12 Mar 2026
In the first of a series of regular columns, Iain McGill talks through all sides of the proposed Veterinary Surgeons Act and what it might mean for everyone…
Iain McGill
Job Title
Everybody wants a new Veterinary Surgeons Act (VSA) don’t they? The RCVS, BVA and BVNA extol the need for a new act, and urge us to support it by completing the current consultation, which ends on 25 March. It is hailed as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to shape the future of the profession.
If you’re an RVN, there are clear wins, for the consultation includes proposals both to protect the title “veterinary nurse” – which is long overdue – and to expand the veterinary nursing role.
But if you’re a veterinary surgeon, what’s in there for you? And what if you happen to be an animal?
Let’s deal with the animals first, for they are our raison d’être are they not?
There is a very valid proposal to link the VSA to a legal definition of animal sentience, but will the new VSA be a beacon for animal protection in other ways?
In my opinion, there are examples of animal abuse enshrined under Schedule 3 of the original 1966 VSA. For simplicity’s sake, let’s use just one example at Section 1, point 4, d) at which it states that the 1966 act permits:
Do puppies in their first week of life not feel pain? This is not a simple procedure and by any sensible definition is an act of veterinary surgery requiring skill and knowledge of analgesia. If the VSA is to be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, why not stake out a quantum leap in the way animals are to be treated by humans in the future?
It’s the Veterinary Surgeons Act, so what about veterinary surgeons? Sadly, I see little that is positive for vets, particularly in regard to disciplinary procedures. What is proposed is a fitness to practise disciplinary system (applying also to RVNs). Some concerning aspects of the proposed system imply:
It is positive that veterinary businesses would also be subject to regulation, not just veterinary professionals – a change that is also long overdue.
However, detailed regulatory stipulations for businesses may asymmetrically impact independent practices, rather than corporate groups, as independents lack the advantages engendered by economies of scale.
It is proposed that there should be rights of entry to veterinary practices by the regulator, which, in some circumstances, may be unannounced. These could include rights to search practices, seize documents, articles and substances, as well as take photos and videos. I am sure I am not alone in thinking that the stress of being a veterinary surgeon would only increase as a result of such regulatory and disciplinary measures. The disillusionment, burnout and dropout from the profession can but increase in parallel.
A change is proposed to the regulation of the profession, with regulatory functions split off from the RCVS in some manner. This is something for which I have long campaigned – but one must be careful what one wishes for.
All that I think was required was a true separation between the RCVS and disciplinary procedures, along with a modest transfer of some regulatory functions to a separate body.
What is proposed, in my view, seems a far more radical neutering of the RCVS, despite its specialist knowledge of the profession, and disciplinary procedures for veterinary professionals which are not fit for purpose.
And then there’s the timing. The profession is already reeling from the CMA’s investigation into the small animal veterinary sector, and the provisional remedies proposed in October 2025 could, if enacted, have led to commercial advantage for corporate vet groups and the gradual extinguishment of independent practices in the UK. It was also proposed in the CMA’s consultation that disciplinary “enforcement action can take place in respect of a much wider range of infringements than only the most egregious misconduct cases”.
Why would the Government not await the final recommendations from the CMA investigation, which might somewhat assuage the profession’s dread (and consultation fatigue), before launching a separate consultation?
CMA uncertainty still hangs heavily on our shoulders, and conflating the two processes seems less than helpful. Nevertheless, we are urged to complete the consultation and support the new VSA.
I would ask not what you can do for the new VSA, but rather, what it can do for you.