Legislative reform. Part 1: a collaborative approach to achieving change

This feature was first published in Vet Record (the official journal of the British Veterinary Association (BVA)) on 29 November 2025. This is the first of two articles from the presidents of the RCVS (Tim Parkin - pictured below), the BVA (Rob Williams) and the British Veterinary Nursing Association (Sarah Holliday), exploring the progress that is being made on legislative reform, with the profession showing a united front on achieving new legislation to underpin the veterinary professions.

Tim Parkin Throughout 2025 the RCVS, the BVA and the British Veterinary Nursing Association (BVNA) have been in confidential discussions with Defra on the possibility of reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (VSA). This has been a very collaborative process, which we hope will result in a government consultation before the end of 2025, and so the time is now right to share some of the details.

In this two-part series we will first outline why the VSA is so important as the piece of legislation underpinning everything you do as veterinary professionals, and why reform of this outdated piece of legislation is now so necessary.

In doing so, we will outline the changes that the RCVS, BVA and BVNA have been collaboratively calling for over the past few years.

In part two, to be published in a subsequent issue of Vet Record, we will go into more detail about the discussions with Defra, the overlap with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) investigation, and the importance of governance reform to preserve the ‘Royal College that regulates’ model.

The VSA

The VSA 1966 was a significant piece of legislation. Earlier Veterinary Surgeons Acts had underpinned the RCVS register, examinations, fees and disciplinary powers, as well as protecting the title ‘veterinary surgeon’ and restricting acts of veterinary surgery to those on the registers. However, the 1966 Act consolidated and modernised these piecemeal provisions into a legislative foundation able to survive the test of time.

It has served the veterinary professions and the public interest well in its six decades of existence, underpinning professions that have remained highly trusted by the public over this period of time. The VSA has also not been entirely static, having been amended numerous times over the years – for instance the creation in 1991 of the ‘list’ of veterinary nurses (VNs) and the Schedule 3 powers that enable them to carry out acts of veterinary surgery.

The need for reform

However, in the memorable words of J. R. R. Tolkien’s Bilbo Baggins, the Act is ‘spread thin like butter scraped over too much bread’. It lacks many of the powers of modern regulatory frameworks, and much of the flexibility of modern legislation.

To an extent this has been compensated for by the provisions of the RCVS’s Royal Charter which has allowed the college to undertake some activities that are without the confines of the VSA.

The charter sets out the college’s objectives as a Royal College that regulates: setting, upholding and advancing standards, and promoting the art and science of veterinary surgery – both in the public interest – and gives it the power to raise funds and carry out any activities that it feels meet those objectives.

In addition to its proactive work such as the Mind Matters initiative and the digital learning platform these charter powers have allowed the college to create a register and regulatory framework for VNs, as well as the Practice Standards Scheme (PSS).

However, neither of these developments – which are now well-established parts of the veterinary regulatory landscape – can compensate for the gaps in legislation. For instance, the PSS, while signed up to by a large majority of veterinary practices, is still wholly voluntary (a weakness highlighted by the CMA in the course of its investigation), and the veterinary nurse title remains unprotected, a clear source of frustration for VNs who have worked hard for their qualification and take pride in being regulated professionals. It is clear that more substantive change is now long overdue.

The last attempt at such change was nearly 20 years ago when there was a previous iteration of a legislative review. This was unsuccessful because of a lack of cross-sector consensus in what reform should The VSA lacks many of the powers of modern regulatory frameworks look like, and these unfortunate divisions were highlighted by a House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee report in 2008.

Thankfully, this failure has led to a change in approach. The RCVS’ 2017 Legislation Working Party had representation from the BVA and BVNA from the start, and there has subsequently been a strong consensus on what reform should look like. We are glad to say that Defra has continued this collaborative approach in the discussions it has been leading.

A new legislative framework

Underlying any change must be a modern piece of legislation that is flexible and futureproof. The current VSA is too prescriptive and narrow in focus, and its strictures mean that even minor changes – such as an annual increase in registration fees or changes to how the Statutory Membership Examination works – requires the permission of Defra ministers, parliament, or the Privy Council. Reform should create an act that is more of a framework with enabling powers, with more operational details deferred to secondary legislation or delegated directly to the RCVS, albeit with all the necessary safeguards and scrutiny.

Practice regulation

Nothing in the VSA or the charter empowers the RCVS to limit the ownership of veterinary businesses or practices, and recognition of this in the 1990s led to the regulatory changes that allowed for substantial corporatisation of the sector.

The RCVS, BVA and BVNA have been calling for mandatory practice regulation for many years, and the CMA’s recent intervention has made it clear that this is now a matter of some urgency if public faith and confidence in veterinary businesses are to be maintained

The regulator should be empowered to license practices and apply standards and sanctions at the level of the business, so that it is not always individual veterinary professionals who are ‘on the hook’ when things go wrong, particularly if problems within an operational setting are more cultural and systemic.

Veterinary nurses

It is long overdue that the VN title be protected, both to give the public greater assurance on who is qualified and regulated, but also to give due recognition that veterinary nursing is well established as a fully fledged profession. New legislation could rectify this situation from day one of its Royal Assent.

The current VSA’s strict Schedule 3 provisions also hold back the ability to empower VNs to do more by explicitly placing limits on certain procedures without reference to their skillsets and competence. We contend that Schedule 3 should be replaced by flexible powers that allow the regulator to determine exactly which veterinary acts can be undertaken by VNs, and under what conditions and/or qualifications. This would allow much better use of the veterinary team.

The wider veterinary team

There are a wide range of ‘allied professionals’ working in the field of animal health and welfare, and we have long called for these to be properly regulated, with their own registers and protected titles.

There should be a single regulator for this – just as the General Dental Council regulates multiple dental care professions – as this allows for cost efficiencies and ensures coherent and consistent regulation.

As well as increasing public confidence in these allied professions, statutory regulation would help to protect animal health and welfare by insisting on adherence to a set of professional standards, and accountability should anyone fall short of them.

Any new act should enable new professional registers to be created – and titles protected – via secondary legislation. Deciding which professions should come under the regulatory umbrella of the RCVS, and in which order, would be a matter for further consideration and consultation.

Licence to practise and fitness to practise

The nature of the regulation of individual veterinary professionals is also out of date if compared to the regulatory regimes of other healthcare professions. At present the completion of a primary qualification and payment of a fee allows addition to and retention on the register.

Other regulatory regimes, for example, can mandate the completion of continued professional development along with other requirements such as mandatory professional indemnity insurance.

The VSA also underpins a backward-looking and punitive disciplinary system, with a narrow range of sanctions. Although the college has tried to mitigate the impact of this as far as possible, with voluntary measures and a supportive strategy, this outdated system should be replaced with a modern ‘fitness to practise’ system that is less concerned with punishing any previous ‘wrongdoing’ by an individual, and more about working within the public interest to assess whether the individual has the competence, character and health to work safely and effectively in their profession.

A subsequent issue of the Vet Record will feature part two of this series, and will focus on the significant discussions that we have been having with Defra, the importance of governance reform and the retention of a Royal College that regulates, and the prospects for reform.

Legislative reform. Part 1: a collaborative approach to achieving change

The VSA

The need for reform

A new legislative framework

Practice regulation

Veterinary nurses

The wider veterinary team

Licence to practise and fitness to practise

Further reading

You might also like

Cookie Notice

Legislative reform. Part 1: a collaborative approach to achieving change

The VSA

The need for reform

A new legislative framework

Practice regulation

Veterinary nurses

The wider veterinary team

Licence to practise and fitness to practise

Further reading

You might also like