For farriers to raise concerns with elected Farriers Registration Council representative Peter Baker. Anonymous postings will be deleted.
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.


Postby PNB » Wed Sep 13, 2006 4:37 am


The below paper is an historical over view of the proposals by the royal college of veterinary surgeons.

Little else has been presented since, even though there has been feverish activity within the Registration Council. It seems the intentsion is to include FARRIERS within a new act of parliment, and disband our current Registration matrix.


Dear Colleague

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
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.
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,
John Parker




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

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


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.


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.


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’
Sets standards for
entry, continuing
competence and
conduct for veterinary

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

Monitors compliance with standards for all professions,
investigates complaints against
individual practitioners
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.


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

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
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


• 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

31. The suggested structure would look like this:

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

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

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

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
Conduct and Competence Committee
Adjudicates complaints against individuals
referred to it by Board

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.


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

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
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

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
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.


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


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

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.


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

Postby admin » Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:22 am

That is a tough document to read peter. I think that the guys elected you to take it off their hands. You need to sum it up for us.

Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:31 am


We still don't know where the proposed take over of Farrier Registration by the RCVS [proposed Veterinary Services Act] is going, but it seems it is not like we were recently led to believed, "On the back burner".

Great delight was expressed by the council secretary that not one a single farrier responded to FRC regarding the Chairman's note about representation of craft feeling on integration into the Veterinary Services Act. It probably is as well to relate that UKHSU spoke/wrote to every registered farrier in the UK which got quite a good response, then, related all the information gathered at a formal open [to any horseshoer] meeting and responded directly to the EFRA committee. The EFRA committee is constructing a relative report on the proposed legislation changes, I know of other farriers who submitted written evidence direct to EFRA.

Councilor House instructed FRC that verbal representations were about to be called by EFRA which is an interesting move. It seems neither FRC or NAFBAE made individual representation to the EFRA committee, so it would be possible that they as individual craft organisations they may not get involved in direct further consultation [my opinion]. Has any body seen the report submitted by the WCF led tripartite group yet??

I have always believed, well any way for the last 27 years, that a formal registration for farriers was our SAFETY NEY, a way of making sure our craft was not taken over by part or untrained individuals, [European legislation altered this however], this was when in 1975 / 77 the legislation was effected by incorporating farriery as part of an animal welfare Bill/ Act, probably the only way it could get onto the statute book.

A report by Councilor House, RCVS member on FRC, seemed to be preparing Council for the possibility that "PARA-PROFESSIONS", farriery seems to be from all accounts a para profession could now be deregulated.

Would Deregulation in 2008, have such a dramatic craft impact now, sixth form diplomas, [16 to 18 year olds] 45 in the next year seem to be going to influence future craft replacement. Temporary licences for people practicing farriery elsewhere in the world, both seem to have eroded the safty net of the current apprenticship [AMA] and the registration acts. Will there be such a dramatic impact if deregulation were to take place as would have been a few years ago??

On Wednesday, as I sat as your representative member of council the penny dropped, SAFTY NET for Farriers what a fallacy. The point was made within a written report constructed for council by an AUDIT committee, that council is really nothing to do with FARRIERS that actually do the Equine Foot Care, it is nothing to do with a practice structure of a CRAFT, its all to be viewed from the side of Equine Welfare. Your elected representatives are like Victorian children there to be seen and not heard, the chairman [a farrier no less] seems to believe this now, a huge wind change from his Election Address when he extolled his respect for the working horse shoeing craftsman in the UK. On Wednesday he commenting upon your representative as being disruptive in requiring answers to questions both written and verbal, which attempted to get clarification of how the BUSINESS being debated [well actually due to the chairman's action not fully debated] now and in the future will effect and impact on working farriers!!

I am fearful that the shrouded suggestion of Farrier Deregulation was on Wednesday shrouded for a purpose, and may be what is going to happen. My feelings someone has a plan no doubt, but this Farrier serving you on The Farriers Registration Council is not to be allowed to seek the detail!! I most genuinely hope my suspicions are wrong!!


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

Postby csc » Fri Nov 09, 2007 3:30 pm

peter i havnt the time to read through all this in brief whats happening

Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:06 pm


Its only the last posting that currently matters.


Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:20 pm

Stuart, [Precis],

Paragraph 1, takeover of farrier is not on the back burner.

P2, No one wrote to FRC in response to the Curtis latest flyer.

P3, EFRA about to take verbal representations regarding the Veteriary Services Act.

P4, Registration no longer a farrier's safty net, relates only to animal welfare.

P5, Farriery could now be de-regulated, no registration for the craft.

P6, A £65k increase in government grant increases the next grant aided intake from 12 to 60, but how is unclear, no one is available to explain.

P7, FRC chairmans personal attack on elected FRC rep.

P8, Is there a plan to deregulate farriery??


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

Postby csc » Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:39 am

thank you peter thats alot easier for me

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

Postby csc » Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:27 pm


Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Students registered at Oatridge College.

Postby PNB » Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:37 am


Today the Training Director FTA, has notified us, that unless there are specific personal circumstances, from October 2008 all farrier students from Oatridge College will transfer to Myerscough Farriery School.

It is very pleasant indeed that in this instance the craft have been both involved and kept informed through this process.


Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

ATF Farrier Consultation.

Postby PNB » Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:27 pm


The Training Director has sent out a questionnaire:-

ATF Consultation- FTA planning 2009.

He has responded to my asking did he wish this questionnaire to be pasted on THE HORSES MOUTH.

I have received the follow response :- "I would value a note of support to the consultation on the UKHSA website encouraging colleagues in the craft to contribute?"

Very much so, unreserved support!!

I hope maybe Peter will let me have an electronic copy of the Questions to paste below, soon!!


Return to “farriers - contact your FRC rep”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest