Vote early ... vote often etc.
Gerry Henry, a regular contributor to Samizdat is standing for election to the RCVS Council (again !). We took the opportunity to ask him a few questions about his candidacy.
Sam. The electoral process has changed this year, no candidate statement but a series of questions and answers instead. Do you think it's an improvement ?
GH. Not really, it reads more like a job application for Morrison's. In the past the Candidate Statement allowed you to introduce and develop an idea, this is just a series of little 200 word puffs that could be entitled, 'why I'm just the best thing since sliced bread.' The bigger change which you haven't mentioned, is candidates are now only required to answer one question posed by the membership, not two as previously, and they still get to pick the one they answer. Personally I think candidates should have to answer at least four questions, with the two questions most commonly asked by the membership being compulsory. Allowing us to pick and choose is like allowing us to mark our own homework.
Sam. Realistically, if you're elected to Council what do you hope to achieve ?
GH. RCVS Council has no equivalent to the House of Commons 'Private Members Bill,' where individual MPs can introduce legislation. Council members are confined to dealing with what is put before them by the executive. I see my role essentially as moderating or modifying (applying common sense) to anything that would interfere with good practice or patient care. I also think the anti-democratic instincts of our increasingly remote College need to be resisted. Their latest move to abolish Council elections without the consent of the membership was the final straw.
Sam. If the membership was consulted and agreed to move to an appointed Council would you go along with it ?
GH. Yes of course. It would be inconsistent to campaign for democratic accountability but refuse to be bound by the result - but I will fight tooth and nail to stop the decision being taken without the consent of the profession.
Sam. Samizdat has advocated taking disciplinary matters away from the RCVS and handing them over to an entirely separate body. Where do you stand on this ?
GH. 100% in agreement, but we need to remember that none of this can be done within the existing framework of the VS Act of 1966. Having said that I believe the current situation is untenable. It's interesting how the College administrators are keen to move to an appointed Council on grounds of efficiency, but show very little interest in improving the efficiency of the disciplinary process. The CEO recently said she thought taking 6 months to complete the preliminary investigation was acceptable. It is not.
Sam. Recruitment and retention is as bad as it's ever been, any ideas how the situation could be turned round ?
GH. Not in the short term, no. Making it easier for non-British vets to enter the country and practice seems to be the RCVS's only strategy and has been for years. There's a place for foreign graduates certainly, but a first world country should be able to train and retain its own professionals. The root cause is the same as it's been for decades. Too many unsuitable people being selected for the undergraduate course and then dropping out after a few years when the reality of practice kicks in. The selection process should place much more emphasis on maturity, practicality, and a proven interest in the veterinary profession over and above the current token attendance. Over the years my practice hosted lots of school pupils doing their compulsory stint before applying for a place at college. Some were excellent, but some were so completely, obviously, unsuited to any public-facing role they should never have been accepted, but they were. How long they remained practicing is anyone's guess. We're setting these kids up to fail.
Sam. Much has been made recently of the College's desire to replace the VS Act of 1966, what's your take on this ?
GH. Good and bad. Yes we need a new Act, yes nurses should be given greater responsibilities as they had, informally, when I first began practicing, so yes the whole thing needs overhauling. But, and it's a big but, we must not let them use it to cut the membership out of the decision making process. The Council must remain elected, the number of vets on it should be increased not reduced, and anything that moves the focus away from patient care and onto one of the College’s pet progressive fads such as DEI or appointing a sustainability champion, should be resisted. I read recently that CVS are launching a new microaggressions training course about handling non-inclusive clients. Really ? Here's a suggestion, maybe we should help vets cure and fix broken animals, not burden them with tokenistic garbage to cure and fix a broken world. Just a thought.
Sam. In the College's Recommendations for Future Legislation, there's a section titled 'Improving access to the profession for those with disabilities,' how do you feel about this.
GH. I think it's one of those well meaning, high sounding, aspirational things, which on the surface seems fine but which in reality could have serious, unforeseen consequences. It depends to a large extent on what is meant by disability, it's nature and severity. Practice can be brutally tough at times. We need people who are physically and mentally robust enough to cope with the pressures of a very demanding job. This is a profession that eats its own children, we don't need any more tragedies.
Sam. Well you've certainly answered more than one question today.
GH. My email address is ccameronian@yahoo.co.uk it's on my RCVS candidate's page. Anyone who wants to ask more question just email me.
If you want to read more posts, click on the arrow 🠈 on the top left of the page or on the 'MORE POSTS' button at the bottom.
