HL Deb 30 July 2002 vol 638 cc175-6WA
Baroness Byford

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Whitty on 11 July (WA 105), why veterinary surgeons on both the supplementary and the temporary lists are subject to restrictions which result in their being unavailable to assist with the eradication of a foot and mouth outbreak; whether these restrictions would also bar them from participating in actions against other highly infectious diseases; and whether the restrictions should be amended. [HL5465]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)

The Veterinary Surgeons Act 1948 established the current requirements for practice in the UK, including the requirement for all veterinary surgeons to have attended a course of study at a recognised university as a requisite for admittance to the Register of Members. The Supplementary Veterinary Register (SVR) came into force under that Act and provided for individuals, who had not attended a course of study at a recognised university, to continue to practice in certain restricted categories of employment. Further restrictions were imposed on individuals who were registered under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, which replaced the 1948 Act. Those listed in the SVR are not members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (MRCVS) and the restrictions placed upon them preclude their being used as veterinary surgeons in FMD control and other notifiable disease control measures.

Section 7 of the 1966 Act permits a person holding a foreign veterinary qualification to practise temporarily or otherwise subject to restrictions directed by council.

It is granted in order that a person holding a foreign veterinary qualification may carry out acts of veterinary surgery in accordance with the duties of a specified position, in a specific location and who is responsible to a named MRCVS. It does not permit the temporary member to carry out any other veterinary procedure, except where that procedure would be permitted by a lay person. Such appointments are usually restricted to those in employed positions in veterinary schools and designated veterinary laboratories and research establishments or to those in full-time post-graduate education.

It does not permit the temporary member to use the letter MRCVS, nor to sign prescriptions or certification, which requires the signature of a MRCVS.

Those listed in the temporary register are not members of the RCVS and the restrictions placed upon them preclude their being eligible for employment as veterinary surgeons used in FMD control and other notifiable disease control measures.

We are in the preliminary stages of modernising the Veterinary Surgeons Act. A meeting with the RCVS has taken place. The issue of registration was a discussion point, alongside a number of other areas of the Act. We hope to consult on the proposals later this year.