RCVS governance compared to other regulators

9. The current composition of RCVS Council is markedly different from that of other regulators of professions, including those in the healthcare sector. In examining the regulatory norm, RCVS Council considered the 2014 Law Commission report ‘Regulation of Health and Social Care Professionals’[1], the recommendations of which were subsequently adopted by the UK Government. It is those recommendations that government will likely look to when considering what RCVS governance should look like in any future legislation, and RCVS Council has reflected this when making its own recommendations for reform. Any divergence from the regulatory norm would need to be justified.
10. The core purpose of a regulator is to carry out its regulatory functions in the public interest. The public need to be assured that a regulator is acting in the interests of the public and not the profession, where those interests may differ. One way in which such assurance can be provided is through the composition of a regulator’s governing body.

Fully appointed governing bodies

11. It is the norm for all members of a healthcare regulator’s governing body to be appointed. Appointments are not made by the regulator, but by an independent process.  For instance, in the human healthcare professions their processes are in line with Professional Standards Authority (PSA) guidance[2], via a process overseen by the PSA. These appointments may seek to achieve coverage from all four nations of the UK, along with appropriate expertise and sectoral experience (for instance, general practice, public health, new graduates, etc.) – criteria that are not guaranteed to be met by an electoral process. The PSA’s key principles for independent appointment are merit, fairness, transparency and openness, and inspiring confidence. While the regulator sets the criteria for appointment, the selection is made by an independent panel, and approved by the Privy Council.
12. Selection via elections risks giving the impression – to both the professions and the public – that the RCVS is a representative body working in the interests of the profession (like the British Veterinary Association), rather than a regulatory body working in the interests of the public. Council members are currently elected to bring their expertise to decisions made in the interests of the health and welfare of animals and in the wider public interest, not to represent a constituency, but there is evidence that there is widespread misunderstanding about this at present. It is also evident that historically only a small percentage of the veterinary professions participate in elections, despite extensive communications campaigns that have sought to remedy this.[3] It is also notable that the RCVS often receives more applications to its independent appointment processes, such as for the Disciplinary Committee, than it does candidates for elections. Self-nomination for elections may also reduce the pool of applicants compared to an independent appointment process.

Lay parity

13. While other regulators retain ‘self-regulation’ in the sense of having an autonomous authority that makes regulations without government intervention, it is now the norm for these regulators to have parity of lay people and registrants on their governing bodies, in order to give the public assurance that the regulator acts in their interests rather than ‘setting and marking its own homework’.
14. A reduction in the number of professionals on Council and a rebalancing of its membership to include a greater proportion of lay members would bring Council into line with the governing bodies of other regulators, which are designed to focus on questions of strategy and governance, rather than operational matters. This would be balanced by ensuring that, where needed, additional professionals were selected to populate the College’s committees - where policy is developed - whether by co-option or appointment.

A Royal College that regulates the vet-led team

15. During its discussions, Council noted the existing recommendation to retain a Royal College that regulates, and highlighted that there is rarely a clear dividing line between regulatory and Royal College functions. For example, the holistic approach available to the RCVS has allowed it to develop projects that can have a positive impact on individuals’ ability to practise safely, and thus contribute to an ‘upstream’ model that aims to prevent issues occurring rather than merely setting standards and allowing people to fail. One example of this is the Mind Matters Initiative, which has a focus on mental health and wellbeing that has been  adopted by other regulators at home and abroad, expanding the scope of what a compassionate regulator can do.
16. There is also a regulatory dimension to other areas that are often the purview of Royal Colleges in human healthcare, such as postgraduate education. It was therefore suggested that trying to separate the Royal College and regulatory functions of the RCVS in governance arrangements – for instance by having a separate board and council – would be impractical, prohibitively expensive, and counterproductive, as well as risking conflict between the two bodies, which might precipitate a future separation into two different bodies. Given the relatively small size of the veterinary professions, a separate Royal College on the model of the Royal College of Surgeons would likely have few functions and fewer resources.
17. It should be noted that RCVS Council continues to recommend an arrangement that is unique among regulators, and one that seeks to build on the best aspects of the current arrangements, such as a larger Council with broad range of professional and allied professional expertise, recognising the particular contours of the veterinary sector and its professions, while reflecting the regulatory norm.

Governing body size

18. The governing bodies of regulators usually consist of 10-12 members, with the most recent model (for social workers) having only six (with no professional registrant members). RCVS Council currently consists of 24 members (reduced from 48 following a decision made in 2016). RCVS Council is not proposing to recommend further reducing the overall size of Council at this time, in recognition of the complex nature of the profession, and thus the importance of retaining a broad spectrum of veterinary expertise while increasing the number of allied professional and lay members. Along with the ‘Royal College that regulates’ model, this is another way in which the College’s reform recommendations differ from standard practice.

Flexibility

19. RCVS Council proposes that the details of future RCVS governance arrangements should be enshrined in secondary legislation, rather than set out in the Act itself. This is the norm for other regulators, as it allows for greater flexibility and future-proofing by allowing changes to be made through a less onerous legislative process than amending an Act of Parliament. However, future changes would still be safeguarded by the requirement for consultation and approval by the Secretary of State and/or Parliament.

Veterinary Nurses Council

20. The RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council (VNC) also considered its own composition in light of the regulatory norm, and has made its own recommendations for the reform of VNC. VNC governance composition is ultimately a matter for RCVS Council, not legislation, and therefore any final recommendations could be implemented without the need for a new Act.

References:

[1] Law Commission, ‘Regulation of Health and Social Care Professionals’, 2014

[2] Professional Standards Authority, ‘Good practice in making council appointments’, 2022

[3] In total, 7,383 veterinary surgeons (representing 19.7% of those eligible to vote) cast their votes in the 2024 Council elections. This compares to turnouts of 16.7% in 2023, 18.6% in 2022, 24.5% in 2021, and 26.2% in 2020.