14 Feb 2025
Current mechanisms inadequate on compliance and allowing client redress, body says.
Allister Webb
Job Title
Image: koumaru / Adobe Stock
Veterinary sector regulation is “too narrow”, with inadequate mechanisms for ensuring professional compliance and enabling client redress, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has warned.
The intervention came in one of five new working papers published on 6 February in the latest phase of its investigation into companion animal services.
The message was broadly welcomed by the RCVS, after its president called for greater professional input into the sector’s regulation during a congress presentation.
Although the CMA’s concerns about regulation have been known ever since the investigation plan was first announced last March, its latest comments go much further amid the evidence gathered so far.
In the regulatory document, the CMA inquiry group said it was concerned the current framework “may not contain the appropriate balance of requirements and restrictions because its focus on consumers and competition may be too limited”.
It continued: “Its scope is too narrow. It applies to individual vets, but not to vet businesses and non-vets who own and work in them (to whom only the RCVS’s voluntary PSS [Practice Standards Scheme] applies).”
The paper warned the system did not have “sufficient and appropriate mechanisms for the monitoring and enforcement” of compliance with the RCVS Code of Conduct.
Provisions for client redress were also said to be “limited”, while the current rules “do not appear to result in consumers having good, relevant and timely information on price, quality and treatment options”.
But a separate survey of pet owners found just 8% of its 2,376 respondents had considered making a complaint about their practice in the preceding two years, though half of those who had complained identified pricing as their main issue.
An initial RCVS statement supported the CMA’s criticism of the current regulatory framework, which it said was “no longer fit for purpose” because of the lack of modern legislation.
The present system’s weaknesses had previously been highlighted in a discussion led by the college’s president, Linda Belton, at the SPVS Congress in Birmingham, where she urged delegates to “engage” with its work.
While she estimated around 70% of practices are now signed up to the PSS, Dr Belton admitted public expectations of compliance would likely be higher and stressed limits to business regulation were a key part of the college’s legislative reform approach.
She also urged clinicians to “be part” of the college’s work in enforcing regulatory compliance after being asked how the sector could avoid the establishment of its own organisation similar to the Care Quality Commission.
But Dr Belton conceded a need for greater clarity in some respects, telling delegates: “I often hear, ‘I told the college, you didn’t do anything’. There is a difference between getting advice and reporting a concern.”
She added that, while confidential reports can be made, such submissions limited the college’s options for action, emphasising: “We don’t have a veterinary police force.”
However, while he acknowledged the fears of many younger clinicians about the disciplinary system, XL Vets chief executive Andrew Curwen questioned whether the college should consider establishing its own investigative capacity.
He indicated he would be personally willing to contribute more to the college for such a function if asked, adding: “I think we may be surprised by the number of people who might be prepared to pay.”
The college allocated a £50,000 budget when it established a mechanism to bring its own private prosecutions two years ago.
However, investigation of more serious offences was envisaged as remaining the responsibility of either the VMD or the police and officials have indicated they don’t believe the system would give a precedent to set up a new unit.
