Paul Daly (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I apologise. We had to go away to vote in the Seanad. I pick up on the tail end of Deputy Penrose's contribution. When one leaves, one can end up going over old ground because one does not know what has been discussed while one was away. As I say, I pick up from the tail end of Deputy Penrose's response. What I wanted to know from the council was what the catalyst was for starting the procedures that commenced at the beginning of 2018. Why would the council in its role seek private legal advice when section 54(2) is law in my reading of the game, albeit I am not as well qualified or versed in the law as Deputy Penrose? Why did the council not come to us? We are the legislators in this land. The Minister has the ultimate responsibility. What was the catalyst for the council to turn a blind eye on the back of private personal legal advice when we have an Attorney General and agriculture committees of the Oireachtas, Deputies and Senators and Opposition parties who, as Deputy Penrose says, are only too willing to have a go at a Minister or Department if something is wrong or some flaw exists in legislation? What was the catalyst for all of those changes? The question may have been asked when I was away from the committee.

The council has undermined its primary role. Just before Senators left, mention was made of how many points one needs to become a vet and how much money a family needs behind it even with the points. Now one can win the lottery, not have a point to one's name and never even have done one's leaving certificate and buy a veterinary practice and employ veterinarians who, in my reading of the council's own report, the council will have no power or authority to regulate. It will be the owner of the practice who is answerable to the council. However, if he or she is not a practitioner, he or she is not really answerable to the council while his or her employees are answerable to the practice owner. The council has nullified its own role and overstepped the mark by dealing with matters outside its remit. By Mr. Ó Scanaill's own admission, the council had to seek private legal advice as to the ownership. That should have been hard-balled back to the Minister straight away or back to the committee. We do legislative scrutiny here. It is up to us to look at section 54(2). That is our role, not the role of the council or of a private barrister or solicitor, whichever was employed. As Deputy Penrose concluded, while the council might have done the prudent thing in commissioning a report, it did not wait for its outcome. Veterinary practices are being purchased as we speak and are now beyond regulation. What was the urgency and what was the catalyst for doing what the council did? I thank the Vice Chairman and apologise if there was repetition in my contribution.