Section 1: Recommendations for RCVS Council reform

Further to the background and rationale set out in the introduction, details of each recommendation can be found below, along with the opportunity to submit any comments you may have on each recommendation.

Recommendation 1.1: A fully appointed Council

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, and overseen by the PSA. This model assures the public that a regulator is constituted to act in the public interest, rather than in the interest if the profession, where those interests differ.
Appointment systems may seek to achieve coverage from all four nations of the UK, along with ensuring that members bring expertise from across the relevant sector (for instance general practice, public health, new graduates, etc.) – criteria that are not guaranteed to be met by an electoral process. These criteria are set by the regulator, but the choice of appointees would be made by an independent panel. 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. Appointments would be made for a fixed term, with term limits.

It is the duty of a regulator to act in the public interest, rather than in the interests of the regulated professions, where those interests differ. It is the norm for regulators to have the same number, or parity, of lay and professional members on their governing bodies, rather than a professional majority, in order to give the public assurance that the regulator acts in their interests rather than ‘setting and marking its own homework’.
RCVS Council proposes that its composition be reformed to introduce either parity of the numbers of professional and lay members of Council, or to maintain only a small majority of veterinary professionals.

The Veterinary Schools Council is the representative body for veterinary schools in the UK. RCVS Council currently includes three members directly appointed by VSC. This is contrary to the usual regulatory model of appointment by an independent process to give public assurance. Council proposes that these direct appointees are removed, and that instead measures are maintained that ensure appropriate educationalist expertise on the RCVS Education Committee, as well as on RCVS Council, via the proposed independent appointment process.

While not yet widespread, it is also increasingly common for governing bodies to include members drawn from paraprofessions that form part of the regulated ‘team’. For instance, the General Dental Council’s model, which influenced the Legislation Working Party’s recommendations, includes dental nurses and dental technicians on its board.
At present there are two veterinary nurses on RCVS Council, appointed by the VN Council. As and when new allied professionals are added to the College’s remit, in line with the LWP recommendations, the question will arise as to whether and how their knowledge and expertise should be included on RCVS Council. Three allied professions (musculoskeletal therapists, equine dental technicians, and cattle foot trimmers) were listed in the LWP report as requiring regulation by the RCVS, and other potential candidates, such as veterinary technicians and clinical animal behaviourists, have subsequently been identified.
RCVS Council proposes that flexibility be built into future governance composition so that the proportion of allied professional members can be increased over time. The recommendation is for the number of veterinary surgeons to decrease over time, while ensuring that they – as the lead profession – will always retain a majority amongst the professionals on Council.

RCVS Council is also considering separating the role of RCVS President from that of Chair of RCVS Council. The RCVS President would retain their ceremonial functions, such as presiding at graduations, attending functions, and being the ‘face’ of the College, while a separate Chair – who could be a registrant or lay member – could be appointed for a longer period and would be responsible for chairing sessions of Council and overseeing governance. This would potentially widen the pool of likely candidates for both roles; some members of Council may have strong chairing skills and experience but no desire to be ‘the public face’, and vice versa. Appointing chairs for longer periods would also offer some continuity in terms of governance over a longer period of time.