9 Mar 2026
College urges professionals to seek “the best of both worlds” by supporting its existing model as consultations on legislative reform continue.
Allister Webb
Job Title
Image: RCVS
But several prominent professional groups have so far declined to back that stance, despite encouraging their members to engage with the process.
With time running out before the 25 March consultation deadline, attention is now beginning to turn from the principle of legislative reform to the detail of the 115-page consultation document.
In relation to the college, it proposes either maintaining the existing structure or separating what have been described as its regulatory and professional leadership functions. But a newly published RCVS response to the proposals said: “Arguments for any form of division of the college’s functions do rely on questions of clarity and perception, not real conflict.”
The paper argued the presentation of its functions in the consultation was inaccurate and any reforms should preserve the claimed “benefits of a royal college that regulates”.
College leaders also cited programmes such as the Mind Matters Initiative and the RCVS Academy, as it urged members to support the option reflecting its existing structure in their own submissions.
President Tim Parkin said: “It is our strong belief that the ‘royal college that regulates’ model retains the best of both worlds, because it takes a proactive and holistic approach to regulation and fitness to practise.”
But the model has come under scrutiny, both within the sector and externally, in recent years amid concerns over whether it remains capable of maintaining both regulatory independence and public trust.
Many of the sector’s major representative groups have so far been reluctant to indicate whether they would encourage their own members to take a position in relation to the college’s plea.
The BVA said it was “still working through” its own response and next steps, while BEVA said it “wouldn’t be appropriate” to comment before its own internal processes were complete.
However, BSAVA president Julian Hoad said his group was working with others to “define what we will need from our future regulator, in order that there is a body that regulates fairly, consistently and compassionately, and maintains public trust in the veterinary profession”.
He added: “As such, we encourage all of our members to contribute to the public consultation via the various methods available.”
The latter point was echoed by Dr Hoad’s BCVA counterpart, David Black, as he revealed its officers were due to finalise their position at a meeting on 16 March.
He said the association considered legislative change “long overdue” and backed development of a “modern compassionate and effective regulatory framework that reflects current veterinary practice”.
Dr Black also stressed in principle support for practice regulation alongside that of individual clinicians, as well as “appropriate recognition” for paraprofessionals including veterinary technicians and foot trimmers.
But he added: “As yet it is unclear how the regulatory and professional leadership functions that are currently undertaken by the RCVS will be structured and how appropriate oversight will be achieved.”