LONDON, February 4 /PRNewswire/ -- The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week ordered a month's suspension for a veterinary surgeon from Dolgellau for dishonest certification of bovine tuberculin testing in the Gwynedd area in early 2007.

At a hearing that concluded on Friday [30 January 2009], Iwan Parry, a partner of The Veterinary Surgery, Bala Road, Dolgellau, and an Official Veterinarian, was charged with serious professional misconduct for certifying on eight separate occasions that he had tested and inspected cattle for clinical signs of bovine tuberculosis (TB), when he had not done so. At the outset of the hearing, Mr Parry denied the charges.

The Committee heard that Animal Health (a DEFRA Executive Agency) had discovered irregularities in TB testing paperwork from Mr Parry's practice. These included two locum veterinary surgeons, who were not Local Veterinary Inspectors (LVIs), having carried out TB pre-movement testing, but the relevant paperwork being signed and certified by Mr Parry. It therefore suspended him from LVI duties and lodged a complaint with the RCVS.

The Committee heard that, at the time, Mr Parry's practice was in difficulty as all eight of his assistant veterinary surgeons had recently left and he was struggling to maintain services. It was also reported that the incidence of bovine TB in Mr Parry's area was very low.

Under questioning, Mr Parry admitted that he had not done the testing, but had allowed non-LVI veterinary surgeons to do so and then signed the certificates himself. Denying the charge of dishonesty, he maintained that he had thought his actions were legitimate, providing he questioned the veterinary surgeons afterwards and checked their results. However, he told the Committee he now deeply regretted this honest mistake, made at a time of great personal pressure, and that it would not be repeated.

The Committee also heard evidence from a number of character witnesses, including Mr Elfyn Llwyd MP, testifying to Mr Parry's good character, integrity and good standing in the local community and agricultural sector.

Nevertheless, in view of Mr Parry's long experience as an LVI, his understanding of the importance of routine herd testing and accurate veterinary certification and his reputation for keeping up to date with legislative and professional developments, the Committee decided that his actions were not just inappropriate, but were the result of conscious impropriety on his part. It found that he was not only guilty of dishonesty, but of allowing non-LVIs to perform TB testing, both of which amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In passing judgment, the Committee emphasised that the integrity of veterinary certification was of the utmost importance, especially when carried out on behalf of the Government, in order to safeguard animal health and facilitate international trade. It also felt that Mr Parry could not have failed to have been fully aware of what he was signing and that he should not have done so.

It was, however, prepared to take account of some exceptional mitigating factors in this case, including the low risk of TB spread following Mr Parry's actions; that no financial gain had been sought or received by him; his unblemished career and uprightness of conduct to date; the esteem in which he was held in the farming community and the potential (financial) impact on that community if he were to be removed from the Register (therefore unable to practise) for a significant period of time.

Nigel Swayne MRCVS, chairing the Disciplinary Committee, concluded: We are reminded that the primary purpose of any sanction is not punishment, but the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and to uphold professional standards of conduct.

Whilst only a reprimand is not an appropriate sanction where dishonesty and false certification have been found proved, and such findings would normally attract at least a long period of suspension, given the wholly exceptional circumstances of this case and the strength of the mitigating factors, we direct that Mr Parry should be suspended for one month.

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1.The RCVS is the regulatory body for veterinary surgeons in the UK and deals with issues of professional misconduct, maintaining the register of veterinary surgeons eligible to practise in the UK and assuring standards of veterinary education.

2.RCVS disciplinary powers are exercised through the Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees, established in accordance with Schedule 2 to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (the 1966 Act). The RCVS has authority to deal with three types of case:

a) Fraudulent registration b) Criminal convictions c) Allegations of disgraceful professional conduct

3.The Disciplinary Committee is a constituted judicial tribunal under the 1966 Act and follows rules of evidence similar to those used in a court of law.

4.The burden of proving an allegation falls upon the RCVS, and the RCVS must prove to the standard that the Committee is sure.

5.Animal Health is the Government's executive agency primarily responsible for ensuring that farmed animals in Great Britain are healthy, disease-free and well looked after (http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalhealth/).

6.Further information, including the charges against Mr Parry and the Committee's findings and judgment, can be found via http://www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.

Contact: Ian Holloway, Senior Communications Officer, Belgravia House, 62-64 Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2AF. Tel: +44(0)20-7202-0727, Fax: +44(0)20-7202-0740, i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk .