Skip to content
search
cancel

RCVS Council approves proposals for future College governance reform

18 January 2024

At its January 2024 meeting, members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) Council agreed to consult on recommendations for the future reform of the College’s governance structure, as part of its overall legislative reform process.  

At the meeting, which took place on Thursday 18 January 2024, members of RCVS Council were asked to discuss and then vote on key principles and potential models for the future of RCVS governance composition, which would then go to consultation with the public and professions. These changes would be integrated into the overall recommendations for legislative reform, through which the College is seeking new, modern legislation to underpin its regulatory functions and replace the outdated Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.

"These recommendations would see us retain self-regulation in the sense of independence from government, and maintain registrants within our governance framework, while better assuring the public that we are acting on their behalf."

The discussion at Council started with a written representation on the governance reform proposals from Professor Stuart Reid on behalf of Veterinary Schools Council, and a presentation from Malcolm Morley, Senior Vice-President of the British Veterinary Association (BVA), that set out the organisation’s preliminary views on the proposals. Both organisations were broadly supportive of the proposals before Council, including moving towards an appointed governance model and parity between veterinary professional and lay members.  

  • RCVS Council members then proceeded to discuss the proposals and voted as follows:  
    Council members voted by majority for the composition of Council to be a matter for more flexible secondary legislation rather than it being fixed via primary legislation;
  • Council voted by majority to move towards an independent appointment system for Council membership to replace the current election system; 
  • Council agreed to an increase in the proportion of lay members, but a decision on whether Council should adopt exact parity of veterinary professionals and lay members would be informed through consultation; 
  • Council voted by majority to reform its composition to remove the Veterinary Schools Council (VSC) appointees. Currently the VSC has three appointed Council members;
  • Council agreed to consult with the profession and public on two options for the future composition of a 24-person RCVS Council, which would ensure this was as balanced as possible. The first option is a Council that has a slim majority of members drawn from the veterinary professions (of whom a majority would be veterinary surgeons) compared to lay members. The second option is a Council with exact parity between veterinary professionals (of whom a majority would be veterinary surgeons) and lay members; and,  
  • Council was tied on whether to separate the position of RCVS President and the Chair of RCVS Council, meaning that this will come back for decision at a later date following the consultation. 

"Veterinary expertise, knowledge and experience will also remain a vital part of any future arrangements throughout our committee structure, so the veterinary voice will be as important as ever in our policy and decision-making processes."

All the recommendations agreed by Council will now be subject to consultation with the public and veterinary professions.

The proposals put forward for Council members to discuss and vote on were in line with recommendations on regulatory best practice identified in a 2014 Law Commission report (‘Regulation of Health and Social Care Professionals’), which were subsequently adopted by the UK Government.

Speaking on why these proposals for governance reform had been put forward to Council, RCVS President Sue Paterson, who chaired the Council meeting and introduced the paper, said: “The unique way that RCVS Council is currently constituted with annual elections to Council is an old model of self-regulation which is no longer found in other professions including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, solicitors and social workers, among others.

“As a responsible regulator we have a duty to operate in a way that recognises modern principles of regulation, and best meets our objectives to enhance society through improved animal health and welfare by setting, upholding and advancing the educational, ethical and clinical standards for the veterinary professions. The College’s recommendations would see us retain self-regulation in the sense of independence from government, and maintain registrants within our governance framework, while better assuring the public that we are acting on their behalf.

“It is our firm belief that, among other things, moving to an all-appointed Council member system, whereby those who serve on Council are selected via an independent process based on their knowledge and experience to ensure input from all parts of the veterinary sector, will better serve our aims, as will having a better balance of professional and lay members. Of course, veterinary expertise, knowledge and experience will also remain a vital part of any future arrangements throughout our committee structure, so the veterinary voice will be as important as ever in our policy and decision-making processes.

“I would like to thank Council members for having a courageous and forward-thinking discussion on what is not an easy topic. Recommendations will now go through a formal consultation process later this year to get feedback both from the professions and the public.”

The full details of the recommendations can be found in the RCVS Council papers for January 2024.

Further details about the consultation process will be published in due course.

Read our Frequently Asked Questions, below, for more information.

Read more news

print Print

Frequently Asked Questions

  • When will the RCVS elections be ending?

    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.

  • As a self-regulating profession shouldn’t we be able to elect our preferred representatives to Council?

    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.

  • Can I be confident in the independence of appointed members?

    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.

  • As a front-line, first-opinion vet – with no elections, how will I have my say without any representatives on Council?

    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.

  • If we reduce the number of vet professionals on Council, won’t we be losing out on vital veterinary expertise and perspectives?

    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.

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

    Currently a one-year President chairs Council and takes on a huge range of other tasks. It is pitched at one year as it would be hard for someone in practice to take more than a year out of their busy working lives and this ensures diversity.

    However, greater continuity would be very helpful for the governance role of Chair of Council, who works closely with the CEO and wider executive team.

    Separating the chair of Council from the Presidency would create the potential for longer terms for chairs. It may also increase the number of candidates for both positions – some candidates may not feel that they have the time or skillsets to be both the public face of an organisation and an effective chair.

  • As a Royal College that regulates the RCVS is a unique organisation – shouldn’t it also have a unique governance system?

    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.

  • Should the Royal College be separated from the veterinary regulator – perhaps in separate organisations?

    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..

You might also like