Veterinary Surgeons Act (VSA) Reform and the Future of Hoof Care?
A welfare-led case for recognising modern scopes of practice
About this article - The proposed reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act could reshape how equine hoof care is defined and regulated across the UK. While Defra’s White Paper identifies farriers and barefoot trimmers, it does not clearly recognise equine podiatrists who use non-metal additive orthoses such as therapeutic boots, pads and composite applications.
This article explores how the proposed activity-based regulatory framework could address that gap. By allowing the regulator to review professional remits, qualifications and permitted procedures, the new system offers an opportunity to recognise distinct hoof-care scopes based on competence, risk and evidence rather than historic professional boundaries. It argues that licensing alone will not improve equine welfare: education, continuing competence, referral responsibilities and professional accountability must all be connected to meaningful welfare outcomes for the horse.
The Government’s White Paper, Our vision for a thriving veterinary sector, proposes replacing the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 with a modern regulatory framework for veterinary and animal healthcare.
For equine hoof care, this could be much more than an administrative change. It is an opportunity to reconsider how different forms of hoof care are defined, taught and regulated—and how professional competence is connected to the welfare of the horse.
The White Paper proposes bringing both farriers and equine barefoot trimmers into the wider veterinary regulatory framework. Farriers would enter the first implementation tranche alongside veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses. Equine barefoot trimmers would be included in the next tranche with several allied veterinary professions. The word “tranche” refers to the proposed order of implementation. It does not define a practitioner’s professional or clinical scope.
Under the proposals, people carrying out regulated veterinary or animal healthcare activities would require a licence to practise. The regulator would be responsible for setting qualification standards, Day One Competencies, continuing professional development requirements and fitness-to-practise arrangements. The Government also proposes repealing the Farriers Registration Act 1975 and bringing farriery into the new regulatory structure.
These are significant changes. However, the most important opportunity for hoof care may lie in the way the new system would define professional activities.
THE DECISIVE SHIFT TOWARDS SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES
The White Paper says that fixing the activities each profession may perform in primary legislation is no longer considered best practice. Instead, Defra proposes giving the regulator the power to set, regularly review and update guidance explaining which activities each regulated profession may undertake.
The regulator would also determine:
• the procedures appropriate for each profession
• whether additional activities could be undertaken following further specialisation
• qualification and training requirements
• Day One Competencies
• continuing professional development requirements
• the remit of each profession
This flexibility matters.
Primary legislation is difficult and slow to change. A regulator that can review professional remits and permitted activities can respond more readily to new evidence, developing technology and changes in professional practice.
Defra says this approach should help ensure that professional skills are fully used and make it clearer to owners and practitioners who is licensed to perform particular tasks.
That creates a real opportunity for the hoof-care sector.
Rather than simply placing every practitioner into an inherited professional category, the regulator could examine the activity being performed, the competence it requires, the risks involved and the circumstances in which veterinary referral or collaboration is necessary.
WHY TWO HOOF-CARE CATEGORIES MAY NOT BE ENOUGH
The White Paper specifically names farriers and equine barefoot trimmers. It does not specifically name equine podiatrists.
This leaves an important question unanswered.
Where does the assessment, application and monitoring of non-metal additive hoof-care interventions sit?
Modern hoof care can include therapeutic hoof boots, pads, impression materials, composite applications and other external devices or materials intended to protect structures, redistribute load or assist rehabilitation.
These interventions are additive, but they are not necessarily metal shoes.
Their effective use may require detailed assessment, fitting, monitoring and adaptation. It may also require close collaboration with veterinary surgeons and other rehabilitation professionals.
Defining all additive work as farriery simply because something has been applied to the hoof could preserve a historic professional boundary without adequately defining the activity.
Equally, placing this work within barefoot trimming because a metal shoe has not been fitted may fail to recognise the additional knowledge and practical competence involved.
This is why equine podiatry deserves formal consideration as a distinct scope of professional practice.
Recognition should not be granted simply because practitioners prefer a particular title or methodology. It should be based on a clearly defined and defensible combination of activities, competencies, professional limits and accountability.
Defra’s proposed activity-based framework creates a credible way to achieve this.
THREE POSSIBLE SCOPES OF HOOF-CARE PRACTICE
A useful starting point for consultation could be three related professional scopes.
Farriery could include hoof assessment and trimming together with the manufacture, modification and application of metal shoes.
Equine podiatry could include hoof assessment and trimming together with the appropriately qualified selection, fitting and monitoring of non-metal additive orthoses, particularly in rehabilitation.
Barefoot trimming could principally cover reductive trimming and the maintenance of unshod hooves without the application of therapeutic orthoses.
There would inevitably be areas of overlap. That is not necessarily a problem if the permitted activities, competence thresholds and referral responsibilities are clear.
Practitioners may also hold more than one qualification or complete additional recognised training that expands their permitted scope.
The White Paper expressly allows the regulator to consider activities that could be undertaken through further specialisation. This makes a graduated model of hoof-care competence both relevant and realistic.
REGULATION MUST BE CONNECTED TO WELFARE
Licensing can improve accountability, but only when the standards attached to a licence are meaningful.
Existing practitioners may need to transfer into the new system without unnecessary disruption. However, automatic or streamlined transfer should not prevent the regulator from reviewing professional standards, requiring continuing competence or responding when a practitioner’s work creates an ongoing risk to animal welfare.
The same scrutiny should apply across the hoof-care sector.
No professional title, qualification or school of practice guarantees a successful result in every case. Poor outcomes can occur under different methods and professional identities.
For this reason, regulation should consider more than whether a person has completed an approved entry qualification. It should also establish what competent decision-making and responsible practice look like throughout a practitioner’s career.
Evidence of competent hoof care could include:
• a structured assessment and an intervention plan proportionate to the horse’s needs
• records of hoof condition, comfort, locomotion and relevant changes over time
• appropriate use of photographs, measurements or other repeatable observations
• review of the horse after intervention and throughout the hoof-care cycle
• clear triggers for veterinary referral
• effective communication with other professionals
• evidence-informed selection, fitting and monitoring of orthoses and applied materials
• continuing professional development relevant to the practitioner’s actual scope
This would not mean treating every change in hoof shape or movement as a disciplinary issue. Horses differ, evidence has limitations and professional judgement will remain essential.
The purpose would be to distinguish reasoned, documented and responsive care from practice that repeatedly falls below an acceptable welfare standard.
EDUCATION SHOULD FOLLOW THE PROFESSIONAL SCOPE
If permitted professional activities can be reviewed and changed, education cannot be treated as permanently settled.
The proposed regulator would have the power to set qualification standards, competencies and potentially its own licensing examinations. This gives it the means to align education with each professional scope and update requirements as evidence develops.
For equine podiatry, a recognised educational route should include the safe use of non-metal additive orthoses.
Relevant education and assessment could cover anatomy, biomechanics, pathology, material properties, device fitting, infection control, record keeping, rehabilitation planning, outcome assessment and professional referral.
Existing practitioners would need fair transitional routes through which they could demonstrate their competence without weakening the welfare standard expected of new entrants.
This does not require Defra to decide every technical detail within the new Act.
It requires the legislation and regulatory process to leave room for equine podiatry to be properly considered, defined and assessed.
QUESTIONS FOR DEFRA AND THE FUTURE REGULATOR
• Which hoof-care interventions will fall within the proposed definition of veterinary and animal healthcare activities?
• How will non-metal additive orthoses be classified?
• What competence will be required to select, apply and monitor these interventions?
• Will equine podiatry be considered for a protected title, a distinct professional remit, a recognised specialisation or another formal route?
• How will evidence from hoof-care practitioners, veterinary surgeons, educators, researchers, welfare organisations and horse owners inform the standards?
• What outcome information will support licensing, revalidation and proportionate fitness-to-practise decisions?
• How will transitional arrangements protect continuity of care while ensuring that every practitioner meets the future standard?
A CHANCE TO DESIGN REGULATION AROUND THE HORSE
The case for recognising equine podiatry does not depend on diminishing farriery or barefoot trimming. Each can make a valuable contribution within a clear and properly assessed scope.
The case rests on the fact that contemporary hoof care includes activities that do not fit comfortably within the two categories currently named in the White Paper.
Defra has deliberately proposed a system that could respond to precisely this kind of gap.
If reform simply transfers existing professional titles and qualifications into a new licensing structure, it may improve regulatory consistency without fully addressing the welfare questions that prompted reform.
If the regulator carefully defines specific activities, creates appropriate routes to competence and reviews those arrangements as evidence develops, the new Act could support both accountability and responsible innovation.
The success of VSA reform should ultimately be judged by whether horses receive safer, more transparent and more effective care.
A formally recognised scope for equine podiatry, including the appropriately qualified use of non-metal additive orthoses, deserves a place in that discussion.
Read Defra’s White Paper:
Watch the BFBA VSA Q&A webinar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDeYvOBuwDE
Please note that the White Paper sets out the Government’s proposals as of July 2026. Detailed legal definitions, professional remits and implementation arrangements remain subject to further policy development, legislation and consultation.
Please feel free to contact me to share your thoughts and ideas. If you require welfare focused, and evidence-based equine podiatry services, please contact us for support.
To access our catalogue or resources including webinar recordings, case studies and trimming videos, join our VIP subscription membership
Please share this blog article with anyone you feel needs this information and help us achieve our non-profit aims, supporting well-being in both people and horses.
Beccy Smith BSc ADAEP EBW
Diploma in Advanced Applied Equine Podiatry, Independent Integrative Equine Podiatrist, Consultant and Therapist. Certified Lazaris Nerve Release TM Practitioner and Wellness Coach for People and Horses
CEO and Founder of 100% Non-Profit Community Interest Company Holistic Reflections CIC
Holistic Reflections CIC – a 100% non-profit organisation promoting wellbeing and resilience in people, horses and the environment - for the benefit of all.
Comments