FOI release

FOI2026/00921 - Secondments, Consultancy and Post-Employment Movement of VMD staff

Published 12 August 2026

1. Your request

I request the following information concerning staff employed by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate from 01.01.2013 to date.

Secondments from veterinary pharmaceutical companies
Please provide:

a) The number of individuals who were seconded to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate from veterinary pharmaceutical companies during this period.
b) The names of the companies involved.
c) The roles or departments within the VMD in which those individuals worked.

Staff leaving the VMD to work for veterinary pharmaceutical companies
Please provide:

a) The number of Veterinary Medicines Directorate employees who left the VMD to take employment with veterinary pharmaceutical manufacturers.
b) The names of those companies.
c) Whether any post-employment restrictions or “cooling-off” periods were applied.

Consultancy, advisory or expert work
Please state:
a) The number of Veterinary Medicines Directorate staff who declared consultancy, advisory, or expert roles with veterinary pharmaceutical companies, either before or during their employment with the VMD.
b) The names of the companies concerned.

External advisory boards or paid scientific roles
Please provide:
a) The number of staff members who participated in advisory boards, scientific panels, or paid expert meetings organised by veterinary pharmaceutical manufacturers.
b) The names of the companies involved.

Conflict-of-interest policies
Please provide:
a) Copies of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate policies governing declarations of interest, conflicts of interest, and post-employment restrictions for staff.
b) Any guidance documents relating to movement of staff between the VMD and veterinary pharmaceutical companies.

2. Our reply

2.1 Secondments 

Our records on secondments, which go back to 2014, show that no individuals were seconded to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate from veterinary pharmaceutical companies. 

2.2 Business Appointment Rules 

Or records on staff leaving the VMD to work for veterinary pharmaceutical companies, which go back to 2017, shows 2 people.  

When staff leave the VMD to take up roles outside the Civil Service, they are subject to the Business Appointment Rules (BAR). This process ensures that any external appointment does not conflict with the Civil Service Code. 

Approval is required where there is a risk that: 

• knowledge gained in post could provide a commercial advantage to a new employer; or 

• the individual has had official dealings with that organisation. 

Further details are available in the Civil Service Management Code (from page 25). 

2.3 Consultancy, advisory and expert roles 

Our Declaration of Interest records show that no staff declared consultancy, advisory, or expert roles with veterinary pharmaceutical companies, either before or during their employment with the VMD since 2013. 

We have answered a similar question, FOI2026/00266, in which we provided current policies and guidance governing declarations of interest and gifts and hospitality. This is now published on our website. 

2.4 Information withheld – Section 40(2) 

We have carefully considered the remainder of your request. While we hold some of the requested information, we are unable to disclose the names of the companies involved.  

This information is withheld under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Section 40(2) applies to personal data where disclosure would contravene one or more of the data protection principles set out in the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018. 

The information requested constitutes personal data relating to identifiable individuals. Disclosure into the public domain would be unfair and would contravene the first data protection principle, which requires personal data to be processed lawfully, fairly and transparently. 

In particular: 

• the individuals concerned would not reasonably expect this level of detail about their employment history and regulatory activities to be disclosed publicly; and 

• disclosure could impact their privacy and professional standing. 

We have therefore concluded that disclosure would be unlawful and unfair. 

As Section 40(2) is an absolute exemption, the public interest test does not apply.