The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of the House of Commons has called for an end to veterinary self-regulation and, as part of reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, for a new independent regulator to be created.

If adopted, the move would end the RCVS's 182-year role as regulator of the veterinary profession.

In its report, "A sustainable veterinary workforce", the committee said the Government should separate the RCVS's professional leadership role from any regulatory functions within the veterinary profession, creating a new independent body that can oversee the expanded role of a reformed Act. 

The report argued that the current system of self-regulation makes the veterinary sector an outlier, pointing towards professions such as medicine and law where regulatory functions have been separated from professional bodies.

It added that self-regulation is increasingly unsuitable for a profession where vet practices and services are coming under the ownership of corporate entities and the management of non-vets.

The recommendation sits within a wider package on veterinary workforce pressures, veterinary education, Competition and Markets Authority remedies and reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act.

On workforce, the report said pressures in the profession are no longer driven primarily by an overall shortage of qualified individuals, but by challenges in retention, distribution and alignment with specific roles.

It recommended that Defra should, within six months, commission a sector-wide review of retention challenges across the profession.

The report also said the Home Office, in collaboration with Defra, should review the Skilled Worker Visa salary thresholds for veterinary roles by early 2027.

On veterinary education, the committee said the current funding model is not sustainable and recommended a full review of funding within the next Spending Review.

It also said the Government should ensure the CMA's remedies are fully rural proofed, and that the CMA, in partnership with the RCVS, should establish a monitoring framework by September 2027.

The RCVS welcomed the majority of the recommendations but said the idea of establishing a new veterinary regulator "seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the current role and functions of the College."

In a statement, the College added: “The report appears to assert that this reform is necessary because the functions of the RCVS are in conflict with one another, or that it is otherwise undesirable for these functions to be carried out by one organisation.

"Comparison with the legal sector – in which the regulatory and representative functions of professional bodies were separated by statute in 2007 – strongly implies that the committee considers the same reform necessary in the veterinary sector because the RCVS has similarly conflicting functions, which it does not, and suggests a conflation between professional leadership and representation.

“Furthermore, the report fundamentally misunderstands the concepts of self-regulation and regulatory independence.

"In the context of modern regulatory regimes, 'self-regulation' refers to the independence of a regulator from government, not whether a profession makes rules for itself. In this sense most professional regulators, including the General Medical Council, are both self-regulating and independent.

“The press release accompanying the report is more explicit on these points, arguing that the establishment of a new regulator would allow the RCVS to “specialise in continuing to represent the profession’s interests.”

"To be clear, the RCVS does not represent the interests of the veterinary profession as a whole, nor those of the individual veterinary professionals we regulate.

“While it is true that the RCVS is currently both a statutory regulator and a professional leadership body, we carry out our statutory regulatory function in the public interest under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, and we carry out our professional leadership function in the public interest in line with the objectives in our Royal Charter.

"There is therefore no conflict between the two functions; indeed, they are complementary, allowing us to take a holistic approach to setting, maintaining and advancing veterinary standards.

“Furthermore, our Royal Charter has enabled us to innovate and plug gaps in our aging legislative framework, for example through regulating veterinary nurses and providing quality assurance of veterinary care through our Practice Standards Scheme.

"Far from detracting from or conflicting with our regulatory function, our professional leadership function, underpinned by the Charter, has reinforced our ability to take action in the public interest where we may not have statutory powers to do so.

“In relation to any suggestion that the RCVS should no longer be the veterinary regulator because it is unduly influenced by the profession through its governance arrangements, we would emphasise that the College has for some time been advocating for legislative reform that would replace its governing Council with a fully appointed board with lay parity, which would remove any risk, real or perceived, of the profession setting and marking its own homework.

"We are pleased that Defra has adopted this recommendation in full as part of its proposed reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.”

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5902/cmselect/cmenvfru/270/report.html

Analysis

The recommendation to create a new veterinary regulator is arguably the most significant proposal in the report, yet the committee’s case for such a fundamental change appears relatively thin.

The report argues that regulation should be separated from professional leadership, bringing the veterinary profession into line with sectors such as medicine and law. It also points to increasing corporate ownership of veterinary practices and the need to maintain public confidence.

However, the report does not provide evidence that the current regulatory model is failing, nor does it explain why reform of the RCVS itself would not achieve the same objective.

The result is that the recommendation appears to rest more on an ideological preference for separating professional leadership from regulation than on evidence that the existing model is producing poor outcomes.

Photo: EFRA committee chair Alistair Carmichael, whose committee has called for an end to veterinary self-regulation.