President S Speaking Notes for Council Thursday, 5Th March 2009

Minutes of the Meeting of Council held on 7 March 2013 at 10am at Belgravia House, 62/64 Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2AF

Members

Ms J R Molyneux (President in the Chair) Prof D Argyle Mr C T Barker Ms A K Boag Mrs R J Jennings Dr K Braithwaite* Mr P C Jinman Prof N Burrows* Dr J B Johnson Prof E R Cameron Professor P Lees Mr D F Catlow Prof S A May* Mrs B D Cottrell Dr R P Moore Professor S M Crispin* Mrs P J Nute# Dr J V Davies Dr T J Nuttall* Mr R Davis Mr R D Partridge Prof S Dawson Professor J S Price Mr M F Elliott Professor S W J Reid Prof G C W England Miss C F Shield Mrs C N Freedman Colonel N Smith Mr N P Gibbens Mr R F Stephenson* Mrs C A Goldie Mrs C J Tapsfield-Wright Mr C J Gray Lord A J Trees* Professor M W Herrtage Mr C W Tufnell* Mrs L V Hill Dr B P Viner Mrs A K Jeffery* Ms J Webb * Absent # Left at lunchtime or before the end of the afternoon meeting

In Attendance: Mr Nick Stace, Chief Executive & Secretary Mr Gordon Hockey, Head of legal Services & Registrar Mrs Kissick, Chair of the Veterinary Nurses Council Mrs Liz Butler, Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee Nicola South, Customer Experience Manager

of 20 1. The President welcomed members to Council and drew their attention to an amendment made in the ‘Speaking at Council’ guidance which removed the text “on any one occasion” to now read “Speeches should not last more than 5 minutes – except with the permission of the Chairman”. She added that this change would become permanent if passed in the Byelaws paper later in the meeting.

2. The President added that the report of the Audit and Risk Committee ARC report had not been included in the recent mailing and would be taken as Agenda Item 8E with a short report from the Trust as item 8F.

Apologies for Absence

3. Apologies had been received from: Dr Braithwaite Professor Burrows Professor Crispin Mrs Jeffery Professor May Professor Nuttall Mr Stephenson Lord Trees Mr Tufnell

4. The president explained that the Chief Veterinary Officer had informed her that he would need to arrive slightly late. She then welcomed three visitors:  Mrs Kissick, Chair of the Veterinary Nurses Council  Mrs Liz Butler, Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee  Nicola South, Customer Experience Manager

Declarations of Interest

5. The President asked if any members of Council had new declarations of interests to make.

6. Professor Dawson declared that she had become director of a charitable company called SAVSNET LTD which is involved in small animal disease surveillance.

7. The President asked Professor Dawson and all other Council members to make sure that their declarations on the intranet were up to date.

of 20 President’s Introduction

8. The President began her introduction by explaining that Professor Duncan Maskell had resigned from RCVS Council and she congratulated him on his recent promotion to Head of Biological Sciences at Cambridge University. She advised that a new Cambridge representative on Council was awaited.

9. She advised Council that she did not think that this Council meeting would be overly lengthy but anticipated that the meeting in June would be in order to accommodate discussions on the Practice Standards and First Rate Regulator schemes.

10. The President told Council that she was enjoying a very positive and fruitful working relationship with the new Chief executive, Nick Stace.

11. She introduced Mr Nick Royle's appointment as the new Executive Director to the RCVS Charitable Trust.

12. With regard to current discussions as to the number of veterinary students and schools in the UK, the President explained that it was not the role of the College to take a view on the subject. However, she added that the College would talk to workforce modelling professionals about gathering data on the subject and would make the data available to those participating in the discussions. This information would be brought back to Council at a later date.

13. The President also congratulated the College’s VN department for the role that they are playing in developing VN standards across Europe, via the VECTAR project.

Minutes of the Meeting held on 1 November 2012

14. Council accepted the Minutes as a true record of the meeting.

Matters Arising

Obituaries

15. The President said that obituaries had been previously circulated for RCVS Past President, Mr Angus Taylor; RCVS Honorary Fellow, Mr Andrew Madel and RCVS Honorary Associate, Professor Sir Colin Spedding.

16. Council observed a minute’s silence for these colleagues and all other members that had passed away since the previous Council meeting.

of 20 Council Correspondence and Matters for Report

RCVS Day 2013

17. The President said that the format of the 2013 RCVS Day is likely to be the same as in 2012 Date: Confirmed as Friday 5 July 2013 Venue: Royal College of Physicians, Regents Park Speaker: Andy Stringer, Director of Veterinary Programmes at the Society for the Protection of Animals Abroad (SPANA)

CEO Update

18. The Chief Executive reminded Council that he had promised them a transparent update including both positive and negative information. He summarised a few key areas of development since the previous Council meeting.

Refurbishment 19. The refurbishment of the interior of the College building was almost complete and within budget. The Chief Executive encouraged Council Members to look around the building and see the changes for themselves. He confirmed that staff had got rid of 600 bags of rubbish, recycled 10 van loads of furniture and put 800 boxes into off- site storage. The refurbishment had already brought about a significant change to working practices with more emphasis being placed on digital document management rather than maintaining paper records.

Restructure 20. The Chief Executive confirmed that he had reduced the management team to seven people and that this reduction combined with weekly meetings had brought about greater understanding and communication amongst staff. The Chief Executive introduced two newly recruited members of staff - Nicola South, Customer Experience Manager and Nick Royle , the first Chief Executive of the RCVS Charitable Trust. He highlighted Mr Royle’s background at the Cochrane Collaboration and said he was delighted that the Trust would be able to benefit from his extensive experience in Evidence-based Medicine.

First Rate Regulator (FRR) 21. The Chief Executive informed Council that the consultation on the RCVS’s efficacy as a regulator had been more successful than anticipated at reaching out to the public and profession. He added that a fifth of the profession had responded to the consultation and that a third of complainants contacted had participated in detailed

of 20 interviews. He said that he would report more fully to Council on this initiative once the data received had been analysed.

Practice Standards Scheme 22. The Chief Executive said that a new initiative to examine the College’s Practice Standards Scheme had begun. The initial intention was to understand what the profession and the public think the Practice Standards Scheme should be accomplishing. He added that Core standards should be inspected on all premises and that the College would be responding to feedback received on how to improve the scheme further.

Governance reform 23. The Chief Executive said that a lot of work had already been undertaken, the result of which was a rigorously thought through paper backed by key stakeholders which had the potential to bring about good and significant change. He said that Council would continue to be involved in strategic decisions for the College and that this could already be evidenced by the three additional meetings of Council scheduled in 2013.

Legislative Reform Order 24. The Chief Executive confirmed that the Legislative Reform Order had been made on 17th January 2013 and would come into effect on 6th April 2013. He added that recruitment for membership of DC and PIC committees was in process and that of applications received to date, one third had been from lay applicants.

25. In summary of the changes previously mentioned, the Chief Executive said that changes within the RCVS had brought about a quickening of pace but also some unease. The First Rate Regulator was the most significant endeavour and had been a very public way to ask for feedback. He said that in relation to the FRR initiative, the emphasis would now be on Council to work through results of the consultation.

26. The Chief Executive said that he believed that the recent changes in the RCVS would introduce the right structure for now in effectively managing governance and risk; that the FRR scheme would enable the College to learn how it can improve as a regulator including the Practice Standards Scheme and that future plans for the College would be discussed at the additional meeting of Council in September.

Staff Engagement Survey 27. The Chief Executive gave a short presentation to Council about the recent Staff Engagement Survey. The results of the survey suggest that the RCVS are at the lower end of engagement.

28. He outlined areas where the RCVS scored well:

of 20 - staff do see the link between their jobs and the organisation - they feel that there is a good team dynamic - they have a good sense of pride in their work - they will go the extra mile for the organisation - they felt that there was no bullying, harassment or discrimination amongst staff

29. He outlined areas that need improvement: - Change management (he noted that the consultation had been conducted before a lot of internal changes had taken place ) - Work environment (he noted that a lot of improvements had been made post the survey) - Internal communications (he noted that internal communications had already improved) - Working with Council

30. The Chief Executive went on to explain that 37% of staff felt that there was bullying from Council Members; that they felt they received a lack of respect from Council Members and that Council Members did not give enough consideration to staff workloads. He said that the word ‘bullying’ was an integral part of the survey and was not a word initiated by staff which suggested that it might be too strong a word in this context although there was clearly a concern that needed to be addressed. He also added that there seemed to be a disconnect in this area as notwithstanding the above results on bullying, as part of the FRR survey, the 12 Council members interviewed had said that they felt staff were effective and supportive. [Afternote: further investigation revealed that the problem was isolated to just a few Council Members.]

31. The Chief Executive explained that two members of staff had been seconded to help improve staff engagement and that other measures to improve engagement had been put in place, including the improvement of the office environment and providing more frequent and detailed explanations of decisions Council makes.

32. On inviting questions from Council, a member thanked the Chief Executive for his presentation and work to date. The Chief Executive thanked Council for their backing of his ‘warts and all ‘ approach stating that the more open Council and staff could be the better the organisation would become as a regulator. He ended by saying that the FRR initiative would drive improvements as well as tackle big challenges and that this would be a very exciting period for the RCVS.

College Honours and Awards 33. The President confirmed to Council that the four College honour awardees that were approved at the November 2012 Council Meeting had all accepted their honours.

of 20 The recipients are: Honorary Associateship: Dr Kirsten Rausing

Honorary Fellowship by Election: Dr Joy Archer, Mr David Franklin and Mr Colin Whitaker

The President confirmed that the honours would be conferred at the RCVS AGM in July 2013.

Matters for Decision by Council

Review of RCVS Governance Structure

34. The President introduced the paper and invited comments.

35. Concern was expressed, in relation to the proposed decoupling of committee and Council meetings (paragraph 11, fourth indent) that committee members should have ample notice of the dates of meetings. This was accepted. The aim was to give committees more flexibility over their working arrangements.

36. There was concern that the Presidential team and Treasurer should remain in touch with the business of all the main committees (paragraph 11, third indent). In discussion it was observed that that could be achieved by them attending meetings as observers, rather than as voting members. It was also noted that the chairmen of the main committees would serve on the Operational Board.

37. It was recalled that the PP+2 report had recommended that there should be a single appeals committee, and it was agreed that the case for that would be considered further.

38. There was a request for clarification, in due course, of the intended mode of operation of the Science Advisory Panel, and it was suggested that the possibility of recorded votes in Council and committees should be considered further.

39. Attention was drawn to paragraph 9 of the paper - which said that it would be good to draw some committee members from outside Council in order to bring in a range of ideas and expertise - and paragraph 11, which proposed that not every Council member should necessarily serve on a committee. It was argued that priority in committee appointments should be given to Council members. Against this it was

of 20 suggested that it would sometimes be desirable to bring in outsiders for the sake of a particular contribution.

40. It was noted in further discussion that, under the proposed structure, Council would retain the power to review any committee decision. It was suggested that this might be confirmed by an amendment to paragraph 14 of the paper, listing the areas on which Council should focus; alternatively the first sentence of the second paragraph of annex A might say: ". . . Council will be free to reserve to itself or review such decisions as it thinks fit". The second proposal was agreed on a vote.

41. On a further vote the paper was accepted, as amended, and the draft delegation scheme at annex B was approved.

Disclosure of Convictions

42. The report was presented by the Head of Legal Services & Registrar, Mr Gordon Hockey, who explained that in March 2013, Council had approved the new Code of Professional Conduct for veterinary surgeons that included the provision that:

5.3 Veterinary surgeons, and those applying to be registered as veterinary surgeons, must disclose to the RCVS any caution or conviction, including absolute and conditional discharges and spent convictions, or adverse finding which may affect registration, whether in the UK or overseas (except for minor offences excluded from disclosure by the RCVS).

43. He said that the issues considered by the Advisory, Planning & Resources and Preliminary Investigation Committees previously and for decision by Council concerned the implementation of the provision and its dovetailing with the relevant Veterinary Surgeons Act registration provisions.

44. Mr Hockey said that paragraph ‘a’ referred to ‘when’: when the disclosure requirement should be introduced. Each of the committees had said that this should not begin until next year to allow time for more information and clarity surrounding decisions to be made, and for help and advice to veterinary surgeons that needed to make a disclosure.

45. He said that paragraphs ‘b’ and ‘c’ relate to ‘who’: to whom the disclosures would apply. Adding that paragraph ‘b’ asks Council to imply a ‘good practice’ requirement into the Veterinary Surgeons Act for UK qualified applicants, and paragraph ‘c’ applies to the veterinary profession as a whole, those on the Register and those

of 20 applying to it. He said the Preliminary Investigation Committee would consider relevant policies and, for example, might be slow to refer to DC a veterinary surgeon who would remain non-practising or retired, which was already part of the PIC protocol for consideration of cases.

46. Mr Hockey said that paragraphs ‘d’ and ‘e’ relate to ‘what’: what should be disclosed. He said that the date of 2006 related to the date when convictions were automatically notified to the College by police, and in this scheme. He highlighted the difference between those registered and those applying to be registered and said that the registration of veterinary surgeons provided a reassurance of their fitness to practise history, which did not apply to those applying to be registered. He said the adverse findings not relating to the fitness to practise history of a student should also start to be subject to the 2006 date for those already registered.

47. Mr Hockey added that adverse findings in relation to fitness to practise history of a student should be applied only to those applying to the RCVS Register and invited questions on the paper.

48. It was asked which organisation a UK qualified applicant should go to for a letter of good standing if they were not yet a member of the College to which Mr Hockey replied that good standing was interpreted differently in different parts of the Act, but in this regard it meant compliance with the Code disclosure requirement.

49. Answering a question in relation to convictions of UK qualified applicants, Mr Hockey indicated an option in the paper was that where a conviction was disclosed, the applicant could be admitted on to the Register and the conviction considered by the Preliminary Investigation Committee for possible referral to DC; because there was no provision in the Act for who would consider it or what the appeal route would be.

50. A question was asked as to whether paragraphs ‘b’ covered the same subject as paragraph ‘c’ and Mr Hockey explained that because of dove-tailing between the requirements of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons and legislation, paragraph ‘b’ was required because of the need to imply a requirement of good standing on UK qualified applicants to the RCVS Register.

51. In answer to a further question, Mr Hockey added that the recent Court of Appeal decision on disclosures was relevant to the general debate on disclosure of past and spent convictions, but did not affect the RCVS exemption under the

of 20 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act to request such information, which it was not anticipated would be passed on to third parties.

52. On a show of hands, the paper was accepted by Council.

PIC and DC Bye-Laws

53. The Registrar, introducing the paper, drew attention to the proposal that the bye- laws should require Council to take advice from an independent panel before removing a member of PIC or DC for any of the reasons specified; and to the intention to introduce appraisal arrangements with effect from July 2013. Certain of the provisions of the draft bye-laws applied to PIC and not DC, because the relevant matters were dealt with for DC in the statutory procedure rules.

54. In discussion it was noted that the bye-laws would apply to all members of the committees, both Council members and external appointees. It was also observed that the appointment of a panel to advise on the removal of a member would incur a cost; on the other hand it was suggested that it was prudent for Council to take independent advice, to safeguard the autonomy of the committees in the discharge of their statutory functions.

55. In further discussion it was questioned whether there was duplication between paragraphs (i) and (j) of bye-law 12, which dealt with past disciplinary proceedings of licensing bodies and of the RCVS. It was explained that the concern in drafting the bye-laws, which were modelled on the relevant rules of the General Medical Council, had been to avoid loopholes, and the Veterinary Surgeons Act did not describe the RCVS as a licensing body. It was also noted that, under paragraph (l), a past investigation would not of itself bar anyone from serving on PIC or DC, because Council, as the appointing body, would have to be satisfied that their continued membership of the committee would undermine public confidence in the regulation of the profession. Veterinary surgeons seeking appointment in the current recruitment exercise were being warned that the Selection Committee would be told of any current complaints against them and of any past complaints which had been referred to PIC or DC.

56. On a vote the bye-laws were confirmed.

General Administration Bye-laws

57. The Registrar, introducing the paper, drew attention to the draft delegation scheme at annex C. The proposed new bye-laws would not include provisions appointing committees or the Officers' meetings, but the delegation scheme would preserve the

of 20 existing governance structure until the new delegation scheme which Council had approved under agenda item 7a came into effect on RCVS Day.

58. In discussion it was questioned whether the bye-laws needed to deal with the action to be taken if a President died in office. [This was dealt with in Schedule 1 to the Act.] It was also noted that the bye-laws could not overrule the Charter provision which specified that questions before Council, on matters other than the confirmation of bye-laws, were to be decided by a simple majority of those present and entitled to vote. The established practice was not to require abstainers to leave the room.

59. On a vote the bye-laws were confirmed.

Draft Accounts for 2012

60. Introducing the paper, the Treasurer asked that the accounts be considered together with the relevant section of the report from PRC, paragraphs 45-49, which provide explanations. He said that despite no increase in annual retention fees in 2012, the accounts are healthy as a result partly of good fortune and partly of good management: a higher than usual number of registrations as a result of the London 2012 games; higher than budgeted investment income; reduced expenses in several significant areas. He added that the contingency fund had not been drawn on. Figures for Statutory and Charter accounts are shown separately as far as is possible and the surplus of around £860,000 divides roughly equally between the two. No allowance is made for rental of the building one way or the other.

61. Drawing attention to the balance sheet [page 3 of Annex A], the Treasurer said that the column labelled ‘Group and College’ relate to the subsidiary company Circleglide and that figures in this column are for comparison purposes only. Circleglide has now been wound up and will not appear on the balance sheet next year.

62. The reserve level is now £11m and is shown divided five ways: main accumulated reserve fund; statutory; Charter; DC; contingency fund. He added that the DC reserve was not drawn on in 2012 but it is important to have such a reserve, particularly with the new DC arrangements coming in to force when there may be less control by Council over DC expenditure.

63. Responding to concern about the figure for income and expenditure on the Register of Veterinary Practice Premises [RVPP], the Treasurer reminded Council that the £89,000 expenditure does not include building and other overheads, etc. He added that the Veterinary Medicines Directorate [VMD] expects that all overheads will be

of 20 charged. He confirmed that the RVPP fee will now be reduced to £34 and this fee will remain fixed for four years.

64. The annual audit of the accounts is currently taking place. After the audit a meeting will be held with the auditors and members of the Audit and Risk Committee (ARC).

65. Subject to any material amendments, Council approved the accounts and the recommendation that the Treasurer and President be authorised to sign the audited accounts on behalf of Council after the ARC and auditors meeting, and also that summary accounts are presented in the Annual Report.

Report of the visitation to University of Sydney

66. Council received the executive summary of the joint international visitation in June 2012 and noted that the full report had been considered by Primary Qualifications Sub-Committee and EPSC. Council was invited to address any questions to Mrs Lynne Hill and Professor Stuart Reid, who had represented RCVS on the team. There were none. Council agreed to continue recognition of the Sydney BVSc veterinary degree.

Reports of Committees

Advisory Committee

67. On the invitation of the President, Mrs Tapsfield-Wright, Chairman of the Advisory Committee, introduced the Advisory Committee report and drew Council’s attention to number of items discussed at the 29 January 2013 Advisory Committee meeting.

68. She confirmed that representatives of the Kennel Club (KC) had attended the meeting to report on the situation one year on from the amendment to KC rules making it a condition of registration that owners consent to the reporting to the KC of any caesarean section performed on K C registered bitches. She said that there had been discussion about the amount of direct reporting by veterinary surgeons and it was agreed that the RCVS would publicise more to the profession to raise awareness of the scheme.

69. Mrs Tapsfield-Wright also said that the OFT had agreed to remove the obligation on practices to display their Top Ten most commonly prescribed medicines for a trial period of 6 months. The quid pro quo was that notices in practices telling customers that they have a right to obtain a prescription elsewhere should be even more prominently displayed. She said that during the trial period there would be monitoring for negative feedback.

of 20 70. Mrs Tapsfield-Wright highlighted the expanded guidance to the performance protocol in the form of FAQs prepared by the Performance Working party so as to provide practical guidance about the operation of the protocol .

71. Mrs Tapsfield-Wright also highlighted that the Committee had agreed to the setting up of a Working party (in conjunction with representatives of the UK veterinary schools ) to produce a student charter based on broad fitness to practice principles which would be common to all veterinary schools .

72. Mrs Tapsfield- Wright said that she had not dismissed out of hand the suggestion of Advisory reconsidering the issue of homeopathy, a topic raised earlier in the meeting She commented however that there should be logical use of Advisory’s time and that it would not be appropriate to revisit the same topic year on year.

73. It was pointed out that the ref in paragraph 6 to the ‘Advisory Council’ means the ‘Advisory Council on the Welfare Issues of Dog Breeding’

74. An observation was made that the section on client confidentiality had become overcomplicated. While agreeing that it was complex and somewhat unwieldy Mrs Tapsfield -Wright highlighted the lengthy discussion that had gone into its preparation. It was agreed that the guidance would be returned to Advisory with a view to the production of a flow chart to provide additional clarity.

75. On the subject of implementation of legislation re compulsory micro chipping it was suggested that although this would not come into effect for some time it would be helpful for the RCVS to work with officials at an early stage. The CVO confirmed that early discussion would be welcomed.

76. On the motion of the Chairman, the Advisory Committee report was received and adopted by Council.

Veterinary Nurses Council

77. The Chairman of Veterinary Nurses Council, Mrs Kissick, highlighted three points from the February meeting of the Veterinary Nurses Council:

I. It had been agreed that annual registration cards would no longer be issued to VNs and RVNs as these are seldom requested by employers. The online register, which is constantly updated, is a much more reliable means of checking the current status of a VN or RVN. There had also been concern that any nurse removed for disciplinary reasons would still

of 20 be in possession of a card for the year in which they were removed.

II. VN Council had accepted proposals for the recruitment of its new lay members.

III. Further proposals for legislation in relation to statutory regulation had been provided to the Council and it was hoped that by the next meeting of VNC there would be confirmation as to whether there might be ministerial support.

78. One member asked why concerns had been expressed by VN Council in relation to the details which would be required in the declaration of criminal convictions. Mrs Kissick clarified that veterinary nurses have been signing a declaration regarding criminal convictions since 2007 and that it had been felt that the additional details were not necessary. Mrs Hill, as Chairman of the VN PIC, reassured Council that VNs do already notify the RCVS of any convictions and have been proactive in this respect. VNs may use the same system as veterinary surgeons in the future.

79. One member commented that it seems that an increasing number of veterinary practices are employing veterinary graduates as veterinary nurses. The Registrar pointed out that veterinary surgeons could carry out nursing duties but should not represent themselves as veterinary nurses, unless appropriately qualified.

80. The Chief Veterinary Officer said that he looked forward to receiving further information on the proposal for legislation in relation to statutory regulation and how this can be supported.

Education, Policy and Specialisation Committee

81. The report of the meeting held on 6 February 2013 was presented by the Vice Chairman, Professor Jo Price. Council had already agreed to continue recognition of Sydney’s BVSc veterinary degree and was now invited to approve three further recommendations from EPSC.

82. Council approved the decision to award the RCVS Share Jones Lectureship to Professor Dr. Christoph Mülling, Professor of Veterinary Anatomy at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Leipzig, and Director of the Institute of Veterinary Anatomy, Leipzig, Germany, and noted that since Professor Mülling is an expert in bovine lameness, the British Cattle Veterinary Association would be invited to host the Lecture at their annual Congress.

of 20 83. Council also approved the lists of names for inclusion in the RCVS List of Recognised Specialists.

84. Professor Price reported that EPSC had agreed to give the Fellowship Working Party flexibility to extend their work beyond their original remit. EPSC looked forward to the working party’s report with interest.

85. A workshop had been held at the RVC on 13 February to discuss student fitness to practise procedures. Professor Price reported that Heads of Veterinary Schools were keen to see a standard definition of the term and common approaches adopted across all the veterinary schools. Equity across schools was needed as it had a direct bearing on ability to register. Students needed to be clear as to what it means and be assured that attention to their welfare was not compromised.

86. Finally, Council approved the decision to award the Diploma of Fellowship to Professor Iain Martin Sheldon BVSc, DCHP, DBR, PhD, DipECAR, FHEA MRCVS for his meritorious contributions to learning in the subject: ‘Infection and immunity in the female genital tract of cattle’.

87. On the motion of the Vice Chairman the report of the Education Policy and Specialisation Committee was received and adopted.

Planning & Resources Committee 88. The report of the meeting held on 7 February 2013 was presented by the Chairman, Dr B P Viner. He drew attention to a couple of items that had not already been discussed earlier in the meeting, the hire of data and loss of earnings for Disciplinary Committee [DC LoE].

89. He reported that hire of data is quite a complex issue and there are three distinct sets of data: compulsory data for publication in the Register which includes a postal address [currently, only a short print-run of the hard copy Register is produced]; data published online which, in line with other regulators, comprises full name, category [e.g. UK practising]; geographical area [typically county], first registration date and Register number; practice data included in the FindaVet [FaV] feature on the website, which data are supplied by practices. Discussion had been about the different types of data, how they should be held and what should be hired out. He explained that, ideally, there would be a quick link between the sets but unfortunately in the current iMIS system, providing such a link is not easy.

90. PRC had agreed to the proposal that the College looks at amending the Registration Regulations so that the compulsory information for the published Register is the same as that included in the online Register, i.e. full name, category, geographical area, first registration date and Register number. The FaV feature could be en-

of 20 hanced and kept as up to date as possible, given that data for it are supplied by practices, and be linked more closely to the Register information. He added that no decisions are required by Council at this meeting but that a proposal will come to a future meeting of Council with proposed amendments to the Registration Regula- tions.

91. He invited comment and questions.

92. Concern was expressed that it would be difficult for members to find contact details for other members if the Regulations were to be amended so that a postal address was not required for publication in the Register. Some regretted the move towards the reduction in information published in the Register.

93. The President invited comments on the proposed amendments to the Regulations, data included in the published Register and on the hire of data generally.

94. Referring to the DC LoE, the Treasurer explained that PRC had first considered whether in fact it was appropriate for it to be looking at the issue in the first instance, given that a DC Liaison Committee will be set up as an interface between DC and Council under the new arrangements. PRC had agreed that it was preferable for a decision to be made as the recruitment process is underway for new appointments to DC and it would provide clarity for current and potential new members of that committee.

95. He reported that PRC had agreed to the proposals as set out in paragraph 36 of the report from PRC for hearings of five days or less, with a sliding scale depending on how far in advance of the scheduled dates a hearing in cancelled or postponed. For hearings of more than five days, LoE will only be claimable in exceptional cases of extreme hardship, to be decided by the Treasurer, Chairman of DC and the Regis- trar.

96. The Chairman of DC pointed out, in response to a comment from the Treasurer, that DC members were grateful for the opportunity to comment on the proposals set out in the paper prepared for PRC by the Registrar and they had done so. He reminded Council that a distinction needs to be made between hearings that are cancelled or postponed, and hearings that start but finish early.

97. Responding to a question, the Registrar confirmed that there was a discrepancy between claims for hearings of 5 days or less that were postponed or cancelled and those which commenced but finished within a couple of days. He added that this would be resolved by the discretion available in authorising LoE claims.

98. Various concerns were expressed: if the proposals were to be approved by Council at this time, the DC Liaison Committee might want to review LoE payments; if for-

of 20 mulae were to be agreed and set out, then any discretion as to what may be claimed would be lost; the proposed changes are major and Council should have a fuller discussion on the matter; there is no provision in the budget for the likely extra cost, c.£38,000, of claims made under the proposed scale of payments.

99. The Chairman of DC said he considered it was timely to make a decision now because second interviews for the new appointments to DC will take place shortly and interviewees are likely to ask about LoE, and because currently there is no formula at all in place. He added that for all hearings between May and November 2012, all claims for LoE had had to be referred for some form of adjudication.

100. It was queried whether ‘loss of earnings’ was the correct terminology to use in that some appointees may be using the appointment as a job per se, rather than losing potential earnings from another role.

101. Disappointment was expressed at the minute at paragraph 32 which states that many regretted the change in ethos of serving on DC that they thought likely to oc- cur with the new arrangements and appointments.

102. It was proposed that a separate paper on the subject of DC LoE is presented to Council and that the relevant paragraphs from the PRC were not accepted, i.e. paragraphs 26-36. The proposal was approved by a majority vote. [DC members abstained from voting]. It was also agreed that the budgetary implications should be made clearer and consideration be given to whether ‘loss of earnings’ is the most appropriate terminology to use for the payments.

103. It was pointed out that the minute at paragraph 5 was not accurate. The minute states that the paper on the proposed governance structure had been considered by all the other committees; it was not in fact considered by PIC and thus should indic- ate that the paper had been considered by the non-statutory committees.

104. Concern was expressed by the minute at paragraph 18 – ‘the subject [hire of data] ‘had been discussed at length by the Communications and Public Affairs Board [CPAB]’. The concern was that the report from CPAB is not seen by Council and if the subject, or any other, had generated lengthy debate, then perhaps it was appropriate for CPAB’s reports to be seen by Council.

105. On the motion of the Chairman, the Planning and Resources Committee Report was received and adopted with the exception of paragraphs 26-36 which relate to DC LoE.

of 20 Audit & Risk Committee

106. The Chair of the Audit & Risk Committee, Ms Liz Butler, gave an informal report of the committee’s work and raised questions for Council to give consideration to.

107. She began by explaining that while Crowe Clark Whitehill are undertaking the audit of the RCVS this year , the role would go out to tender in the summer of 2013. Ms Butler asked Council if they thought Crowe Clark Whitehill should be included in open competition and Council indicated that they should be.

108. With regard to risk, Ms Butler explained that the committee had been critical of the way that risk had been approached within the RCVS at its November 2012 meeting and had set challenges for looking at how risk is assessed, recorded and managed. At their March meeting, the committee were amazed at the quality and quantity of work that had been undertaken on risk, including taking a risk register that was not fit for purpose and producing a new substantial risk register. She emphasised that the risk register needed to be a living document and recommended that Council should monitor and feed into it. Ms Butler said that the committee were delighted with progress made to date.

109. Ms Butler asked that the committee be given sight of all Council papers and of the accounts before the final audit clearance meeting.

110. Ms Butler said that the issue of control within the College looked fairly good. However, she noted that it would be useful to have a formal set of financial standing orders approved by Council.

111. Ms Butler concluded by saying that the committee had met on their own without observers, but that they would welcome observers in meetings going forward. She reported that the early stage of committee development had been positive and that the members were working well together. She expressed thanks to Mrs Hill and Mr Davis for providing detailed insight to the workings of the College.

RCVS Charitable Trust

112. Mrs Nute, Chair of the Trust Board, expressed the Board’s delight with the appointment of Nick Royle as the new Executive Director of the Trust. The Trustees had confirmed their intention to work with Mr Royle to make the Trust a leading advocate of Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine.

of 20 Reports of Statutory Committees

113. The President reminded Council that the reports of the Preliminary Investigation Committee and Disciplinary Committee reports had already been circulated and were for note not discussion. She invited any points of clarification.

114. One Member asked hoW VN DC hearings would be reported and the President confirmed that they would be reported through VNC.

115. The Chair of the Disciplinary Committee welcomed the new clerk to the committee, Lauren Charnley and confirmed that DC had heard three cases in the period.

Notices of Motion

116. No motions were received

Questions

117. No questions were received

Any Other College Business

There was no other College Business

Recommendations for the Appointment of Officers – President, Senior Vice President and Treasurer respectively, for confirmation at the AGM on 5 July 2013

118. The President asked Council for their agreement to the Officer recommendation as follows from the AGM in July 2013:

President: Colonel Neil Smith Vice President: Ms Jacqui Molyneux Treasurer (for one additional year): Dr Bradley Viner

119. Council accepted the recommendations.

of 20 Election of the Vice President (Junior) - recommendation for the AGM on 5 July 2013

120. In accordance with the rules, the President advised Council that there would be no opportunity for the candidate or their supporters to address Council. Council was offered the opportunity to have a confidential discussion about the candidate but there was no dissent to Professor Reid’s candidacy and this was declined.

121. Professor Reid was duly elected as the next Vice President of the RCVS.

Date of next meeting

122. The President confirmed that the next Council Meeting would be held on Thursday 6th June 2013 at 10:00 am