16 Oct 2025
Progressive Veterinary Association director Iain McGill also described measures as an "establishment stitch-up".
Chris Simpson
Job Title
Progressive Veterinary Association (PVA) director Iain McGill has described CMA proposals as "weak".
A high-profile vet has slammed regulators’ remedies for the UK veterinary sector as “very, very weak”.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) yesterday released its provisional recommendations for the companion animal vet sector comprised of 21 separate proposals.
The CMA suggested its package of remedies would “amount to a fundamental reset of the relationship between veterinary businesses and pet owners” and said it is “concerned about the lack of effective separation” between the RCVS’ professional leadership responsibilities and its role as a regulator.
Progressive Veterinary Association (PVA) director Iain McGill hailed the latter as one “very positive” aspect of its report but otherwise felt the CMA did not go far enough.
He said: “It’s relying on such weak measures to make changes. They’re not tough, hard measures. They’re soft measures that will filter the edges, but they’re not fundamental.
“I’m just very concerned that the public will not do well out of this, and the veterinary profession and vets and nurses will not do well”.
He added: “The devil will be in the details. We’ll have to read the full report”.
Among the proposals are requirements for greater transparency regarding ownership displayed in practices and online.
Dr McGill argued the lack of focus on external signage means the public can’t always tell from the outside if a practice is “owned by a local family who not only employ local people but will probably spend the money in the local region” or “by an American hedge fund”.
He said it was “incredibly disappointing that those key things are not in the report”, adding: “This smells like an establishment stitch-up to me.
“On balance, there are some good things in it, but there’s far more disappointment than there is good things.
“I can’t say I’m at all surprised, but very, very concerned that this is a blueprint for a corporate takeover of 100% of the profession”.
He said the PVA was also “very concerned” about the handling of confidentiality arrangements following news the CMA planned to share unredacted access to its provisional decisions with external advisors of the six large veterinary groups (LVGs) ahead of their release.
He claimed the association had asked the CMA via their legal team if it could join the “confidentiality ring” but had yet to receive a response.
A CMA spokesperson said it would not comment on what it regarded as confidential correspondence but added: “We would share the unredacted document – on an equal basis – with any appointed external legal advisers of the parties to the investigation.
“Other parties could also appoint external legal advisers, and those advisers could apply for access to the document.”
