Chancellor confirms over £50 million for low income families who heat their homes with oil to help tackle surging prices.
The price of kerosene – the fuel used for heating oil – has been especially affected by the conflict in the Middle East and has risen faster than other fuels such as petrol and gas.
Government announces intention to regulate heating oil sector to introduce new consumer protections, alongside securing agreement with industry to quickly improve customer experiences.
Families are to benefit from over £50 million to help people pay for the rising cost of heating oil. With winter drawing to a close, and families struggling with the rising price of heating oils, this government is committed to helping ensure that vulnerable families are able to heat their homes and access hot water.
Scotland will receive £4.6 million.
The price of kerosene – the fuel used for heating oil - has been particularly impacted by the conflict in the Middle East and is currently double that of crude oil.
In Great Britain, unlike gas and electricity customers, those who heat their homes with oil are not covered by the energy price cap, meaning they are exposed to more immediate energy price hikes.
Many, including some of the most vulnerable households, will need to pay an upfront lump sum to top up their tanks in order to maintain their heating and hot water.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves said: “Heating oil prices have spiked sharply, and I know that for families in rural communities that is a real and urgent problem.
”That’s why we’re putting over £50 million of support to help the people who need it most, including funding for the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver support in Northern Ireland where this issue hits hardest.”
Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said: “This government is committed to fighting people’s corner in tackling cost of living pressures. With this investment, alongside new measures to protect customers against any unfair practices, we are standing up for the British people.”
To bridge the gap, the Chancellor is announcing over £50 million of targeted financial support, helping low-income households in rural communities who have no choice but to top up their tanks at a time when prices have risen so significantly.
In England, funding will be distributed by local authorities via the Crisis and Resilience Fund (CRF), which comes into effect from 1 April, targeted areas with higher rates of oil heating.
This is a particular issue in Northern Ireland, where a greater proportion of homes rely on heating oil, and we have allocated £17 million to support them. England will receive £27 million, Scotland £4.6 million and Wales £3.8 million.
This funding has been allocated based on census data, reflecting where the greatest need is, and it will be allocated directly to the devolved governments, with the expectation that it will be used to support vulnerable households.
Heating oil is different from other sectors in the energy market as it does not have the same consumer protections and is not regulated by Ofgem. The government intends to introduce new consumer protections for heating oil customers and is rapidly exploring new ways to step in and ensure households are better protected.
This includes:
An agreement secured with industry on a strengthened Code of Practice to rapidly provide enhanced protections to customers, including greater flexibility on delivery volumes and improving price transparency and formalising a Priority Customers Register – meaning all customers who are vulnerable are eligible for prioritised support in times of disruption.
Introducing stronger consumer protections in the heating oil market, which could cover dispute resolution, a greater variety of repayment options for those facing hardship, greater price transparency and enhanced protections for vulnerable groups such as the elderly.
Supporting the Competition and Markets Authority’s plans to carry out a more comprehensive examination of the UK’s heating oil industry.
Exploring the creation of a new ombudsman or appointment of a regulator, such as Ofgem, to champion consumers, and taking powers to do so through the Energy Independence Bill.
Working with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that protections are fit for purpose for Northern Irish households, who are particularly reliant on heating oil.
In addition, the Chancellor earlier this week wrote to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to ask that it remains vigilant across heating oil prices and supports CMA action to tackle unjustified price increases.
The government will not tolerate profiteering or unfair practices and urge customers to share any evidence of price manipulation with the CMA.
Vulnerable households who are facing immediate financial difficulties as a result of rising heating oil prices are encouraged to contact their local authority to find out what support may be available to them.
Chancellor and Energy Secretary to meet with petrol retailers and energy suppliers in Downing Street today with a clear message: drivers must get a fair deal at the pump.
Chancellor asks CMA to crack down on any rip‑offs on road fuel and heating oil — warning she “will not tolerate” firms exploiting the situation to make excess profits.
Fuel Finder will help drivers spot the cheapest forecourt nearby, as Government takes action to ensure all major fuel retailers are signed up.
Rachel Reeves has written to the Competition and Markets Authority requesting it stays on high alert for unjustifiable price rises on petrol, diesel and heating oil, to support families and businesses.
The Chancellor said she is determined to support people with the cost of living amid conflict in the Middle East and will not stand by if firms use uncertainty as cover to push up prices and protect margins at the expense of drivers.
Her intervention comes ahead of a Downing Street roundtable on Friday evening, where petrol retailers and energy suppliers will be pressed on what they are doing to keep prices down — and what more they can do to ensure changes in costs are passed on fairly.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves said: “I will not tolerate any company exploiting the current situation to make excess profits at consumers’ expense.
“I’m backing drivers and families — and I expect a fair deal at the pump.”
Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said:“Tackling the cost of living is our number one priority – all fuel retailers must sign up for Fuel Finder so drivers can find the cheapest price at the pump.
“We will not hesitate to act to protect consumers against any unfair practices.”
TODAY (Friday), the Chancellor and Energy Secretary will call on industry to explain why prices vary so widely, how quickly forecourts respond when costs ease, and what immediate steps firms will take to make sure motorists aren’t left paying over the odds.
The Chancellor noted earlier this week that prices varied from £1.27 per litre to £1.80 per litre between forecourts.
This comes after the Energy Secretary met with the CEO of the Competition and Markets Authority on Tuesday 10 March to discuss ensuring consumers were protected from any unfair price rises.
Drivers should not have to guess whether they’re being overcharged — so the UK Government is accelerating its Fuel Finder, making it easier to see who’s cheapest locally and to take business away from the priciest pumps.
All major supermarkets have confirmed they are now providing real-time data to the government’s Fuel Finder scheme, with almost 90% of retailers already registered, and government taking action on the final 10%.
Greater transparency on prices will drive up competition and is set to see households who own a car save on average £40 a year at the pump.
And the message to any retailer dragging their feet is straightforward: if you won’t be transparent, you’ll be called out — because sunlight on prices is one of the strongest tools consumers have to force competition and drive costs down.
Clearer pricing will help pet owners compare costs and shop around, saving families money
Millions of pet owners and vet professionals across the country will benefit from major reforms to the veterinary sector – the first overhaul in sixty years.
The reforms help households understand what they are paying for, avoid unexpected costs and choose the best value care for their pets.
They come after the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) found problems in the veterinary market could be costing households up to £1 billion over five years. The CMA found that vet fees have risen at nearly twice the rate of inflation – which is why this government is taking action.
The proposals will make the system clearer, fairer and more transparent for owners – while supporting veterinary professionals alike.
Benefits for pet owners:
Clearer prices easing the ability to look around: Vet practices will be required to publish price lists for common treatments, and be transparent about options and changes allowing pet owners to choose the best treatment for their animals. Knowing key prices beforehand helps owners to choose the best value.
More competition to lower costs over time: Vet businesses must disclose who owns them so pet owners know if their local practice is part of a larger chain or independent. This knowledge and price transparency helps owners to decide which practice to use which increases competition and bring down costs over time.
Greater confidence in care: Every vet practice will need an official operating licence – similar to GP surgeries and care homes.
Fairer treatment complaints process: Stronger rules on how veterinary businesses must operate with an easier and more effective route for customers to raise concerns along with more support offered to allow vets and vet nurses to carry out their roles successfully; benefitting animal health and welfare.
Better access to quality care: New measures will bring veterinary nurses and certain allied veterinary professionals into regulation, freeing up veterinary surgeons to focus on more specialist care, improving access and reducing delays.
Benefits for veterinary professionals:
Legal recognition for veterinary nurses to strengthen professional identity, helping improve job satisfaction and boosting retention rates.
Regulatory oversight of veterinary businesses, not just individual vets, so the responsibility for upholding standards is shared and clearer.
Modernised processes for registration and “fitness to practice”, focusing on current competence rather than past mistakes.
A modern governance model for the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), whose current structure has remained largely unchanged since 1966 and now lags behind other healthcare regulators. Proposals will reduce potential conflicts of interest and strengthen public and professional trust.
Animal Welfare Minister Baroness Hayman said: “Pets are part of the family, and owners deserve clear information, fair treatment and confidence in the care their animals receive.
“We’re focused on making vet services work better for families by improving transparency, increasing choice and helping people make informed decisions, while continuing to support the professionals who care for our animals.”
UK Chief Veterinary Officer Dr Christine Middlemiss said: “Updating these rules will help build a modern veterinary service that is easier for the public to understand and navigate, while strengthening animal health outcomes and supporting a skilled, resilient workforce.
“Reforming the Veterinary Surgeons Act is a crucial step towards building a stronger, more resilient profession. This consultation gives pet owners and professionals the chance to help shape a system that works better for everyone.”
British Veterinary Association President Dr. Rob Williams MRCVS said: “Veterinary teams play a vital role in society, from caring for the nation’s animals and supporting our farmers and food production, through to assisting international trade, disease control and public health.
If we’re to continue delivering this work effectively, we need reformed veterinary legislation, and those changes will impact how we go about all aspects of our work; it’s therefore imperative that colleagues engage with Defra’s proposals, ensure their voices are heard and grasp this opportunity to shape a veterinary sector that’s fit for the 21st century.”
Martin Coleman, Chair of the CMA Inquiry Group said: “We welcome the government’s consultation to update this vital regulation and protect pet owners.
“Our vets investigation is ongoing, but we have already set out our strong concern that the current rules are not fit for purpose and need reforming to keep pace with commercial practice and further build pet owner trust in veterinary businesses.”
Why change is needed:
60% of vet practices are owned by non-vets, with many operating under unclear ownership structures. The reforms propose a new licencing system requiring businesses to meet clear standards – with enforcement action, including potential loss of licence, where they fail to do so.
A modern disciplinary process will accompany the reforms, with a wider range of sanctions to ensure customer concerns are properly addressed and support veterinary professionals to safely carry out their roles. This will work to improve care whilst reducing punitive outcomes and will benefit both owners and professionals alike.
Veterinary professionals are essential to the UK’s high animal health and welfare standards. These reforms strengthen professional recognition, modernise outdated regulation and help safeguard the profession’s ability to continue to protect the UK from the threats to disease and food security.
This announcement follows the publication of the Animal Welfare Strategy, and is part of this Government’s ambitious reforms to animal welfare – improving the lives of millions of animals across the UK.
The consultation will run for 8 weeks.
Rocio Concha, Which? Director of Policy and Advocacy, said: “For years, Which? has been exposing unclear pricing and poor practice in the vet industry so it’s good to see the government taking steps to modernise the sector and ensure it treats pet owners fairly.
“The current regulation is decades out of date and oversight of veterinary businesses, not just individual vets, is urgently needed. The government needs to ensure that its new licensing system has the right sanctions in place for businesses which break the rules.
“The government must ensure these changes are introduced as soon as possible to restore consumer confidence in the sector. As part of these reforms, it should also legislate to establish a mandatory Ombudsman scheme with the power to make binding judgements about customer complaints and take action against any vets or vet practices falling short.”
BVA calls on vets to support reform of outdated veterinary legislation as Government launches proposals
Following years of campaigning by the British Veterinary Association (BVA), the UK Government has today (27 January 2026) taken a major step towards reforming the outdated Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (VSA), launching a public consultation seeking views on its proposals for reformed legislation.
The consultation will run for eight weeks and seeks input from across the veterinary team and from the public on a range of proposals that could see significant changes to how veterinary professionals are regulated, including the introduction of regulation for allied veterinary professionals (e.g. equine dental technicians and cattle hoof trimmers); vet businesses could be regulated for the first time; and there could be significant changes to the governance arrangements including the roles undertaken by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS).
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has published its proposals following months of intensive engagement with a group of key organisations including BVA, RCVS, the British Veterinary Nursing Association (BVNA) and the Vet Schools Council (VSC), to understand the challenges and opportunities facing the sector and develop recommendations on what the options for proposed reform could look like.
Reform of the VSA will have a significant impact on vets’ daily work, the service they provide their clients and the care given to animals. BVA will formally respond to the consultation on behalf of its members. BVA is also strongly encouraging all vets to support reform by engaging with the proposals and sharing their views with Defra via the consultation.
British Veterinary Association President Dr. Rob Williams MCVRS said: “Vets play a vital role in society, from caring for the nation’s animals and supporting our farmers and food production, through to assisting international trade, disease control and public health.
“If we’re to continue delivering this work effectively, we urgently need reformed veterinary legislation, and those changes will impact how we go about all aspects of our work. It’s therefore imperative that colleagues engage with Defra’s proposals, ensure their voices are heard and grasp this opportunity to shape veterinary legislation that’s fit for the 21st century.”
For more information on what Defra’s proposals mean, BVA members can access a series of recorded webinars explaining the detail.
There is also a Frequently Asked Questions section on the BVA website:
As part of the government’s drive to bring down the cost of living, the Chancellor has written to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) urging them to launch a market study into private dentistry costs and practices.
There are increasing concerns that patients are paying more than they should because of hidden costs, overtreatment and lack of information on price, ownership and quality of treatment.
It comes alongside reports of private practices offering to take on children of customers as NHS patients only if parents sign on as private patients.
The Chancellor also informed the CMA that following their investigation into petrol forecourts and recommendations to bring greater price transparency, Motorists will start to see data in their mapping apps, satnavs and price comparison websites which will let them know where to get the best price at the pump for fuel in their local area early next year.
This scheme was a recommendation made by the Competition and Markets Authority after they found that the amount retailers make in profit on every £1 spent on fuel has more than doubled at some supermarkets, with similar increases at other forecourts.
During this time, this government has kept fuel duty frozen to support households and businesses, which suggests that savings on fuel duty have not been passed onto customers
Fuel providers will have to report changes to fuel prices in near real time so that savvy drivers can compare to get the best price. Government officials estimate that this could knock £40 a year off a household’s annual fuel bill or up to 6p a litre.
With prices openly available, this is also an incentive for fuel providers to offer drivers more competitive prices.
The Chancellor also confirmed that the government is ready to act on the CMA’s recent investigation into the veterinary sector, with further details due to be set out in due course
This comes as the Chancellor prepares for the Budget next week of which tackling the cost of living is a key priority while also focusing on continuing to cut waiting lists and bring down the national debt.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves said:“The scourge of hidden costs, lack of transparency and overtreatment has blighted families in need of dental treatment for too long.
“That’s why I want to see urgent action taken to help reduce prices, whilst the cost of living still puts pressure on families across the country.
“At next week’s Budget I’ll set out the fair choices I will take to deliver on the public’s priorities: cutting NHS waiting lists, cutting national debt and cutting the cost of living.”
Major reforms would require vet businesses to make ‘fundamental changes’ to the way they support pet owners
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has today published the provisional decision in its market investigation into the UK’s £6.3 billion veterinary services market.
Proposals to transform consumer experience will lead to more choice and savings.
Twenty-one measures proposed, including better information on prices, treatments, medicines and ownership, a price cap on written prescriptions and a new comprehensive price comparison website.
Current regulatory system not fit for purpose and must be modernised to keep pace with commercial practice and ensure pet owners are protected.
CMA Provisional Finding
The market investigation – which is principally into vet businesses, not individual vets – identifies concerns, including that pet owners:
are often unaware of the prices of commonly used services and whether their local practices are part of large national chains
have no effective way of comparing vet prices when they get a pet or move areas
may be paying twice as much for commonly prescribed medicines from vet practices than they could pay online, amounting to hundreds of pounds more than they need to pay
often receive no written estimate for courses of treatment running to hundreds – or even thousands – of pounds
are often unable to tell if they are getting good value for money from pet care plans
may be overpaying for individual cremations often have no effective means of complaining when things go wrong
These factors are market wide and mean consumers do not benefit from strong competition between vet businesses. Average vet prices across the market rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023 – well above the rate of inflation.
The CMA also found that pet owners pay 16.6% more on average at large vet groups than at independent vets. For at least 3 of those large groups, average prices increased faster at practices they bought than at practices that remained independent. For a substantial part of the market as a whole, profits are much higher than they should be if competition was working well.
In addition, the CMA has found that the current regulatory system is not fit for purpose. It only regulates individual veterinary professionals and not vet businesses, despite the majority of practices being part of a large corporate group.
Given its market-wide concerns, the CMA’s independent expert inquiry group has provisionally decided that a far-reaching package of 21 measures is required to address the above concerns and reinvigorate competition in this market.
Martin Coleman, Chair of the Inquiry Group, said: “Pet owners are often left in the dark, not knowing whether their practice is independent or part of a chain or what a fair price looks like.
“They are sometimes committing to expensive treatment without understanding the price in advance. And they do not always feel confident asking for a prescription or buying medicine online – even when it could save them hundreds of pounds.
“Even where pet owners could access some of this information, it is difficult for them to compare prices and services – despite the fact that, in most of the country, there are several local practices they could choose between.
“We are proposing major reforms aimed at bringing about a transformation in the experience of pet owners and empowering them to make the best choices for their circumstances.
“We believe that our proposals would enable pet owners to choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to purchase medicine – without confusion or unnecessary cost.”
CMA’s proposed remedies
The CMA is today proposing a wide-ranging set of remedies to address these issues, including:
Requiring vet businesses to publish comprehensive price lists, be clear if they are part of a large group, and make sure that their policies and processes allow vets to act in the best interests of pets and pet owners. These measures will give pet owners the information they need to choose the right practice and treatment options for them.
Making it easier for pet owners to access cheaper medicines online, including by requiring vets to tell pet owners about savings they make by buying medicines online and, where a medicine is likely to be needed frequently, automatically providing a written prescription to enable the pet owner to purchase the medicine elsewhere (unless the pet owner chooses otherwise), and capping the price of providing prescriptions at £16. These measures will help prompt consumers to consider buying medication online and protect them from having to pay excessive prices for the prescriptions they would need to do so.
Requiring vets to give pet owners clear price information when they are choosing a treatment, with prices in writing for treatments over £500 and itemised bills. This will make it easier for consumers to consider different treatment options and providers.
Requiring the RCVS to enhance its Find a Vet website to include pricing data drawing on the price lists vets will be required to publish; this data can also be used by third party websites and apps. This will allow consumers to compare vet prices much more effectively, for instance when they first get a pet or move areas.
Requiring vets to give clear price information to pet owners arranging a cremation. This is important to allow pet owners to make the best decisions for their circumstances, at an especially emotional time.
Requiring vets to give pricing breakdowns for pet care plans. This will allow pet owners to better decide if these would provide good value for money in their own circumstances.
Recommending that the government urgently prioritises a new Veterinary Surgeons Act and updates regulation to include veterinary businesses, as well as individual vets and nurses, and give the regulator powers to set and enforce requirements and standards for these businesses. Reform is needed to make sure pet owners’ interests are protected and there is an effective complaints handling route if things go wrong.
The main focus of the inquiry is into veterinary businesses, not individual vets. The CMA is concerned to hear that some vets and vet nurses face abuse from frustrated clients – they deserve respect, not hostility.
The proposed remedies would be good for vets, further enhancing trust in the profession and protecting clinical judgment from undue commercial pressure.
Implementation
The CMA’s final decision will be published by March 2026. The reforms would be implemented through a legally binding CMA Order and could see some measures coming into force before the end of 2026. Small vet businesses will be given additional time for implementation.
Vet businesses can make changes that would benefit their customers in the meantime, and the CMA encourages them to consider doing so.
The CMA fully recognises that the proposed changes would require businesses to adapt systems or make other changes which would incur some administrative costs. The CMA’s provisional view is that the benefits to consumers of these measures would far outweigh the costs to businesses.
Next steps
The CMA will now consult on the Provisional Decision. All interested parties are welcome to respond to the provisional conclusions by the deadline of Wednesday 12 November 2025 via our consultation page.
For further information, visit the Veterinary services case page, which includes key statistics and the administrative timetable.
The British Veterinary Association (BVA), which represents more than 19,000 vets across the UK, has responded to the CMA’s ‘provisional decision’ following its market investigation into UK veterinary services for household pets.
The report, published today (Wednesday 15 October), was clear that ‘veterinary professionals work hard, act ethically, and put animal welfare first’.
It also set out 21 measures that it believes will improve ‘information on prices, treatments, medicines and ownership; introduce a price cap on written prescriptions; deliver a new comprehensive price comparison website; and highlights that the current regulatory system is not fit for purpose and must be modernised to keep pace with commercial practice and ensure pet owners are protected.’
Responding to the CMA’s provisional decision, British Veterinary Association President Dr. Rob Williams said: “At first glance, there’s lots of positives in the CMA’s provisional decision that both vets and pet owners will welcome, including greater transparency of pricing and practice ownership; reform of the outdated regulatory framework; and support for our calls for regulation of vet businesses. The CMA also recognises that vets and vet teams are highly professional, and ‘work hard, act ethically, and put animal welfare first’.
“However, we do have concerns that some of the measures outlined will impact how services are delivered.
“In particular, we need clarity on the proposed introduction of comprehensive price lists, because how vet care is delivered is varied and complex and unless the CMA gets this right, it could end up creating greater confusion for consumers, which in turn could have a negative impact on animal welfare.”
A speech delivered by Martin Coleman, Inquiry Chair for the CMA’s market investigation into veterinary services for household pets at the BVA Congress at the London Vet Show:
Introduction
As an owner of cats and dogs for many years – I currently have a very energetic Sprocker spaniel – I have great respect for veterinary professionals and the care they give, sometimes in very pressured and emotive circumstances. Nothing we have seen or heard in our inquiry so far has caused me to have doubts about the care and professionalism of the vast majority of veterinary professionals.
The focus of our inquiry is not on that but on how veterinary services for pets are bought and sold – whether there are aspects of that process, or the market structure itself, that are not working as well as they might to provide competitive services to consumers
Competition and animal welfare
And competition is important, not only to ensure that clients get good services at fair prices, but to the animals whose health and welfare is rightly at the heart of veterinary practice. In a service that is, in the main, commercially operated, the welfare of animals is closely connected to the means of owners to pay for diagnostics, medicines and treatments. To state the obvious, the health and welfare of animals cannot be effectively protected if owners are unable to meet the costs of doing so. Competitive markets keep prices down and, importantly, incentivise investment and innovation in different treatments and business models. There is a clear connection between protecting the health and welfare of animals and seeking to ensure that markets for veterinary services are working well.
This connection between effective competition and the ability of patients to access clinical services and medicines is perhaps less apparent in the UK than in some other countries because human medical services, for most patients, are available without charge and NHS medicines are provided at standardised prices and, in some cases, free. So clients have no point of comparison when faced with the price of veterinary services and vets have less external context to judge the role of competition in a clinical setting
Context of the investigation
While the provision of veterinary services has, in large part, always been a business, recent developments including increased corporate ownership of vet practices, price rises and questions about the nature and extent of treatments offered have raised questions about whether competition is working as effectively as it might to help contain costs, improve quality and encourage innovation in the interests of consumers and the animals that they own. This was the context in which our market investigation was set up.
We have yet to determine whether such concerns are justified. And, even if they are, we shall seek to understand whether they may be connected. As all good scientists know, correlation is not the same as causation.
There might for example be a causal link between increased corporate ownership and price increases but equally the two may not be connected and there may be other factors at play including a reduction in the number of vets following Brexit and the increase in pet ownership in recent years.
Changes in the nature and intensity of treatment may be an indication of new commercial profit-maximising strategies but may, for example, reflect developments in technology and changing pet owner perceptions of what is best for their animals.
Our job is to get to the bottom of how the market is working – allegations are one thing, hard evidence is another and we are interested in the evidence.
The process
We are now almost a third of the way through our market investigation. Although we have not been able to say much publicly yet, because we are assessing the evidence and forming our views, we have been very busy. It is a long process because we take the responsibility of exploring the veterinary sector very seriously, and we want to base any action we take – or recommendations we make – on a thorough look at the evidence, allowing enough time to engage with key stakeholders including, of course, the veterinary profession.
We have therefore invested a lot of time in engaging with the profession and its clients to get a full picture of how the sector works. We have held teach ins with, and been on site visits to, each of the large corporate groups, as well as site visits at independently owned practices. We have had the chance to talk formally and informally with senior executives and the people on the ground and with representative bodies.
We have held roundtables with veterinary professionals from different backgrounds including the heads of vet schools, chief veterinary officers at charities, vet nurses, students and newly established vets. We have had discussions with consumer groups, animal charities and regulators.
These have been hugely valuable in giving us an understanding of the challenges facing the sector, the complexities of professional life and business, the experience of consumers and the possibilities for change. Thanks to all who have been part of that process. This engagement will continue as we progress the investigation and in particular will include discussions on any remedies we consider may be appropriate to address any concerns we identify.
Gathering evidence, and then analysing it properly and fairly, takes time – particularly in a complex professional setting.
We have requested information from vet businesses (small and large), including on profitability and business strategies.
We are looking at data on prices charged and treatments bought.
We are mapping all the vet practices in the UK and who owns them for every local area. We have commissioned research – both interviews with veterinary professionals and a survey of pet owners.
We are seeking to understand how the medicine supply chain impacts consumer prices.
We are reviewing the relationships between first opinion practices and referral services and out of hours services and how this may impact consumers.
Later in the process we shall be holding a number of formal hearings.
We are very aware that this is an area of some complexity, and we shall need to assess all the potential consequences of any interventions we are considering We shall consider how far potential remedies are aligned with our statutory responsibilities, workable for the profession and its clients and contribute to the outcome that we all want – a market where competition works well with consumers getting a choice of good quality services at fair prices and providers receiving an appropriate return for their investment and service.
This is why we place such importance in our process on hearing your views and consulting with the sector, the profession and pet owners as we develop any potential remedies.
I know that such a significant investigation creates uncertainty, although I would remind you that the inquiry is in part a response to concerns that have been expressed about veterinary services, not the cause of those concerns. We have not yet reached any conclusions on how well the market is operating; but whether the eventual conclusions are that all is well, or that there are areas of concern which we would seek to address, I would hope that the result will contribute to the further building of confidence in a profession consisting of hard working dedicated and committed practitioners performing important work.
Regulation
One theme common to nearly all we have spoken to, including the RCVS, is that the regulatory system needs reform to better serve the profession and the public. I used to be a practising solicitor and sat as a member of the board of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, so I know from my own experience that a well-functioning market in professional services requires regulation.
A race to the bottom is not in the interests of animals, owners or the veterinary profession, and it is the job of regulation to ensure that this does not happen. And changes to regulation might help address some of the challenges faced by the sector, for example by widening the range of procedures that veterinary nurses can be authorised to perform – this is something we shall need to think about.
More broadly it is legitimate to ask whether regulation is too lax or too intrusive; its scope too broad or not wide enough; whether there are more proportionate ways of achieving desired outcomes; whether the current regulatory structure is optimal in protecting public interests and whether the regulatory system gives proper weight to the interrelationship between animal welfare, the needs of consumers and the benefits of a competitive process.
These are issues we are considering and will be taken into account in any recommendations on regulatory reform that we make to the government for them to consider taking forward.
Medicines
An example of the interplay between animal welfare, competition, cost and regulation concerns medicines. We have heard veterinary professionals, and their clients, indicate frustration with certain aspects of the way that medicines are supplied, purchased and regulated.
Some of the important issues around medicines we are considering include:
the options available to pet owners when buying animal medicines, and how much they know about these
the barriers to telemedicine and remote prescribing, for both vets and pet owners
the discounts and other terms available to independent vets and larger vet groups from medicines manufacturers and other suppliers
the role of generic prescribing
the mark-ups on medicines and whether these mark-ups influence consultation fees charged by vets and, if so, what this might mean for competition
We have heard concerns about the high cost of certain drugs licensed for animals compared to the drugs’ human equivalents and about very large price increases when branded versions of medicines for animals have been authorised. We have been told by some vets that they are frustrated by the lack of flexibility in the Cascade, which, among other things, sets out the circumstances in which a human medicine may be prescribed or recommended for animal use.
These are a particularly acute problems for some pet owners, given recent cost of living pressures and the rising costs of caring for a pet. Vets told us that in some cases – and more than they would like – pet owners are not able to afford the drugs with an animal licence and therefore animals are remaining untreated – or even being euthanised – when they could be treated if vets could prescribe cheaper human medicines but they believe that they are forbidden from doing so.
It is not our job to second guess the clinical, scientific and public health judgments of the specialist regulators. We know that there are good reasons for prescribing medicines specifically manufactured for animal use, such as targeted dosing and the supporting pharmacovigilance regime to ensure continued safety. But it is our role to ask whether the regulatory process gives appropriate consideration to competition and the impact of that on consumers and prices (which may have implications for animal welfare). Albeit the view we ultimately take may be that there are parts of medicines regulation that involve expert judgments, and public policy considerations, that are for specialist regulators and elected government to assess.
And there may be things that can be done to improve matters even before we report. Government policy has been that cost alone is not a sufficient reason to move straight to prescribing a human medicine under the Cascade and we respect that. However, might it, for example, be possible for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the RCVS (who effectively police Cascade use) to work together to give guidance to vets on circumstances where, if a pet owner clearly cannot afford an animal medicine with the consequence that an animal would go untreated, a vet would be safe to prescribe or recommend a cheaper human equivalent in order to protect the health and welfare of the animal?
Informed consumers and treatment intensity
For the market to work well, consumers must be appropriately informed about the choices they can make when selecting a veterinary practice, whether that be a first opinion practice, a referral centre or an out of hours service, and when considering diagnostic options and treatments.
This is not just a matter of cost but also because, in similar circumstances, each owner will have their own views about what is best for their pet, and each vet and practice will have distinct capabilities. We are considering whether the information consumers have at different stages of their animal care journey facilitates good decision-making and how far pet owners are in a position to act on those decisions.
This does not mean that dealings between a vet and client are, or should be, purely transactional. Relationships, trust and confidence matter, and we have heard this consistently from vets and clients. But this is not an either/or debate – appropriately informed consumers making choices versus trusted relationships. The two are connected. Trust can be built and retained if consumers know that their vet, and the recommendations the vet makes, are the best for them in their particular circumstances.
We have heard about the increasing sophistication in diagnostics and treatments. There is a debate around how best to handle the challenge of ensuring that pet owners are properly informed at the right time about the choices available while receiving appropriate guidance and support on sometimes very complex options. One approach that has been much discussed is contextualised care, to tailor what a vet offers to the specific needs of the pet and its owner.
A number of vets have told us that contextualised care is a new term for what good vets have always done. Others have said that it is a valuable new focus for good practice. We have also been told, by vets who work in the charity sector, about pragmatic care, which can be thought of as aiming to capture much of the benefit of the increasingly sophisticated treatments available at a reasonable cost.
We are looking into these trends in diagnostics and treatments and what they mean for competition, pet owners and animal welfare.
Conclusion
What happens next? We’re preparing a series of (what we call) working papers, where we set out the evidence we have gathered so far and our initial analysis of what this shows. These will be published in a few months and will give interested people and businesses a chance to see how our thinking is developing and the opportunity to comment.
We are expecting to publish our provisional conclusions in early summer next year, when we shall be consulting on what we have found and what we are considering doing about it. This might include making orders that are directly binding and recommendations for change which would be for others to consider and implement.
As I said we are very keen to get the views of the profession on the topics we are considering and, in that spirit, I am looking forward to hearing the panel discussion during the second part of this session.
The Inquiry Group – made up of independent experts who will lead the market investigation – has set out its areas of focus
Following the launch of its market investigation into the vets sector, and in line with our usual market investigation procedures, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has today published an issues statement which sets out the Inquiry Group’s initial theories on what might be affecting competition in the sector and the potential solutions or ‘remedies’ that could be considered.
These reflect the concerns and potential remedies set out during the CMA’s market review. The issues statement covers the types of further evidence the Group plans to collect in order to test these theories and explore any remedies needed.
The issues statement does not set out any findings or conclusions at this early stage of the investigation – it is for the Group to determine whether there are competition concerns in the market and how best to address them.
In determining its initial areas of focus, the Group – chaired by Martin Coleman – has considered all the work carried out so far, including evidence gathered during the market review and responses to the consultation on whether to launch a market investigation.
The Group will gather a wide range of evidence including information from veterinary professionals and businesses of all sizes, suppliers to those businesses, regulators and pet owners. The Group plans to hold hearings and roundtables, visit veterinary practices and referral hospitals to understand the vet sector more fully, and publish working papers to share its emerging thinking at certain points in the investigation.
At this early stage in the investigation, publishing this issues statement will assist those submitting evidence to focus on the issues the Group is most concerned about. As the investigation progresses, further issues may be identified.
The CMA must generally conclude a market investigation within 18 months from the date that the reference is made (with a potential additional 6 months for putting remedies in place) and the final report is expected by November 2025 at the latest.
The consultation on this issues statement is open until midnight on 30 July 2024 and responses should be sent to vetsMI@cma.gov.uk. The Group will consider the views it receives as part of its ongoing investigation.
For more information, including the full administrative timetable and members of the Inquiry Group, visit the Vets case page. This page includes a video to Martin Coleman, Chair of the Inquiry Group and a member of the case team, answering questions about the investigation.
The Investigation timeline so far:
The CMA launched a market review on 7 September 2023.
A consultation on the proposal to launch a market investigation reference opened on 12 March 2024.
On 23 May 2024, the CMA, in exercise of its powers under sections 131 and 133 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (the Act), launched a full market investigation in relation to the supply of veterinary services for household pets in the United Kingdom.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) has welcomed the Competition and Market Authority’s (CMA) announcement of its decision to proceed with a formal market investigation into veterinary services in the domestic pet market, and continues to recognise the strength and breadth of feeling expressed by members of both the animal-owning public and the veterinary professions in the CMA’s initial review.
In particular, with no current legal powers to regulate veterinary practices (only individual vets and vet nurses), the RCVS shares the CMA’s concern that the current regulatory framework is out of date and might be preventing the market from functioning as well as it could.
Having sought modernisation of the College’s regulatory framework through new legislation for some considerable time, to include new mandatory regulation of veterinary practices, the College is now looking forward to working closely with the CMA to help effect the necessary legislative change by government.
Speaking shortly after the CMA’s announcement, RCVS President Dr Sue Paterson, commented: “As we said in March, we recognise that the large response to the CMA’s initial survey reflects an overall desire for change amongst animal owners and veterinary professionals alike to some parts of the veterinary sector, so we support the CMA’s decision now to proceed with a market investigation.
“Whilst it is not in our remit as a professional regulator to influence business structures, local markets or price levels, we do understand the CMA’s concerns over clarity of medicines supply options and pricing information and are already working to make our existing professional guidance on these issues clearer and easier for vets and vet nurses to follow.
“We are particularly keen to work with the CMA to persuade government of the urgent need to modernise the Veterinary Surgeons Act, so that we have stronger powers to regulate veterinary practices as well as individual veterinary professionals, and are calling on political parties to commit to introducing new legislation in the next parliament, ahead of the forthcoming election.
“We remain very concerned, however, about the worrying spike in abusive behaviour and harassment by some animal owners towards vets, vet nurses and practice colleagues following media reporting of the CMA’s initial findings back in March.
“We sincerely hope not to see a repeat of this behaviour towards the extremely hard-working and conscientious veterinary professionals up and down the country, over 11,000 of whom responded to the CMA’s review, and who may themselves welcome its intervention.
“In the meantime, we look forward to working closely with the CMA to bring about veterinary legislative reform to modernise our regulatory framework and, via our newly-established CMA Working Group, we will be ready to provide as much information and insight into the veterinary sector as we are able.”
The CMA has today published its main concerns following an initial review into the veterinary sector
CMA provisionally decides it should launch a formal Market Investigation.
Initial review prompts over 56,000 responses from public and vet industry.
The review by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) highlights multiple concerns in the market, including:
Consumers may not be given enough information to enable them to choose the best veterinary practice or the right treatment for their needs.
Concentrated local markets, in part driven by sector consolidation, may be leading to weak competition in some areas.
Large corporate groups may have incentives to act in ways which reduce choice and weaken competition.
Pet owners might be overpaying for medicines or prescriptions.
The regulatory framework is outdated and may no longer be fit for purpose.
The CMA has provisionally decided that it should launch a formal Market Investigation focused on its provisional analysis of the issues in the sector and is now consulting on this proposal.
A Market Investigation enables the CMA to investigate its concerns in full and to intervene directly in markets if it finds that competition is not working well. Along with compelling those under investigation to provide information, it gives the CMA access to a wide range of legally enforceable remedies, such as mandating the provision of certain information to consumers, imposing maximum prescription fees and ordering the sale or disposal of a business or assets.
Sarah Cardell, Chief Executive of the CMA, said: “We launched our review of the veterinary sector last September because this is a critical market for the UK’s 16 million pet owners.The unprecedented response we received from the public and veterinary professionals shows the strength of feeling on this issue is high and why we were right to look into this.
“We have heard concerns from those working in the sector about the pressures they face, including acute staff shortages, and the impact this has on individual professionals. But our review has identified multiple concerns with the market that we think should be investigated further.
“These include pet owners finding it difficult to access basic information like price lists and prescription costs – and potentially overpaying for medicines. We are also concerned about weak competition in some areas, driven in part by sector consolidation, and the incentives for large corporate groups to act in ways which may reduce competition and choice.
“Given these strong indications of potential concern, it is time to put our work on a formal footing. We have provisionally decided to launch a market investigation because that’s the quickest route to enable us to take direct action, if needed.”
The CMA’s concerns
Based on the evidence gathered so far, the CMA has 5 key concerns that it proposes to investigate further:
Consumers may not be given enough information to enable them to choose the best veterinary practice or the right treatment for their needs.
Most vet practices do not display prices on their website – of those practices checked, over 80% had no pricing information online, even for the most basic services. Pet owners tend not to shop around between vet practices and assume prices will be similar, although that is not always the case.
People are not always informed of the cost of treatment before agreeing to it – around one fifth of respondents to the CFI said that they were not provided with any cost information before agreeing to tests, around one in 10 said they were not provided with cost information before their pet had surgery, and around half said they were not informed about costs before agreeing to out of hours treatment.
A company can own multiple vet practices in a local area without making that clear – for example, only 4 out of 6 of the largest groups don’t change the name or branding when they take over an independently owned vet practice. This means pet owners are not always comparing competitors when choosing a vet practice.
Concentrated local markets, in part driven by sector consolidation, may be leading to weak competition in some areas.
Market concentration measures how many competitors operate in a particular market – the fewer firms operating in a market, the more concentrated it is.
In 2013, around 10% of vet practices belonged to large groups, but that share is now almost 60%, and many of the large groups have expressed an intention to continue expanding their business through acquisition of independently owned practices.
To illustrate this another way, since 2013 1,500 of the 5,000 vet practices in the UK have been acquired by the 6 large corporate groups (CVS, IVC, Linnaeus, Medivet, Pets at Home and VetPartners).
This may reduce the number of business models in locations where most or all of the first opinion practices are owned by one large corporate group, giving less choice to consumers because they tend to choose practices close to home.
Large integrated groups may have incentives to act in ways which reduce choice and weaken competition.
Given the significant and ongoing growth of large corporate groups, the CMA is concerned that:
The large, integrated corporate groups (especially those whose business models include significant investment in advanced equipment) may concentrate on providing more sophisticated, higher cost treatments, meaning that consumers are less able to access simpler, lower cost treatments even if they would prefer that option.
To varying extents, the large vet groups have also bought businesses which offer related services such as specialised referral centres, out of hours care, diagnostic labs and/or crematoria. These large groups may have the incentive and ability to keep provision of these related services within the group, potentially leading to reduced choice, higher prices, lower quality and exit of independent competitors.
Pet owners might be overpaying for medicines or prescriptions.
Vets must use signs in reception or treatment rooms to tell customers that they can get a prescription for medicine and buy it elsewhere, but the CMA is concerned that these may not be effective. While it can be convenient to buy a medicine directly from the vet as part of a consultation, around 25% of pet owners did not know that getting a prescription filled elsewhere was an option – meaning they are missing out on potential savings, even with the prescription fee.
Some vet practices may make up to a quarter of their income selling medicines – so there may be little incentive to make pet owners aware of alternatives.
The current regulatory regime may contribute to concerns by restricting veterinary practices’ ability to source cheaper medicines online.
The regulatory framework is outdated and may no longer be fit for purpose.
The main regulation in the industry dates from 1966, before non-vets were able to own vet practices. It relates to individual practitioners, not practice owners or vet practices as businesses. This means that the statutory regulator, the RCVS, has limited leverage over the commercial and consumer-facing aspects of veterinary businesses, for example how prices are communicated or whether there is transparency about ownership of vet practices or related services.
The RCVS has put in place a Practice Standards Scheme which applies to the vet practice rather than individual vets. Only 69% of eligible practices have signed up to this voluntary scheme, meaning that almost a third of the market has not committed to this approach.
The provisional view is that outcomes for consumers could be improved if regulatory requirements and/or elements of best practice could be monitored or enforced more effectively.
Next steps
The CMA has launched a 4-week consultation to seek views from the sector on the proposal to launch a market investigation. The consultation closes on 11 April 2023 at which point it will consider the responses received and a decision will be made on how to proceed.
For further information visit the veterinary services case page. This includes the consultation document which sets out more details and statistics on today’s update.
A response from the British Veterinary Association to follow
The CMA has concluded its independent study into the music streaming market
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has published its final report and found that consumers have benefited from digitisation and competition between music streaming services.
Prices for consumers have fallen by more than 20% in real terms between 2009 and 2021 – with many services also offering music streaming for free with ads.
The study found that there were around 39 million monthly listeners in the UK, streaming 138 billion times a year.
The CMA also heard concerns from creators – artists and songwriters – about how much they earn from streaming. With an increasing number of artists, tracks and streams, the money from streaming is shared more widely – with those that have the highest number of streams earning the most. The CMA found that over 60% of streams were of music recorded by only the top 0.4% of artists.
The CMA found that the concerns raised by artists are not being driven by the level of concentration of the recording market. Analysis found that neither record labels nor streaming services are likely to be making significant excess profits that could be shared with creators.
Consequently, the issues concerning creators would not be addressed by measures intended to improve competition, but instead would need other policy measures in order to be addressed.
Digitisation has led to a major increase in the amount of music people have access to and to large increases in the number of artists releasing music (up from 200,000 in 2014 to 400,000 in 2020) partly by opening up new direct routes to listeners.
This has also meant that there is greater competition to reach listeners and for the associated streaming revenues. The study found that an artist could expect to earn around £12,000 from 12 million streams in the UK in 2021, but less than 1% of artists achieve that level of streams.
Some parts of the streaming market have improved for some creators in recent years, with the CMA finding a greater choice of deals with record labels available. Whilst individual deals can vary considerably, the report highlighted on average royalty rates in major deals with artists have increased steadily from 19.7% in 2012 to 23.3% in 2021. For songwriters, the share of revenues going to publishing rights has increased significantly from 8% in 2008 to 15% in 2021.
While the CMA understands the concerns from creators about the level of income many receive, the analysis in the study suggests it is unlikely that an intervention by the CMA would release additional money into the system to pay creators more.
The study does however highlight that the issues raised by creators could be further considered by government and policymakers as part of their ongoing work following the DCMS Select Committee’s inquiry into the economics of music streaming.
Sarah Cardell, Interim CEO of the CMA, said: “Streaming has transformed how music fans access vast catalogues of music, providing a valuable platform for artists to reach new listeners quickly, and at a price for consumers that has declined in real terms over the years.
“However, we heard from many artists and songwriters across the UK about how they struggle to make a decent living from these services. These are understandable concerns, but our findings show that these are not the result of ineffective competition – and intervention by the CMA would not release more money into the system that would help artists or songwriters.
“While this report marks the end of the CMA’s market study, which addresses the concerns previously posed about competition, we also hope the detailed and evidence-based picture we have been able to build of this relatively new sector will provide a basis that can be used by policymakers to consider whether additional action is needed to help creators.”
