Hello, welcome to this webinar from the Royal College entitled Time for Change, Reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1966. I'm really pleased to be able to introduce the speakers today. Er Tim Hutchinson is the junior vice president of the Royal College, he's also obviously a veterinary surgeon who qualified from Liverpool.
Now working at Larkmead Vets, a mixed animal practise in Oxfordshire. He joined the practise in 2000, completed a certificate in small animal surgery in 2002, and has helped to subsequently produce two of the BSAVA manuals. So that is Tim, then Lizzie is the CEO of the Royal College.
Been at the Royal College since 2005. And was also instrumental in setting up the Mind Matters initiative in 2014. Lizzie took up the role of CEO of the Royal College in 2017 and has been instrumental in modernising the governance of the Royal College.
Lizzie is also a foundation, a, a trustee, sorry, of the Royal College, er, Knowledge, er, unit. And then Julie Dugmore is a veterinary nurse. She spent, her training years in small animal practise, and this led to a teaching position where she can gained considerable knowledge and experience of the UK educational systems and processes.
Julie's role within the Royal College has been varied, she's started as an external verifier for nurse training. And has, er, done many roles through the ranks before becoming the Director of Veterinary nursing. Julie is responsible for a team of 11 who work to support the Veterinary Nurses Council, and she's co-led the VN Vision Project started in 2024, which is currently supporting Vision or Necessity Project.
Julie is a chair of the European Accreditation Committee for Veterinary nurse Education as well. So really looking forward to this webinar. Obviously it's been a long time.
Since we had any changes to the Veterinary Surgeons Act, so it'll be really interesting to see what er, Tim, Lizzie and Julie think and of course, we will at the end have some time for questions as well, so, first of all over to you Tim, really looking forward to the webinar. Thank you Anthony, and it's wonderful to welcome so many people here this afternoon, I believe there's almost 800 signed up for this webinar, which, which really shows just how important it is for the veterinary professions. The, the reason that it's time for change is that the, the Veterinary Surgeons Act dates from 1966 and it's the underpinning regulation for the profession.
It mentions veterinary nurses, but at the moment doesn't regulate veterinary nurses directly. And essentially it's no longer fit for purpose. So the RCBS has been campaigning for many years to try to, to reform the act, bring it into more modern, more modern sort of guidance that's suitable for, for the sector going forward.
Early in 2025, DERA began a series of very intensive short bursts of activity which the RCDS and others have been involved with, and this has led to the point where we now have a consultation going live. We're going to run through various bits today, I'm going to start off looking at actually what does regulation mean before we look at the Veterinary Surgeons Act as it exists at the moment. A a brief talk about what the RCBS has been doing to be involved with the review and then moving on from there through the DEA consultation.
I think regulation is one of those things that's, that's often misunderstood because the best regulation really is silent, you never know that it's taking place and if I was to, to buy a bottle of water off a shelf in a supermarket and open it up, how do I know that it's safe to drink and, well, frankly, it's safe to drink because there's all sorts of regulatory activity going on in the background, but we don't hear about that. So what that shows is that the purpose of regulation is to protect the interests of the public, and when the public has a, has to access veterinary services from a regulated profession and only veterinary professionals are able to deliver those services. The public has a, has a right to expect that those veterinary professionals have been educated to a level that's appropriate and are abiding by a set of professional standards.
So the purpose of the RCVS is regulating the interests of the public, it's also to regulating the interests of, of animal health and welfare and with very much a, a one health perspective. But the work of the RCBS is, is underpinned by the Royal Charter and the Veterinary Surgeons Act. The Royal Charter dates from 1844 and sets out principally what the college's objectives are.
Whereas the Veterinary Surgeons Act initially was, was passed in 1881 and then last revised in 1966, so this really is a once in a lifetime opportunity to make a change because it really is every, every 60 or 80 years or so that we get to have a look at it. If the Veterinary Surgeons Act is underpinning those core regulatory objectives of maintaining registers, Establishing a disciplinary process and protecting the titles of veterinary surgery, such that, and veterinary surgeons such that only acts of veterinary surgery can be performed by vets, then the Royal Charter seeks to perform a more upstream regulation whereby the professionals working in the profession are set up to succeed. So I was mentioning the Veterinary Surgeons Act is very much out of date.
1966 was a very, very different world. Within the act, only vets themselves are regulated, not nurses, not practises, not the businesses that own practises, and it's a very detailed and inflexible piece of legislation, it really doesn't fit with modern standards. So for instance, every time that the college needs to change, membership fees or make changes to the statutory membership exam, it requires, Going through the process of getting statutory instruments through the Privy Council to make those changes, which is a long and laborious process.
There are lots of out of date provisions in it, the disciplinary processes are very backward looking and punitive and we we're looking for much more modern processes going forwards. The RCVS itself, whilst campaigning for a new act for many, many years, has put in place from the, the legislation Working Party 4 years of, of background work on this. It's involved representation from the BVA and the BVNA, and now we're reaching the point of a public consultation.
The RCVS has made recommendations to DEA for what should be in the new act, but we need everybody's opinion on that as well. We're recommending that this legislation fits with a modern, flexible framework that's forward-looking and is fit for practise, hopefully for the future as well. Having learned from the, the constraints of the 1966 Act, which prohibits what we can do going forward, we need a new act that really is forward looking.
And these are the starting points for discussions that were held with DR right back at the start of 2025. So there's an 8 week consultation launched by DEFRA which finishes on the 25th of March, so that's the time frame in which everybody can have their say. It's a fairly long consultation when the, when you go on the website, there's initially a warning that it could take up to 4 hours, it doesn't necessarily take that long, but the good news is you can save anything that you've added to the consultation and go back and, and add to it later on, so you don't have to do it all in one stint.
But this really is the, the golden opportunity for the professions to, to come together and create something that's what we want for the future to help the professions move forward. And I believe now I'm passing on to, to Lizzie to look at the practise, business and regulation. You are indeed, and thank you, Tim, for that introduction.
And I think it's just worth reiterating really how important a regulatory framework is that works. There's a saying that, regulatory success is silent, and so when it's working, you don't think about it. And I think that's true of all of us at home.
If the water comes out of the tap, you don't think about it. If the car is working, you don't think about the MOT and if the roads are working well, they're usually full of potholes. You don't think about all the regulation that goes into that.
And it's the same for members of the public, and we tend to only hear when people are unhappy, but behind all of that has got to be. A really solid framework so that people have got that assurance in the same way that we all do in all walks of life that things are going to work, work well. So let's take a deeper dive into some of those recommended changes, starting with practise and business regulation.
I think this is an area that has perhaps been a little bit misunderstood in the communications that have gone out around the consultation. For reasons that one might understand in terms of grabbing the headlines and making sure that, parliamentarians understand the need for change, that the communication around the launch of the consultation tended to focus quite a lot on veterinary prices and veterinary businesses. And it is true to say that practise regulation is going to be a cornerstone, of this new, act, or at least looking at the, the proposals that DE was put in place, but it's not just about that pricing issue.
That's more the area that The CMA are working on, it's more about practise regulation in, in a, in a wider sense. So we're looking at some of the things you might be familiar with from the voluntary practise Standard scheme around clinical facilities, outcomes, looking at all of the things that you need to have to, to give assurance to the public that The place from which they're getting their veterinary services is, is of a high level and a good quality. It's much, much slower burn, I think, than some of the CMA work and it will take longer for these processes to bed in, but we, we've, we've made really good progress, having had the voluntary practise standard scheme for the last 20 years or so.
So what DA is looking at in the consultation is a licenced and inspected practises scheme. There will be licences, at both the premises level and also at the kind of entity level. And as Tim said earlier, it used to be enough that we regulated individuals, but since the late 90s when non-veterinarians were able to own and run businesses.
There has become that disconnect, I think, between regulation of professionals and the businesses from, from which they do their work. So it's trying to bring those 22 things together. And clear in that is that we need, enforcement powers against businesses and not just against individual registrants.
And that's the one, or one of the flaws of the voluntary scheme at the moment is that if people aren't meeting the standards, all we can do is take them out of the scheme. There's no enforcement, power that we have. It's likely that we would maintain some sort of quality improvement scheme as well.
So it's likely there would be a quality assurance scheme, which will be your base level for all practises to meet and all businesses to meet, and then there may be some quality improvement, and more aspirational, series of standards which will be, be on a voluntary basis, and going forward. The next area that the consultation looks at is licence to practise. Now, while the language there may be unfamiliar to you, the concept is something that I think everybody is familiar with who is a registered veterinary nurse or a, or a veterinary surgeon.
And essentially this is about individual, excuse me, my computer's got a life of its own, is about individual, regulation. So more, more comfortable territory, but still very much about public assurance and public, public protection. So we'll be introducing a licence to practise model which is similar to the registration model, but there will be the ability to put more conditions on that registration.
So at the moment, you pay your fee every year, and you decide to say you've done your CPD, but actually that's a professional responsibility. If somebody doesn't do their CPD over many years, we can, could take them through a disciplinary hearing, because it will be serious professional misconduct or could be considered to be that, obviously it'd be for the hearing to decide. But if you don't do it, you're not automatically disbarred from renewing your registration.
And what we would be looking at going forward would be your conditions on that licence, so it will be, a stronger set of teeth if you like, from a public assurance perspective and mandatory CPD will be one of those things. It might possibly lead to, a revalidation regime, and that wouldn't necessarily be something that would start straight away. But it might be something that might come in later on, so that might be a more formal way of revalidating whether somebody should continue to stay, on the register, so continue to have their practising licence.
That's the sort of model that's very common within the human healthcare, setting. What it wouldn't be, there would be some, some changes in terms of potentially removing the non-practicing register. At the moment, you can be on the register as a practising individual, a non-practicing individual, and that does cause some confusion.
It's much more straightforward in other regulators where you're on or you're off, and it's much clearer for the public and for employers and others, whether you are registered to, to practise, or in the new parlance have a licence to practise or not. Nurses, and Julie will be not surprised to hear this, have been ahead of the game for very many years, so nurses have only ever had, you're on the register, you're off the register, and that's been much more straightforward, model. There would also be a requirement, some other requirements, so for example, having professional indemnity at the moment, that's a requirement through the code of conduct, but it's not a requirement of your, of your registration.
And so it may pave the way for other things. It could also pave the way for different sorts of licensures, so conditional or temporary licensure, which may enable some people who are not currently able to register to do so. So that might be people with disabilities or chronic health conditions.
It would also give a much more clear pathway for people who may want to come into the country on a temporary basis to do specific things, so. The, the example that's often given might be, an equine, veterinary surgeon who is travelling with a, a polo team from abroad, for example. It also may, give us a much more clear structure to get people in quickly if there was a biosecurity emergency and we needed to, to register people, in a more, more speedy way.
So it'll just give more flexibility, but within quite well-governed tram lines so that we will still have that, that sense of, assurance for the public. Now, the, the registration process that you'll be familiar with has kind of three core elements to it. Deciding who gets on the register, and that's to do with your qualifications, which we, we accredit, as you will all be aware, it's how you stay on the register, which is to do with, code of conduct, doing your CPD, all of those new things we might have around licencing.
And then also there may be rare occasions where somebody needs to be removed from the register. Now we know from the metrics of who reads our newsletters, although everybody says they don't like to think about disciplinary hearings, it's certainly the stories that everybody goes to first, even if we bury them at the bottom with all the positive news at the top, we know the stats say that everybody goes straight to the disciplinary hearings, and absolutely it's understood that this whole area may be something that's a cause of concern for you in terms of the new. The new proposals from, from DEFRA that have sprung from our recommendations.
So I'll just take you through what some of the changes, might be. So at the moment, we have a process where the committee that decides on an outcome is called the disciplinary Committee, and it judges against serious professional misconduct. And given we aspire to be a compassionate regulator, that language doesn't, doesn't feel great to us.
It's an old fashioned approach, and what we want is more of a modern approach that many of the other regulators have, which is called fitness to practise. And what that is looking at is it's looking at the thing that was done, but looking at how that impacts on somebody's ability to practise in the future rather than looking at how it, how it impacted on what they did, if that makes sense. So it's about a future looking model.
Are they fit to practise going forward? And that's not to say that people won't still be accountable. Of course they will, and it's really important.
It's wrapped up, isn't it? In the idea of being a professional, being an MRCVS, being an RVN, that you will be accountable for your professional behaviour, but it's a more positive way of looking at what might happen next. So we're also going to put into a statutory framework, some of the things that we've included on a voluntary basis.
So for example, we've have something called the health protocol, which means that any case that comes to us where there may be a health issue at the root, and that more than likely a mental health issue will be dealt with in a compassionate, supportive, and medically informed way rather than going through the same route as other complaints. We would also have a broader range of sanctions available to us. So at the moment, our sanctions are pretty nuclear.
We can remove someone or we can suspend someone from the register. But there are other things under the proposal, from DEFRA that would be, not quite as extreme as that. So, new sanctions might include, undertakings, for example, or conditions on someone's licence, alongside suspension or removal as well.
And alongside that, there would also be a change to the standard of proof. So currently it's the criminal standard, and we would look to change that to the civil standard. So that will be the balance of probabilities as opposed to beyond all reasonable doubt.
We actually don't need a new act for that, but we wanted, counsel wanted to wait until there were new sanctions available before we made that change. So that's likely to happen as well. So that's fitness to practise, I'm now gonna hand you over to Julie who's gonna talk you through veterinary nurses.
Thank you, Lizzie. So much of what you've already heard is relevant to veterinary nurses, but I just want to take you through the three proposals which are specific to the VM profession. So that's protecting the professional title, modernising delegation through reform of Schedule 3, and separating delegation from employment to enable more advanced roles.
Together these aren't just technical policy changes, they shape how the profession is recognised, how teams function and ultimately how animals receive care. Starting with the title protection, this really comes down to fairness, recognition and trust. Veterinary nurses train for many years, they meet professional standards and are accountable professionals.
They're not assistants, they're skilled clinicians and essential members of the team. Protecting the title isn't about status, it's about giving the public confidence that anyone calling themselves a veterinary nurse is qualified and regulated and making sure the title truly reflects the professionalism behind it. The second area is reforming Schedule 3.
The current framework is widely seen as outdated. It's rigid, sometimes unclear, and still relies heavily on vets delegating individual tasks. But as I've already said, veterinary nurses today are regulated, accountable professionals.
The proposed changes would move toward a more flexible system where the regulator defines scope of practise based on education and competence. That supports safer, more collaborative team based care and allows nurses to work at the top of their licence. It also creates opportunities to recognise advanced skills, whether that's expanded roles in anaesthesia, undertaking certain procedures with training, or even the potential for prescribing some routine medicines in future.
Finally, separating delegation from employment could be transformative. It would enable more flexible models like advanced nurse practitioner or community based roles where nurses take greater responsibility for preventative care, follow up and chronic condition support. We already see this working in human healthcare and applying that model in veterinary practise makes better use of everyone's expertise.
Together. These reforms are genuinely career shaping for veterinary nurses, modern legislation could support clearer frameworks for delegation. Strengthen public recognition, protect professional identity and embrace nurse led services as a normal and expected part of veterinary care, not as an exception.
Ultimately, these reforms aren't just policy changes, they're about building a modern, resilient, team-based profession where veterinary nursing is recognised as central to delivering safe, sustainable care. So allied professionals, when we think about animal health and welfare, we often focus on vets and vet nurses, but in reality, care is delivered by a much wider team. That includes roles like musculoskeletal therapists, foot trimmers, behaviourists, vet techs, and equine dental technicians.
Whilst the farriers are currently regulated by the Farriers Registration Council, DEFRA are also consulting on the possibility that barriers could be covered by this new register legislation and regulated under the RCVS umbrella. Allied professionals are already part of day to day veterinary care, but the challenge is that many of these roles are not regulated. So it's not always clear to the public or even the referring veterinary surgeon whether someone is appropriately qualified.
This lack of clarity can affect trust, consistency and potentially animal welfare. So why does regulating these professionals matter? Well, regulation could bring clarity for animal owners, it could support consistent training and accountability.
And importantly, it strengthens a team-based approach, allowing clearer delegation and professional autonomy within safe boundaries. Ultimately, the goal isn't to restrict roles, it's to recognise and support the contribution these professionals already make. Veterinary care is increasingly collaborative and multidisciplinary, and these proposals would bring these professions into a regulated framework.
Expanding regulation reflects that reality and aims to protect animal welfare while improving transparency and confidence across the profession. It wouldn't happen immediately, it would involve consultation, cost benefit analysis, and secondary legislation and realistically could take at least 1 or 2 years after the new legislation is in place. Governance reform.
So this is kind of like the final chapter in the consultation document. It's probably in some ways the least exciting for many of you out in practise, but perhaps the most challenging, for us. It is, it's an area where we're continuing the theme really about the importance of, strengthening public assurance, and there's some themes in there about, change that we've been really keen to drive for.
There's a lot of positive change in the proposals, and I think the framing of some of the, some of the communications has been perhaps a little bit, caused people to look at it a little bit negatively, but I would really urge you to think about all the positive things, that there are, there are in there. So we as a regulator need to change and the several key things that we've asked for. One is replacing, RCVS council with a smaller board.
If you ask AI, As we all do from time to time, it says that 5 to 7 people is the, the best number to make a decision. We currently have 24 on our board, our council, and that's come down from 42, not, not so long ago, so it's a huge number more than an effective decision making body. We don't necessarily want to bring it down to 5 to 7, but we're thinking maybe 8 to 10 or so.
Obviously, the detail needs to be thought, thought through. But this will be the board at top level. There'll be lots of other committees and opportunities for engagement right throughout the, right throughout the organisation as well to make sure we've got the relevant experience that we need to make effective decisions.
It's also important that those who are on the board and other committees for that matter, have the, the right experience to do the job and at the moment, because the majority of the veterinary professionals on our council are elected, we've got no quality assurance around the sorts of range of skills across the board. So individuals will come on with a huge amount of really, really useful, useful knowledge, whether that's going from practise, working in vet school, whatever. I mean, there's some, some brilliant people that come on.
But what we, we're not able to look at is the spread across the piece. So we might get a whole one year, everybody's from a small animal practise, we might not get good gender balance, we might not get anybody from public health, we might not get anybody from, from Scotland or Northern Ireland or Wales. So it's looking at it in the round rather than trying to say, well, you as an individual don't.
The skills, it's whether the group as a whole have the skills. So an appointment process is the thing that we're seeking, which would enable us to better balance the skills across the board, and that will be an independent appointment process. So it wouldn't be just a question of me going, well, this person's bribing more chocolate than this person, so we're going to give them the gig.
It will be a very formal public appointment process. And those vets and nurses on the call who've been through similar processes to support other regulators will know just how, how rigorous and robust those can be. And we would also make sure that I want to make sure that there is parity of lay and registered members on council.
And this is really important, both in terms of perception, so the public perception of it's not just vets or veterinary nurses checking their own homework, but also the skills that they bring in terms of regulatory expertise, governance, and all of these things. So on our current council, we've got lawyers, we've got accountants, we've got 6 laypeople, but the, the, the norm, what good looks like across regulators is to have a balance between, lay members and registrant, members, and that's what we would be, looking for as well. And we'd also be looking for greater clarity about the college role, and I will come on to that in a second.
So, we are a Royal College that regulates. We are an unusual beast in doing this. It's very unusual, the bodies in the past that have had a sort of a Royal College or Royal Society role and a regulatory role have been split up.
But we want to maintain that, that role. We think that it's really important, for the profession, apologies, for some reason my laptop is leaping around, my hand isn't even on the mouth. I think I've got a bug in, bug in the system.
So we want to preserve the benefits of a Royal College that regulates and the way that we try and explain that is that. As a regulator, we set and maintain standards, but as a Royal College, we're also able to advance standards, and that might be standards for individuals, so through advanced practitioner status, specialist status, or it might be more of a profession level. So looking at things like workforce, it might be looking at mental health support.
It might be looking at EDI, it might be looking at readiness for innovation, all of these sorts of things. And also recognising and celebrating that. So through the, the fellowship, recognition or celebration through our awards.
So these are all things that we do as a Royal College that regulates. We have that full holistic picture. We feel that in a small profession such as veterinary, this gives, a cost-effective approach.
So in the human medical, professions, you would have a separate Royal College, a separate regulator, a separate BVA equivalent. And as professionals, you will be paying into, all of those. But in the profession at the moment you get a 2 for the price of 1, and low fees, I might say lower than many other, many other regulated professions.
And it also means that we have direct access to appropriate knowledge and expertise, from within the professions as well. . And there are no conflicts in us doing this.
So I think the reason why some of the other bodies that had dual roles were split up is that the Royal Society, part of their role was a representative role. So much more like you would get from BVA or BSAVA or others. Our, role that we have under the charter is not a representative role.
It is still in the public interest. So all of those additional things that we do are in the public interest to assure animal health and welfare to. Promote and support the profession to be the best it can be to promote people to succeed in meeting those standards as well.
And so we are a unique, unique body, and I think we, we have a lot of programmes in there to help support people. So Mind Matters is the obvious one that springs to my mind. It's something that I've been very much involved with.
When we set up Mind Matters 10 years ago, we did it kind of under our charter. Now, a lot of regulators have a mental health. Programme of a kind that will support their registrants.
So you could argue that M Matters is now part of core regulation, but what the charter enables us to do is to say, OK, what's next? What's the next thing on the horizon? What's the next challenge that we need to be addressing?
That is the advancing, continuing moving on forward that over time may well drop into core regulation for us and for other regulators, but at the moment it would be seen as working, working forward. So until the culture and the habit catches up and things move into statutory regulation, it's, we feel it's really important to have that ability. And if we hadn't had that over the last period of time, we wouldn't have had Mind Matters.
We wouldn't have had all the workforce stuff that we're doing. We probably wouldn't have had, advanced practitioner status, specialist status, and all of those things. And it's important to note, I think that times are changing as well.
So other regulators, and, there's been comments made at parliamentary select committees as well to suggest that maintaining a professional leadership role is now seen as part and parcel of being a good regulator. So we were, even though we were founded in 1844, we're sort of ahead of the game, there. So as I said, most, of our Royal College functions are currently shared by other regulators, either termed leadership or upstream, and by upstream regulation, they mean the things that you do to prevent that being a problem rather than the things you do after a problem has arisen, sort of more systemic changes.
And other regulators do seem to be moving more towards our model, they wouldn't be terming it a Royal College model, they would just be adding some flexibility, but we still think that, it's important to, to maintain what we have. So in the consultation document, there's two options. One is, for us to continue to be a Royal College that regulates keeping all of our functions as they are, but with a degree of internal separation.
And that is something that is, supported by BVA, and BVANA as well. What there would be that's different from now is we would be, Improve our transparency and accountability in terms of how the money is spent. We produce our annual report for sure we do, but add some more detail in there, some more granular detail, and we will be asked to consult on the development of our strategic plan and where the money was being spent.
So more upfront about what we're going to do and more at the end about what we, what we've done. And there may be more checks and balances internally in terms of which staff are working on which areas. And you could see from the option in the document, greater, greater detail is currently in there around the committees and boards that will be in there.
Our preference, for option one is, is, It's quite simple really. We want there to be a single board. We want there to be an option for us to spend our fees right across the piece and be accountable for that, and that as little as possible of the detail of what committees will be called and what their terms of reference would be, would be in the legislation because that's just tying us up for the future.
The second option that DEFRA has listed, it would be to make us only a Royal College that regulates. But not a Royal College that does all the other Royal Collegey stuff, which is a little bit confusing to us and, and not an option that we are in favour of. In fact, we think it would do the opposite, improving clarity.
At the moment, there is some, some confusion about being a Royal College that regulates, but we feel that the benefits of doing that holistic approach far outweigh the confusion. If you took away all of our Royal College work but still called us a Royal College and made us only a regulator, we feel that that would be a lot of confusion for no, no benefit. It would also be a net loss to the profession because things that you're currently getting at the moment are all part of the same package.
DEA is suggesting in the consultation that will be put back to the profession to decide if you wanted to set up a new body to do those things. And of course, that would need to be paid for, separately. And we also feel there might be a lack of, consistency of standards, for example, for specialists and advanced practitioners were set in a different body, than those that are, are setting the standards for, general, general veterinary work.
. So I think we, we're, we're generally feeling that option one is the one that we would, we want to push for, . But at the end of the day, we are, you know, we, we will listen to, to what comes through the consultation and I think we're really interested to hear people's views on that because it is, you know, it's always, always dangerous living in your bubble, isn't it? And thinking that this would be the best option.
I think we would really welcome, consultation responses, right across, right across the piece. Right, at that point, I'm going to take it back up a level, and hand back to Tim, who's gonna remind you of the more of the visionary piece of, of why we're doing what we're doing. Thank you Lizzie.
So this is very much in summary, what are we, what are we after? We want a modern legislation that replaces the very much out of date 1966 act, legislation that fits in with current guidelines and is also flexible enough and adaptable enough to, to morph to guidelines as guidelines change and as the professions change. More importantly, we want a legislation that enables the whole veterinary team to be recognised and registered under one umbrella, and we feel that this is very, very important for for consistency and cohesion and to be able to provide the best reassurance to the public in the interests of animal health and welfare.
These modernised regulatory systems would be in line with the best practise in other sectors. However, I think as, as Lizzie has always already put there, the key thing is that we're almost ahead of the game already by, by having the, the Veterinary Surgeons Act, the regulatory piece which is very much setting standards and maintaining a register and the processes by which people would be on the register or, or have conditions applied to them on the register. The, the Royal College work is very much the professional leadership.
It's not professional representation, that's, that's an entirely different role and available through various associations within the professions, but the Royal College is about professional leadership. And the key part about that is it's, it's staying one ahead of the game, it's upstream regulation aimed at setting people up to succeed those registrants who are working within the professions and the practises and the businesses through which they work. So what happens next?
Well, the, the consultation is open until the 25th of March, so please do engage with it. Go on, have a little scan through, see what's there, save any changes that you make to it and, and keep going back and adding to it. We would hope that following that we get a response from the government around the middle of the summer.
Obviously that depends on the government itself and what else is going on in the world. DER then has to go through the process of trying to elevate this in order to get a bill slot. No new Veterinary Surgeons Act can come through without an Act of Parliament.
That requires parliamentary time. It requires DER to manage to get a bill on the bill slot on a King's Speech. Could that be as early as 2027, we'll keep our fingers crossed.
Either way, the aim is that the parliament would discuss this and hopefully vote it through before the next election, which at the very latest has to be the 15th of August 2029. These things can take months, they can take years, and in fact, there's already several years of work gone on behind the scenes to get us this far. So, what do we want you to do, we want you to respond to the consultation.
Make your views known, what, what do you think is important as professionals, or from outside the professions looking in. The address for the consultation and is there on the government website, that's a web address that will take you through to the Royal College website, which gives you more information around it. And now I think we've passed back to Anthony in case there are any questions.
Thanks very much, that was really interesting and I have to say, Lizzie, you know the Mind Matters initiative has been so powerful, I know we helped you with a mindfulness series all those years ago and it's still seen as one of the best things we did in that people came to me often at conferences and said, you know, your clinical CPD is great, but actually this has changed my life, I'm not worrying when I'm away on holiday. I'm being more respectful to my team, etc. So.
Just maybe before we start the questions, thank you for, being really behind that cos I think it's been massive and as you explained, possibly couldn't have happened if we had a slightly different Royal College model. So we have got a question, you know, and I think it is one of the main things that you're, you know, asking for is that retention of the Royal College that regulates model, but I, I think that was explained really well in that it gives you a. The ability to be more futureproofing for the er for the profession, is that roughly right?
Yeah, so I jump in on that one? Yeah, I think the key thing here is the synergy between the Royal College and the regulator and There's a perception that this may be a conflict, that it lowers transparency, but I really don't think that's the case. When people understand what the regulator is and what the Royal College is as professional leadership, not professional representation, then you get this synergy working, that you get the downstream regulation through the regulatory activities, and downstream regulation can be so much more effective if you have really good upstream regulation that sets the professions up for success.
And if we achieve that, then the registrants benefit, but more importantly, this is carried out in the interests of the public and animal health and welfare. Does anybody want to add to that? Lizzie Not really.
I mean, I suppose, all I would say is that, other regulators that I talked to are somewhat envious of our ability to do that and to be much more, kind of upstream in our thinking and, and more holistic in our approach. So it's, it's seen as a benefit and I, I can understand why it can be confusing for the public and, you know, in some ways, having a, a pure regulator might be cleaner. I, I do think that having a Royal College that only regulates is the worst of both worlds.
So if I'm, if I'm being really honest with you. And perhaps question for for Julie, how will this benefit veterinary nurses? Obviously the, the old act kind of mentioned the name veterinary nurses but didn't do a great deal else, so how do you see, you know, the profession using the opportunity for new legislation to really strengthen the, the whole concept of a veterinary nurse if you like.
Well, I think veterinary nurses will finally have achieved full statutory regulation alongside vets with a protected title and also the potential for the expanded role which would include specialists and advanced practitioner status. And also the, the proposals would mean that they would have the option of working independently of employment by a veterinary surgeon. So that would open the doors to a more, district community nursing type role, which would increase accessibility to, to veterinary care.
So I suppose in some ways bringing us more in line with human nurses. To, to a degree, yes, and, and where, where we can follow that alignment then absolutely we should. Obviously everything that happens in human healthcare isn't necessarily the right thing for veterinary care, but where it is and we can follow that model then absolutely we we should be looking to do that.
And these proposals will allow that to a to a degree. I thought it was really interesting also, there's been a couple of questions on this about board size. So obviously if we involve veterinary nurses more other paraprofessionals, how would you manage that if you only had a smaller board of, you know, somewhere between 8 and 12, so have there been any thoughts on how that board might be constituted?
I might defer that one to to Lizzie or Tim if I may, yeah, give that to Lizzie or Tim, whoever wants to answer that. So question was about how we so we will a smaller board will work, yeah, so, so firstly I think it's, it wouldn't be a question of having. Representatives, you would have people who might be able to to reflect the views of, but you would never be a representative of the profession.
That's where I think sometimes it falls down. We would, we haven't quite laid that out is the honest answer, but we would make sure as more and more, allied professions were brought on that there was always a good balance of veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses, and perhaps from, from those groups they would choose which professions that they wanted to be on there based on the skills that they had. What you also see on that diagram, I think on diagram one is you've got those faculties, and whether we call them faculties or mini councils or whatever is, is up for question, but you would have other groups, of, registrants, who would be proposing things up to, to the board.
So it wouldn't be a question of that group at the top deciding everything, as now we have a delegation scheme, and that means that decisions are made kind of in, in, in the right order throughout the organisation. So the, the exact number is hard to know because we don't yet know what order people will be coming through the door, but we would make sure that it was, it was fairly done and we would, the kind of thing that we will be consulting on regularly as well. Thank you.
Somebody else has said, how does this relate to the CMA investigation, is this separate or is there any sort of relationship between those two things? Yeah, so I can . Trust being mentioned, no message appearing in the chatbot.
So, So the CMA is very specifically about a small animal, and it's specifically about the market. So essentially, it's for consumers. It's, are there fair prices for consumers and the things that they've landed on, that they consulted on in the last document around transparency, around maybe having price listing, around, setting, prescriptions, all of those sorts of things.
That's, that would all be, covered if it ends up in their final decision report, which is likely to be published in the next month or so. . That would then end up in an order.
So there'd be the 6 month period after the finish of the final decision report, the publication of the final decision report where they can put in place an order, and they do that within 6 months and then these things flow through. That will happen regardless of whether there's a new veterinary surgeons there. If there's a new veterinary surgeon site, it is likely that those remedies, if they've been working, would be transposed through to whatever new practise regulation scheme might look like.
So they would, there will be a thread that would follow through. But it's, it's an important thing. I don't want to, to dismiss it.
It's very important, but it's not that the, the veterinary surgeon that is much, much bigger. So it's for all types of veterinary surgeon for start, not just. For small animal practise, it's for those who are not in practise at all.
It's the way the profession is formed and it's the animals that it treats and it's, the way it gets on the register and the way public assurance, there's a whole load more to it. The pricing bit is a narrow skinny little bit and, you know, it's up for question whether those remedies will, will make the difference that they're intended to or not. That will, time will tell on that front.
Thanks Lizzie, . Perhaps one for Tim, will veterinary surgeons still be members of the College with the postnominals MRCVS if er the Vet Surgeons Act is, you know, the new one is created. Thank you Anthony.
I think the thing that's important to recognise is that these post nominals are awarded by the Royal College, not through the regulatory piece. So a new veteran and the through the Veterinary Surgeons Act itself, so a new Veterinary Surgeons Act doesn't automatically change that. It may be, and it's quite likely that as we go forward under a new regime of a new veterinary surgeon's act that there will be a need to Look at the charter that's that's in place and see what reforms need to be made to the charter to bring them more into line with the future, but that's very much a discussion for a future date.
But yeah, the post nominals come from the Royal Charter, and at this stage the Royal Charter isn't being looked at. And obviously important question, how do you think this might impact veterinary fees as I presume for registration but also then is this gonna be such a a big sort of extra cost for vets that they'll have to change fees for it. I suspect anything to do with costs is gonna be winging my way, so I shall, I shall jump in.
The honest answer is as yet we don't yet know because until all of the proposals are agreed or not, it's hard to have the full picture. There may be some, some increase in cost because more will be being done, but I think what veterinary professionals need to be assured of is that they won't be carrying the can for anything that's not to do with them. So veterinary practise regulation will be paid for, veterinary practises, regulation of Equine foot tremors, whatever we happen to look at, that will be carried by them.
So it will be very much a, clarity on who pays for what as we go forward. The fees may, may go up slightly if we are doing more. There may be, for example, if we do end up doing revalidation that you could see that would take more, more time and work and there may be a fee attached to that.
So it's hard to know straight away and I absolutely wouldn't want to sit here and say that they won't go up because I, you know, I, I have no assurance of that. What I can say is that, the baseline that we're starting from is pretty good. The fees that we, we charge are, are low compared with other medical, regulators and also compared with some other professions as well.
I understand, for example, that they're lower than the fees paid to the farriers, paid by the farriers. So we're starting from a good place and the model that we're suggesting will be one where there is a, Economies of scale and also by continuing, we hope to have Royal College and Regulator under one roof, there would be some cost efficiencies there. We've also got the question obviously with all of this potential new responsibilities coming through er with the new act, how will you know, the Royal College afford to take on all these new responsibilities and, and, you know, just from a manpower, person power perspective as well.
So we will, we will need to expand, in a, in a cautious and, and sensible way. If at the moment, we, we don't have a lot of people sitting around doing nothing, let's put it that way. And, and I think we wouldn't be as cost effective as we were if we did.
So we've not got a whole raft of people sitting. They're going, right, let's wait till 2028, whenever it is, so we can suddenly spring into action. We will need to grow and we will need to bring people on, but we will then need to make sure that the fees that are attached to that will be proportionate to the work that we're doing.
And they will be paid for, as I said, in answer to the previous question, they'll be paid for by the people who they impact. So yeah, I, I suspect it will be a period of change, as we go forward. There's not very many things that we wouldn't be doing anymore unless Dera goes for option two, in which case, there may be some changes there.
I Another question's come in, obviously at the moment anybody can own a practise, will new regulations mean only vets can own a practise? There's not been any indication of that unless I've missed something. I think that genie is out of the bottle.
Ironically, the, the reason why that change was made in the late 90s, I think was with half an eye to competition issues on, on the basis that it might be seen as anti-competitive if only vets could own and run businesses. That was before my time at the college. .
But, I think we, it's, we're not necessarily going to go backward from that. What we will be looking at is how do we ensure the clinical voice is maintained within professional decision making, which I think is really, really key. And how do we assure members of the public and the professions who may want to work in these practises of, of quality.
And that's across the board. I think it's unhelpful to say this is all about the corporates, you know, this, this is across the board in, in all workplaces as well. Thanks Lizzie, er one of my good friends Robin is, is on at the moment, he's just said, will there be more ability to be er proactive, could new legislation provide for professionals, businesses to be audited without the necessity for a complaint?
I need better whistle blowing and I suppose more of a requirement around practise standards for there to be a, you know, a standard of practise that was. Obligatory, not kind of er voluntary to to go through the practise standards scheme, I think that's what. Robin's Yeah, so I think that's what we'd be looking at.
So essentially there'd be a sort of, and I'm not using the right language here because I'm using practise standards language, which would probably go, but you're kind of equivalent of your call will be for everybody. And then if you wanted to then be GP hospital, whatever, whatever we might call it, that would be more aspirational. So I think I was talking earlier about the difference between, quality assurance and quality improvement.
So there would always be options, to do more. And of course, there's other schemes as well, you know, the BVA. Has its well-being scheme and there's other schemes that practises can be part of if they want to continue to improve.
And could they be inspected? So the, the inspection regime is up for discussion, but I think it would involve some risk-based inspections as well as regular routine inspections. There might be some spot inspections, depending on, on the type of practise or history of the practise or any, anything that we might look at there.
And I think one of the things that, One of the things the CMA have mentioned, which I think is really important, is How, how are we, they challenged us in, in a way that I think was helpful. But, how are we using the information that we have to inform our future processes? So we have an awful lot of information, and we're perhaps not always as joined up as we could be thinking about how we use that information to inform what we do next.
And I think that was a fair challenge. And I think that's certainly something. That would be really useful looking at practise regulation going forward is to keep a kind of a continuous loop around, OK, what is it?
Where are people falling down? How can we support them better? Where does that mean the risks are?
How can we intervene before there's a problem? It's all part of that kind of upstream regulation piece, which is to help people to succeed rather than wait till the wheels fall off. I, I'm conscious we're coming towards the end of the hour and I know people, you know, are, are often doing this during their, their lunch hour and things.
Obviously the, the recordings will be available, give us 24 to 48 hours. And they will be up, but I thought it might be a good opportunity cos I I think Lizzie, you felt that maybe was a little misunderstanding somewhere so. Oh no, I, I, it wasn't a misunderstanding, I, I cocked up Anthony and I've put, I put a note in the chat to reflect it.
I can't read my own blooming notes. Next time, next time get a lawyer to do the job is your, is your answer. The, the chats er, so do have a little look in the chat for those er there and obviously we can, we can have the chat.
Kind of underneath the, the, the webinar, but Tim, do you want to have any sort of closing remarks, Julie and, and Lizzie, just to sort of maybe make that clear, I don't know if you want to perhaps just make that piece clear at the end, Lizzie, closing remarks in first of all there, there, Anthony, and this is me speaking as a vet and a vet in practise, we. Veterinary, veterinary world is changing. It's change, it changes all the time.
It's very, very different now from when I first graduated and when I first graduated it was very different from 1966. It will continue to change. It's much more of a team approach going forwards and yet we're stuck with an act whereby the only people that are regulated are vets themselves.
So vets are carrying the can for everything else that, that takes place. What we need is a forward-thinking piece of legislation that makes sure that the whole team together with the practises in which they work and the businesses that own those practises are all part of that regulation and I can't stress it enough, this really is a once-in a-generation opportunity to do something about it. Thank you Tim, I'm obviously really excited I think er with the new act whenever it comes that we get much more er fair representation for nurses, so Julie, any, any thoughts from yourself just as a sort of closing comment.
I think really just to to echo what Tim said, this is a really exciting time for veterinary nurses, it's a time for, for change, for looking forward and getting that modern. Regulatory framework that will allow us to have a protected title, it will allow us to have, advanced and specialised qualifications, pathways, and yeah, and I just urge all, all the nurses to, to look at the consultation, to, to complete the consultation. This is, yeah, it's a, a once in a lifetime chance to, to make that change and to have us truly embedded in a team-based healthcare, environment.
Yeah. No, that's really super, thanks Julie. And obviously finally Lizzie, any, any closing thoughts before we finish?
Hopefully just on 1:30. Yeah, I, I, I joined the college 21 years ago and the first meeting that I came to was about the need for change to the Veterinary Surgeons Act. This has taken a really long time, a lot of work from the college, but also BVA, BVNA, and latterly the DEFRA team, you know, colleagues at DEFRA who've been working round the clock on this.
But to get to the next stage, we need to show . Parliament and government and the public that we are serious about this. So, you know, we, we've told you on this what, what we think, but that almost doesn't matter.
We want you to say what you think. We want people to see that the veterinary professions are, invested in this change, and want it to happen because otherwise it was gonna be harder to get to the next step, and I don't want to be waiting another 21 years, please. Thanks Lizzie.
I'm, I'm seeing, obviously I'm conscious we haven't answered everybody's questions. Great question from another mate from a while ago, John, who I've not seen for a while. Worried about representation.
I think these are all points that, you know, do go to the to the document open till the 25th of March. I, I agree with everything that's been said there, this is our chance to really speak, you know, with our voices, vets and nurses. To, to create an app that is, is right for, for everybody, including pet owners and, and pets themselves, so, yeah, do take the time I think to, and I certainly will as well.
I'm gonna go and have a little look at it. So, er, yeah, if you can, er, spend the time, I know how busy you are, but I think it's really worth er looking and hopefully answering the, the documents, the survey, etc. And, and thank you very much, Tim, Julie and Lizzie for coming on to, to take us through it.
Obviously the, as I said, the recording will be available in the next 24, 48 hours for yourself to look at again or to show to colleagues. And again, thank you very much for everyone for coming on and hope to see you on a podcast or a webinar very soon. Thanks again to Royal College for, for putting the information out there.
Thanks Anthony, thanks for having us, bye bye. Cheers, thanks everyone, bye bye, bye.
