Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I take the point but ownership certainly has an influence on the provision of veterinary services whenever laypersons are involved. We have seen it come into play already that lay ownership has an influence. That goes against the grain of what the council is trying to achieve and oversee. Only vets should have control. With the change that has been made, allowing lay ownership to come into play, there is now a level of lay control over veterinary practice.

I know the law was silent on the matter, but it would have been appropriate to bear in mind the VCI's rules of conduct specifying that only veterinary practitioners should own practices because only veterinary practitioners should have control and influence over the provision of veterinary medicine. Whenever lay ownership is allowed, those owners interfere and take on a level of control. These lay owners do not have responsibilities for animal welfare under the code of conduct for veterinary medicine practitioners. Allowing lay owners in the industry allows non-veterinary influence on the conduct of medicine in Ireland. That is why we see veterinary practitioners throughout the country being so opposed to this. A Veterinary Ireland survey showed that 86% of practitioners opposed such ownership. There is widespread concern about it and a lack of support for it.

The other point I will make relates to cost. There is some evidence of cherry-picking. Practices are sold and the company taking over only wants to keep the big clients and small animal practice. They want to keep the profitable parts and cut the rest adrift. The primary motive of a lay owner is not to look after the animals or to follow the veterinary code of conduct, but to make a profit. That is their driver when they come in. That is at loggerheads with the veterinary practitioners' obligation to keep their code of care for animals at the centre of what they do. These two things are in conflict. If the lay ownership had no control and no influence, there could be a way forward. The concern is always that such owners would have influence. Only a very small number of practices have been sold, but we have already seen that, in practice, such owners do have control, get on top of things, and interfere with the vets' operation and ability to conform to their code of conduct.

Another thing that comes into play is pricing. A vet is supposed to care for animals, respond to emergencies, and keep caring at the centre of what they do. Big clients, however, can be cherry-picked and smaller clients let go. There is a sense that they can fend for themselves however they like. It is not the practice's responsibility. A charge of €500 can be put on unprofitable calls the practice does not want, which is far more than the actual cost of responding to such calls. These calls will never pass the vets' desk. They will not get the call if it costs €500. That does not interfere with the code of ethics in care in theory, because the call will not come as a result of the €500 fee. Where is the animal in this? What happens to the sheep or the animal that is worth less than €500? They will not be looked after. They are left to their own devices and can die on their own accord. There certainly will not be a vet looking after them. Despite this, vets throughout the country want to ensure that all of this is looked after in the carrying out of their duties, even in unprofitable cases.

Where lay ownership occurs, we are now seeing evidence of profit beginning to rule the roost and of farmers, especially those who are not profitable customers for vets, not getting service. Vets are very disturbed by this interference in their ability to carry out their job, to which they are all very committed. That is why the decision that has been made needs to be revisited. If it is not possible for the Veterinary Council of Ireland to overturn this decision, the legislation needs to be revisited by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Oireachtas. It is clear, and there is no doubt, that lay ownership means lay control, lay interference, and profit ruling the roost rather the duty of care. We have seen it internationally. It is going to happen here very rapidly if this is not addressed. We need to address it.