14 Mar 2025
Further sweeping reforms of RCVS governance have been backed by its council, despite fears that more needs to be done to persuade professionals of the case for change.
Allister Webb
Job Title
Image: © dusanpetkovic1 / Adobe Stock
The RCVS has been warned it must do more to reassure veterinary professionals that their voices will still be heard amid further governance reform proposals.
Measures including transition to a smaller governing board with registrant and lay membership parity have been backed by its council, despite fears they could ultimately trigger a separation of the college’s present functions.
But senior figures have insisted that change is essential to preserve what one described as the organisation’s “unique status”.
The issue was debated during a 13 March council meeting in London, four months after the body backed a controversial proposal to replace its current annual elections with a fully appointed membership model.
Members voted 16 to 4 in favour of the council evolving into a smaller board of around 10 to 12 members, and 16 to 3 with 1 abstention for that body to have registrant and lay membership parity. They also voted 20 to 1 for vets to remain “predominant” among professional members and 18 to nil for the establishment of separate councils for each regulated profession, including one for vets, whose members would also be appointed.
The plans were presented following what the meeting heard were “robust but cordial” discussions within the college’s legislative reform working group.
Ahead of the meeting, officials had also urged members to view the ideas as a “starting position” for talks with Defra because of the need for new legislation to underpin change.
Senior vice-president Sue Paterson argued the plan for a veterinary surgeons’ council demonstrated the college was listening to the profession, and the model as a whole could provide “the best of both worlds”.
She told colleagues: “We have to change to preserve our unique status.”
Although, several members were worried that the plans could represent a shift in emphasis towards the regulatory aspect of the college’s functions.
Lay member Judith Worthington argued that “separation will happen”, while elected member Olivia Cook said it was inevitable the college would have to “come down on one side or the other” at some point.
Dr Cook also warned: “If we want to bring 30,000 veterinary surgeons on this journey with us, they’re going to need significantly more reassurance than they’ve had so far that their voice will be heard, acted on and listened to.”
Fears were also raised that reforms could lead to a devaluing of vets’ MRCVS status, with David Barrett suggesting “the kickback would be immense” if moves were made towards the college adopting veterinary services in its name, rather than veterinary surgeons.
But VN council chairperson Belinda Andrews-Jones suggested those concerns could be seen as “protectionist” as she urged colleagues to consider the issue from other professions’ perspective.
College chief executive Lizzie Lockett also warned the MRCVS status was less likely to retain its meaning without change, adding: “The thing you want will slip through your fingers unless we move.”
Meanwhile, working group chairperson Tim Walker said the council or board should not be seen as encompassing the whole decision-making process and instead as ensuring correct processes were being used.
He added: “I think this gets us nearer to that than we are at the moment.”
The proposals had earlier been welcomed ahead of the meeting by BVA president Elizabeth Mullineaux, who said they showed the college was “listening”.
But the Progressive Veterinary Association (PVA), which supports the establishment of a General Veterinary Council, said the plans were “rather more of a sticking plaster than a surgical solution”.
