What’s the advantage of separating the role of RCVS President and Chair of Council?

RCVS Council’s recommendations, including those to replace elections with an independent appointment process, will be consulted on during 2024 before any final decision on what it might recommend to government.

Changing the composition of RCVS governance would require new legislation. We therefore do not anticipate any amendment to Council’s composition until a replacement to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 is introduced and ratified by Parliament. At present, there is no timetable for this.

The traditional model of self-regulation, involving professional majorities and elections to governing bodies, is no longer in-line with government principles on good regulatory governance.

However, one key aspect of self-governance is a statutory regulatory body responsible for regulation that is independent of government – this contrasts with models where regulation is carried out directly by government departments. There are no plans to change this aspect of self-regulation.

In any event, those members elected to Council are not there to represent the interests of the professionals who vote for them, but to ensure veterinary input into decisions that are in the public interest.

As it already does for its appointed lay Council members, and for members of PIC and DC Committees, an appointment mechanism would be independent in line with Professional Standards Authority guidance, as is the case with other health regulators.

While the RCVS is not a representative body, unlike the British Veterinary Association and its divisions, it is important the views of the profession are understood. The College does this through consultations, surveys, and via the input of the professional members of RCVS Council and its committees.

An appointment system will ensure that Council Members come from those with an appropriate range of knowledge and expertise, including, crucially, front-line first-opinion practitioners.

Some other regulators have recruitment criteria that ensure not only appropriate expertise and knowledge but also ensures that its board members are recruited from across the UK, something not guaranteed by the current RCVS governance model.

An appointment system may also appeal to a wider range of candidates, as some veterinary surgeons who are highly qualified to be excellent members of a governing body may not also have the skillset or desire to campaign to be elected in a modern media environment.

The detailed work of the College is already delegated to a series of committees and working groups. In some areas, they are empowered to make decisions themselves, in others to make recommendations to Council.

In addition to including Council members, committee and working party membership can already include those selected by co-option of people with the appropriate expertise.

This would continue under the new proposed model to ensure high levels of veterinary input at the appropriate stages.

The College’s principal purpose is to protect animal health and welfare, and to maintain public confidence in the veterinary professions. It does this by setting standards of professional conduct and veterinary care, by setting educational standards, by providing guidance on what is expected of veterinary professionals, and taking action where necessary where there are concerns about fitness to practise.

It must do so in a way that gives assurance to the public and government that it is acting in the interest of the public rather than the professions, where those interests may differ.

It is therefore appropriate that the College considers governance reform in line with the principles established for other regulators, both in the human health sector and elsewhere.

The RCVS is indeed unique as ‘a Royal College that regulates’, and this may be a justification for some variance from the usual principles of regulatory governance.

RCVS Council has already agreed that it should recommend the retention of a membership of 24 people, which is considerably above the norm, and is also considering whether to maintain a majority of registrant members.

However, the medical Royal Colleges are not regulators and therefore their governance arrangements may not need to reflect the aforementioned principles; they are therefore not useful comparators when considering RCVS governance reform.

With a few exceptions, such as the College’s award-granting powers, there are few areas of RCVS activity that can be clearly divided into ‘Royal College’ or ‘regulatory’ categories.

For example, the College’s Mind Matters Initiative may once have been considered a Royal College activity, but it can be considered an ‘upstream’ regulatory activity as it works to ensure the profession is fit for purpose and sustainable, and able to meet the standards expected by the public.

It is notable that similar initiatives have subsequently been adopted by other regulators (which are not Royal Colleges) at home and abroad.

Being a ‘Royal College that regulates’ therefore allows the College to take a holistic and progressive approach, and this should be reflected in its structure.

As part of its recommendations for legislative reform, RCVS Council agreed that a holistic Royal College that regulates should be retained..