Mr. Peadar Ó Scanaill:

In fairness, this whole question was considered for a period in our legislative and ethics committee because we were being asked about it and, in fact, we were being told that practices were being bought and sold and that corporates were buying them. Meanwhile, certain parts of our code would lead one to think our interpretation went against what another interpretation of the Act might be. We had legal advices. As someone said earlier, the answers one gets can depend on which barrister one gets and what questions one asks and that can be confusing. In fact, we asked the Attorney General and the Department and, in fairness, were told to seek our own legal advice, which we did. We have said it before and I will say it again; tá an brón orainn. There is no doubt that with the benefit of hindsight, it would have been far better had the review occurred beforehand. That is why we had hardly attended another meeting when we put a line through it.

As I have said before and do not want to repeat too much regarding ownership in itself, it is about the operation of the practices. Why was operation removed? Operation was removed because the Veterinary Council of Ireland recognised that it is via the operation of the practice that the Act permits us to regulate the practice of veterinary medicine. That is what we were doing and that is what we will be doing. While I cannot predict as the council has to make that final decision, it is very likely to emerge through the consultation that it is the operation of the veterinary practice and who is providing the service and has their hands on the wheel that is very firmly in the hands of the practitioners in a practice. The Act is clear on it. It cannot be the case that a boss above the practitioners can allow them to reduce their ability to carry out what they should carry out. The practitioners are answerable to the Veterinary Practice Act, the Veterinary Council, the codes, regulations and any limitations placed on certificates of suitability for practice, including in respect of premises which open to provide that service. That is where our focus will be. It is not that we do not care about it, but the owner issue is a secondary one and it is not in the Act. We cannot go in there.

As to whether we want legislative change, we were not looking for it. We were being asked a specific question. There is no doubt that we had said several times that those making inquiries should seek their own legal advice. We asked the Department and it told us to seek our own legal advice. The Office of the Attorney General said it could not provide it. "Seek your own legal advice" was our line for a long time but meanwhile practices were being purchased and matters were developing. It is happening across the world. As such, we needed to make a statement. That was one we made before quickly realising we needed to do a consultation. Our focus will be on who is providing the service, how the service is provided and on the fact that the service must remain completely independent and in the hands of the vets and nurses working at a practice or from a premises.

We are extraordinarily proud of the vets - ladies and gentleman - working in the northern, western, and southern seaboards, across the Twenty-six Counties, from Malin to Mizen, as I say. They provide a fantastic service of which we are extraordinarily proud. It is very tough to provide that service, which we recognise. No one recognises that more than those of us who are actually giving that service. One of the council's roles is to promote the practice of veterinary medicine. It will, in time, require investment of some sort to maintain these practices. They are acquired. We are not like post offices leaving the villages or the banks leaving the towns. We are still there and the role of the council is to ensure it does not make any change that might affect the service that is currently provided. That will be our focus. At all times, we will focus on ensuring that the vet has autonomy of service. In response to Deputy Cahill, no one else is going to say who does what and when. If a cow has a prolapse, it is the vet who is called who will decide how to deal with that prolapse or whether there is someone in a better position to do it. It will not be the case that a vet will be involved in some contract which does not allow him or her to provide that service.

That cannot be the case. The practices will be regulated and the vets will be the providers of the service for reward or otherwise. Section 54 is quite clear on who can provide the service for reward or otherwise.