need to see what the implications are and whether there is any gain by joining or not. (as they already have all the necessary regulations ect in place, if it aint broke! so to say)

PNB, any thoughts! Will it change things in a positive way in regards to certain aspects that are currently negative, or will it confuse issues further.

One other thought is, At present, when farriers are advised by vets to carry out certain proceedures, the vets are liable, so to say, aren't they?, for that advice. Would this change if farriers become part of this vet service body in that they then too would have joint responsibility in the service they provide in regards to vet proceedures. (hope that makes sense and correct me if I am wrong).

regards
Dawn
_________________
Every action starts with a thought.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


John Ford

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 8:31 pm

When a vet can shoe a horse in a practical sense and not just from theory gained from farriery books in a university, I will be the first to listen and show respect, one being Martin Humphreys AWCF MRCVS (Admin of The Horses Mouth Discussion Boards) Farriers do not try and be veterinary surgeons. Yet the veterinary profession seek to have farriers under their wing, why? The veterinary profession believe they are God over every living creature on this planet providing they have MRCVS after their name. God help the farriery profession if the powers that be climb in to bed with them. It would be like the medical profession joining the veterinary profession, in as much that people have hearts lungs livers and legs just like animals but they are both miles apart in the way they go about things.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dawn Tibble

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 8:56 pm

Hi John

quote' Farriers do not try and be veterinary surgeons.' unquote. I am not sure if that was an answer to my thoughts or not? (blonde moment maybe) (My quote: when farriers are advised by vets to carry out certain proceedures, the vets are liable, so to say, aren't they?, for that advice. Would this change if farriers become part of this vet service body in that they then too would have joint responsibility in the service they provide in regards to vet proceedures.)

maybe I put that wrong. I will try again. I have been led to beleive that when a farrier forgoes a shoeing proceedure directly advised by a vet then the overall responsibility is on the vet for that advice. Is that correct? please correct me if I am wrong.

If however the farriers become part of this proposal, will it mean that they will hold equal part in this responsibility or , in fact after further thought, does it mean that they will be given more responsibility in giving advice based on farrier knowledge, not veterinary, in the final recommendations of certain proceedures?

regards
Dawn
_________________
Every action starts with a thought.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dawn Tibble

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 9:03 pm

quote: It would be like the medical profession joining the veterinary profession, in as much that people have hearts lungs livers and legs just like animals but they are both miles apart in the way they go about things.

very true!

In as much as equine vs human anatomy and physiology maybe similar in certain aspects, the difference thereafter is like chalk and cheese.

regards
Dawn
_________________
Every action starts with a thought.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


John Ford

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 9:16 pm

Dawn, if a veterinary surgeon asks a farrier to carry out a certain procedure or type of shoeing, the farrier should gives his/her views after all the evidence is placed before him/her. Sometimes a compromise is agreed, but if the horse is under the vets treatment, the vet has the last say in the matter. Therefore if the work by the farrier is to the vets liking and it doesn’t work the responsibility lies with the vet. What does surprise me in all of these cases when the vets recommendations don’t work, is that the horse owner still has to pick up the bill. When you loose a shoe off your horse a week after being shod, the farrier in most cases will replace it for free. Farriers pay for their errors, vets make money out of theirs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dawn Tibble

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 9:26 pm

Hi John

True the vets are a farce when it comes to costs. (Personally I only call a vet if the leg is falling off, so to speak, but that is my opinion.)

First query? quote:if a veterinary surgeon asks a farrier to carry out a certain procedure or type of shoeing, the farrier should gives his/her views after all the evidence is placed before him/her. unquote

Is this always the case or do vets go over the farriers head, at times, and advice proceedures based on book knowledge ?

My question was also, If the farriers become part of this proposal would they too be part of the responsibility? (quote: Therefore if the work by the farrier is to the vets liking and it doesn’t work the responsibility lies with the vet). and, if so, is this acceptable to farriers?

regards
Dawn
_________________
Every action starts with a thought.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


John Ford

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 10:07 pm

If the farrier is confident in his theory and professional enough in the way that it is delivered, any veterinary surgeon worth his/her weight will listen. With a lame horse it takes other views sometimes to put it right. Respect is something that is earned on both sides. If you don’t know what you are talking about, shut up and listen and obey orders from one who does, and hopefully learn from it. But it’s down to the vet when the two are involved on a case. Vets can cut a leg off and sew it back on, farriers can’t, so we all should know our place and are level of skill. The worst thing is for a farrier to make out more than he/she does, that’s when they loose the respect from the vet and visa versa.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PNB.

Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 7:26 am Post subject:



Dawn / John,

I will respond here although I feel my formal response area on UKHSU is probably the best place. This part of the thread will be copied over anyway.

I attach abstracts from the relevant RCVS discussion paper. You will see certain bracketed areas which following my review of the paper represent some of my responses for the meeting on the 31st of January. These responses are not set in stone and will be edited to match the requests of the farriers who elected me.

I feel the below are relevant to this specific thread.

Advise please!!

PNB.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract 1,

From Introduction,

Happily the veterinary profession has not yet come under similar pressure, so we have had time to debate how our regulatory arrangements might be improved rather than having change imposed upon us. [Then should farriers wait??] This document is part of that debate. The object is to find ways to strengthen veterinary self-regulation so that we can be confident that we are protecting the welfare of animals and the interests of the public. [“Public Interest”, just where is this concern about Farriers recorded??] [Is it not a fact that clients know the cost of a set of shoes when they make contact with a Farrier?? From enquiries made of both horse owners and certain veterinary surgeons, the cost of the provision of vet services is something that cannot be estimated prior to treatment. Would it be fair to say this could have a significant influence when considering Public Confidence?? Is it then down to the client’s perception of value for money??]


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract2,

9. The other issue is accessibility for members of the public. If a complaint relates to the work of a team of practitioners belonging to different professions it would not be reasonable for the complainant to have to deal with a multiplicity of regulatory systems. [Balls].There should be a one-stop shop for anyone with concerns about veterinary services.
[Due to the constraints of farriers codes of conduct they being unable to formally diagnose and treat equine ailments, Veterinarians do and must!! hold ultimate responsibility. Who will be in charge??]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract 3,

From section 12,

• the board would offer a single portal for complaints about the provision of veterinary services by any of the practitioners regulated by the councils, who in any event frequently work together as a team;

[ If my memory serves me correctly a certain practitioner a Miss A was proceeded against by the Royal College and they lost the case, the same incident was then taken before the Farriery disciplinary committee by virtue of a complaint against the Vet A’s contracted FARRIER G [ to defend himself cost farrier G a fortune!!]. The case was lost again. It doesn’t appear to set a brilliant president or inspire confidence, does it??].

PNB.
_________________
Peter N Baker, Farrier.
My quest:- Seeking a democratic voice / representation for working horseshoers , a fair deal, and an honest open administration.

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Sat Jan 14, 2006 5:18 pm

Dawn Tibble

Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:57 p

Hi PNB
in response to abstract one. 'Public interest'? it all depends what they are defining as public interest, is this to do with costs of services at all? or is it that they percieve that the inclusion of paraproffesionals in their superbody would somehow create a higher respect for all those involved in the eyes of the public.? (would the public percieve farriers in a different way if they were aquainted more directly with science and research?)

(at present the proposal has not directly mentioned the type of councils that they wish to include. It only guides towards those that may do surgical proceedures, Do farriers do this? I feel that they only do this if they are under the vets treatment anyway and therefore the responsibility lies with the vet only. Would this change if farriers become part of the proposal?) which leads to below concerns.



Abstract 2: repeat, (If it ever became part of the parcel of joining the proposal), do you think that farriers would accept part of the responsibility for proceedures that they and vets decide on, if that procedure goes wrong, that at present the vets are solely responsible for?

At present different councils have different disciplinary boards that members of the public can go to in regards to that particular profession.
If farriers join this proposal, and be given joint responsibility and then disciplinary action is taken, there maybe a supercouncil but who will hold the ultimate blame? the vet who advised the treatment or the farrier who carried it out?


What is the real agenda of these proposals?

It all may sound very twee saying come and join us, you will become part of the ultimate animal welfare body, ect. but there has to be more to it than this.


regards
Dawn
____________________________________________________________


PNB

Joined: 13 Sep 2005

Dawn, Giles , John

Good sense, I have re written my comments of the RCVS discussion paper in view of the above comments which I feel reflect your feelings as well as my thoughts. It maybe getting a bit to heavy though.

PNB.
_________________
Peter N Baker, Farrier.
My quest:- Seeking a democratic voice / representation for working horseshoers , a fair deal, and an honest open administration.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:59 pm

Correct me if I am wrong but as I understand it, Horse Dentists, Equine Back Therapists, plus all the other persons who treat the horse have no regulations what-so-ever. So I would have thought for the good of the horse, these persons should be regulated and bought under the veterinary canopy long before they get the farriery profession to do so.

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Consultation. The process of.

Postby PNB » Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:22 pm

John,

It seems these groups have expressed an outline agreement to come under the RCVS canopy. What is a bit of a mystery as yet is as these groups do not have a fomal structure how were they consulted?

I hope to find out shortly.

PNB.

csc
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:40 am
Location: berks

csc

Postby csc » Sun Jan 15, 2006 7:01 am

it seems that any body /persons showing an interest were invited by lantra to sent reps to profesions allied to vet nurses covering anything from animal tecnologists to back specialists
the goverments agenda to this is not clear m.w.n. is the chairman i remember him keeping quiet over hunting i supose this is heading the same way another hiden agenda

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Sun Jan 15, 2006 8:57 am

Stuart,

Those three initials keep cropping up. Like or not silence cannot be sustained now thanks to the Nolan report.

You hold public Office, please challenge the chair to declare all of the things and questions you need to know about. The craft recently gave Alex and I a mandate to act on their behalf. I feel it is of public interest to know which para professional groups have been approached, how were they approached, what mandate do the nominees have to represent their respective para-professions, how were the specific members of the para-profession approached for them to be nominated representatives of their respective bodies. It is probaly correct to demand answers to the UNIONS questionaire submitted at the request of your committee, probably a formal request may be needed to get a response under the Nolan requirement.

Stuart you have a mandate from UKHSU you were democratically elected by the membership to speak for the UKHSU and report back your findings. Do the other groups proposing members onto the Lantra committee have a similar membership CONSULTATION process??

I am mindful that our first nominee to your Lantra Committee was blocked as being unsuitable [ He a lifelong retired list farrier, a multiple employer, A fellow of the company, a published author, a PhD and the vary best type of communicator], why was that and how was that done?? were the current members screened in the same way and cheery picked?? and by whom??

My past experience seems to say in other craft related groups a suitable candidate is located for appointment and a route is found for him to join up. I may be wrong but UKHSU and I have in the past enquired of certain nominating bodies, the evidence in my favour is strong when making this observation.

What I can say is thank heavens for Noland as now these questions can be asked without fear, and must by the rule of law be answered openly!!

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Sun Jan 15, 2006 10:56 am

To add to my last posting, did all of you know that vet nurses are not regulated. Yes some or many do train and have qualifications at the end, but it isn’t a statuary requirement. So on top of this why are farriery apprentices linked in the same bracket as vet nurses as to NVQs? The more I read into this subject the more angry I get towards the FRC, FTA, & WCF. for not standing their ground and telling other parties that farriery is completely different, and needs different rules from any other organization.

awc
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 9:47 am

Postby awc » Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:32 am

good question john just another in a long list of them which pete and i need to investigate. i shall be looking into that today and wiill let you know what i come up with. you are right we are different and need different rules and that is why i am confident that we will remain an independant group and maintain our self gouverning status. at the moment there is a delegation from the council looking into the prospect of us being drawn under a proverbial vetrinary umbrella, they are due to meet this month and should have a report at next council meeting. your input and knowledge is great fully appreciated by me john and gives me encouragement. just hope ive made scence as i'm a better talker than a typer.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Mon Jan 16, 2006 3:52 pm

Thanks for your reply Alex. It does seem strange to me that a veterinary surgeon can employ anyone as a vet nurse without any qualifications and train them up to give injections, handle drugs etc. Whilst us farriers can’t even take a signed up apprentice out for a day in order to teach another angle to the job, unless we are an ATF, let alone a lay person. I think you representatives should make a note of these big differences between other professions, and tell them all to clean up their act first before embarking on us to come under their umbrella.

slowhand
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 6:28 pm

Postby slowhand » Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:39 pm

An' ya wonda why I drink!!! :drinking:

awc
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 9:47 am

Postby awc » Mon Jan 16, 2006 11:06 pm

it would seem that veterinary nurses have a similar set up to us with regards to our frc which i should think is run by the vets. i am a big advocate for the introduction of farriers assistants regardleess of atf status. whats your opinion john.

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:32 am

Alex,

So what are you saying, is it the vet nurses feel controlled in the same way as farriers do?? Is it that they want out of being controlled by their practices / RCVS [ or whoever runs them ??], the same way as farriers feel controlled. Is this whole issue a fight to be allowed to follow the routes that both the vet nurses and the farriers wish to travel down, instead of the one they are being DRIVEN down today??

Seems we need to talk to the other para-professions "PDQ" as well.

Alex, any idea how we can contact the other para-professional groups. I know / feel the best way / quickest way will be to get them to come here and debate openly, BUT HOW DO WE DO THAT.

Stuart can you help?? from your contacts on the LANTRA committee.

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:41 pm

Peter I doubt the vet nurses have any problem with their system. We farriers are self employed and think for ourselves. That is why we get so annoyed at others treating us as if we were employees

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Help needed to get an introduction.

Postby PNB » Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:02 pm

John, Giles, Alex, Admin, Stuart,

Things it seems are not quite what they seem. There was and maybe still is doubt that Vet Nurses are delighted at the idea of coming under the RCVS umbrella.

I am actively trying to establish contact by the one route I know about. It would help if anyone else can assist in finding the relative para profession contacts!!

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:45 am

Peter should we be concerned as to what the vet nurses think over this proposal? They are directly attached to the veterinary profession and therefore have little say in the matter, where as we farriers are independent and do have a lot more to say on the subject. Therefore I think it would be far more constructive to lobby farriers, and the WCF.

awc
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 9:47 am

Postby awc » Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:10 pm

johns right pete how ever i do know that the equine dentists have been taken under the veterinary umberella, with most of them being more qualified than most vets. the problem there seems to be a need to cooperate as they require many of their horses to be sedated.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:03 pm

AWC & PB as I have said before and, it needs saying out aloud to those persons trying to force this proposal through. Horse owners only need vets when their horse is ill or once a year for the horse’s inoculations. But both vets and horse owners will always need a farrier no matter how well the job is done, every 4,6,8,or 12 weeks. So tell everyone WE FARRIERS ARE IN THE DRIVING SEAT, AND LET NO ONE FORGET IT.

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Agree to disagree

Postby PNB » Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:47 pm

AWC, John,

I am determined to get to the bottom of this, from the two leads I have had so far both internatiolly renowned equine techies. One hasn't heard a single word about the RCVS proposal, the other had filled in an information sheet some long time ago and is going to come back to me, after discussing it with her group and reading the RCVS web site consultation document. No matter what we will be in on the decisions.

It is important as the feeling I get is it is agreed that regulation is necessary, to keep the crazies and some others at bay. The interesting thing was the feeling the RCVS was not the group they wished to be the umbrella body, if there is to be an umbrella group it is felt it would be better to form a technicians combine, an interesting thought!!

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:40 pm

On that last comment Peter, just beware of those tactics used in order to get farriers to do what the people running the show in the backrooms want them to do, when they know full well that farriers will resist. Remember how many meetings we sat at resisting NVQs, and we only relented and started to write the format down when we got an agreement that the DipWCF was the only way on to the register. But just remember we DID GIVE IN and that’s why we are still fighting like hell to still keep what we have.

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Thu Jan 19, 2006 7:27 pm

John,

Sorry mate I can't follow that, Please have another go.

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:00 pm

Quote: The interesting thing was the feeling the RCVS was not the group they wished to be the umbrella body, if there is to be an umbrella group it is felt it would be better to form a technicians combine, an interesting thought. End Quote

What I was trying to point out. Is this another way of getting us to agree to come under some other group or organization. I say keep it as it is, as it will be a change not in our favor. At least at the moment we all talk farriery even if it isn't from the same prayer book

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:38 am

John,

I think you are reading to much into it, it was simply a joint comment by two technicians about their fears of becoming part of the RCVS. Does it not match yours feelings regarding farriery?? We are currently independent and so far I have not heard a single comment to support any suggestion that we shouldn't remain thus.

There is however a great deal of discomfort expressed by farriers that, the feelings of the members of our para-profession as a craft get almost dismissed as irrelevant when we express our views on the way our craft should develop into the future!!

I ask you all does this comment truely reflect your feelings??

PNB.

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

OCEPTS MEETING.

Postby PNB » Sun Feb 05, 2006 4:28 pm

All,

Today I gave a brief account of the meeting with the RCVS / WCF last Tuesday to OCEPTS, as part of my annual talk on farrier related equine hoof balance.

I was specifically requested to make / give an overview by the course leader to their representative who had formulated OCEPTS official reply.

Coincidentally, one of the students a lady equine dentist sits on the LANTRA steering group. I purposely initially remained in a neutral position during the presentation. I was amazed at the first comment about the way MWN conducted himself by bulldozing his way through the agenda. Strong words were spoken and it transpired they were so unhappy with him and the situation it was necessary to employ Matthew Knight to attend one or other meeting with them to present their case.

The lady not being a farrier was totally nonplused by him, she feels so strongly that during my presentation arranged a meeting for the equine dentists for the to speak with us, she had no idea that farriers were anything else other than totally compliant with the RCVS inicitive. It seems one of their movers and shakers is in fact an ex farrier referred to as Gary.

The lady said she has contact details of all the others on the LANTRA group, will be in touch with them shortly, to see if they will join in the debate.

I said we would set up a egroup if there is a demand for that purpose!! and left the the web site and my email address.

PNB.

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Sat Apr 08, 2006 5:59 am

All,

There seems to be a bit of movement again following the contrived outburst from the Chair of FRC regarding the craft [UKHSU] getting involved in the meeting with the WCF over the RCVS proposal to integrate farriery.

It seems a committee of the WCF and FRC are leading the investigation into the concept of integration of farriery with the veterinary services act.

Little more is known at present We are told that the outcome is "By no means certain". Further that,"All factors [are] balanced before reaching any conclusions". No mention of a further meeting of the informal working group with WCF and RCVS is referred to, which is from the craft view point alarming.

I will endeavour to keep you informed however.

PNB.


Return to “farriers - contact your FRC rep”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest