Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Tuesday, 21 May 2019

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine

Veterinary Practices: Discussion

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests for their presentation. While we have concerns about rural areas and the future provision of services at large-animal practices in rural Ireland, the principal point we wish to discuss is the corporate ownership of practices. One matter is whether this is good for the industry but another is whether it is legal. I found part of the presentation to be contradictory. Ms Muldoon stated:

The Veterinary Council of Ireland has no legal powers over the regulation of the market in relation to corporate ownership of veterinary practices. The parameters of our powers, as established under the Veterinary Practice Act 2005, simply do not extend to this area.

That is a clear and concise statement and it was made on the basis of legal advice. Ms Muldoon went on to state, however, that the following month the Veterinary Council decided to suspend the decision it had made in December because of the views of various stakeholders. She listed five points of research the Veterinary Council would carry out in respect of the decision it made in December. However, she clearly outlined that the decision made in December was clear-cut and that the legal advice indicated there was no ambiguity involved. A month later, following reaction from vets and farming bodies, the Veterinary Council suspended the decision it made in December, even though Ms Muldoon stated that its legal advice was clear. I find that contradictory. We are in a state of flux whereby a review to determine the correct action to take is being conducted and whereby Grant Thornton will publish a report. However, practices continue to be purchased by bodies corporate while the review is ongoing. I would have expected a handbrake to be applied in respect of all sales while the review is ongoing. It seems that somewhere between December and January a lack of confidence in the legal advice to the Veterinary Council emerged, particularly in view of the fact that after receiving legal advice and making a decision, the council began a consultation process.

The train of events does not make sense. The consultation process should have taken place before a decision was made by the Veterinary Council to allow corporates to purchase practices. Deputy Martin Kenny has already asked if there was a conflict of interest in the making of the decision by the council. The purchase of one well-known practice has attracted much media attention, with many questions asked as to whether there was a conflict of interest. I would like the sequence of events involved to be explained. One paragraph of the presentation is unambiguous but the following several paragraphs contradict it. The Veterinary Council going into a consultation process has put question marks over the legal advice it received. It took a serious decision on that legal advice in December 2017 and then sat back from it in January 2018.

The Veterinary Council deals with disciplinary action in the case of professional misconduct. How does this work if a veterinary practice facing such action is not owned by a vet? How do the powers of the council sit with taking disciplinary action when the ownership of a practice rests outside the profession?

I am not happy with the sequence of events here. Something does not sit right with me. I would like to see a copy of the legal advice. One can ask two good barristers the same question but get two different legal advices. I cannot see that practices acquired by corporate entities are providing better services. I have serious concerns about this matter. It also raises questions about the disciplinary role played by the Veterinary Council. This all hinges on the interpretation of the Veterinary Practice Act 2005. To enter consultations after making a decision means that the council is not confident regarding the decision it took in December 2017. At the very least, sales of practices should be halted until the position is clarified once and for all. I am baffled by the sequence of events, particularly in the context of a report being sought from Grant Thornton after the initial decision had been made. Will the council provide an explanation?

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.