MPs call for independent regulator for vet sector
The committee said it was 'increasingly difficult to justify' RCVS' regulations.
MPs taking part in the EFRA committee have called on the government to establish an independent regulator for the veterinary sector.
The committee suggests that the sector’s current system of 'self-regulation', undertaken by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), should be ended.
MPs have concluded that a new body should be set up to carry out inspections of veterinary practices. They say this would bring the sector in line with sectors like medicine and law, as well as improving consumer confidence.
In its report, the committee says self-regulation is ‘increasingly difficult to justify’ for the future of the current veterinary sector. MPs say the RCVS’ regulatory role does not reflect the modern sector, with differing ownership structures and non-vets involved with delivering services.
Alistair Carmichael MP, who chaired the EFRA committee, said: “Self-regulation makes the veterinary sector an outlier and lacks supporters among the workforce itself. To improve consumer confidence, the Government should establish a new independent regulator charged with inspecting practices, and let the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons specialise in continuing to represent the profession’s interests.”
The RCVS, however, has accused the committee of having a ‘fundamental misunderstanding’ of the current role and functions of the College.
In a statement, the RCVS said: “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 RCVS has also challenged claims a new regulator would allow the RCVS to ‘specialise in continuing to represent the profession’s interests’. It states that it does not represent the interests of the veterinary profession or individuals in the profession.
The College said: “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.”
Image © KOTOIMAGES/Shutterstock.com
Companies marketing medicines for small pets exempt from authorisation must submit their annual return to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) by 30 November 2026.
