Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming today to help us with pre-legislative scrutiny of the Veterinary Practice (Amendment) Bill 2021, which I am sponsoring. The fact I brought forward this amendment came out of a couple of meetings of the joint committee in the last Dáil, when we had the Veterinary Council with us on more than one occasion. It was the unanimous view of the Oireachtas committee that we were unhappy with the explanations we got as to why the interpretation of the 2005 legislation was changed in 2017 and 2018. From 2005 to 2017, it was regulated such that only veterinary practitioners could own veterinary practices but that interpretation of the legislation then changed and allowed lay people to purchase practices. After a number of these practices were purchased, it was then decided to hold a consultation process to get the views of different stakeholders and individuals, as Ms Muldoon noted. After that consultation process, the Veterinary Council continued to interpret the legislation in a different way from it did previously. That is what has brought us here today with this amendment to the Veterinary Practice Bill.

I fully accept the Veterinary Council is not a policy maker and that it is there to regulate. There are a number of points I want to make. Senators Paul Daly and Tim Lombard were on the previous committee, as was the former Deputy Willie Penrose, who had a very legalistic mind and was extremely unhappy with the way things had progressed. We are all here around this table to make sure what we do is in the best interests of human health and that human health is protected, which is the first fundamental, and then to protect the consumer and to protect animal health and welfare.

We have seen in other jurisdictions that where corporates have gained a stranglehold on the ownership of veterinary practices, the service to the consumer has deteriorated and the cost of that service has increased. Leaving that aside, the unambiguous reality is that the Veterinary Council has no regulatory control over the operators and lay operators are now the beneficial owners of a number of veterinary practices in this country. That is a very fundamental point and is what has caused us to bring forward this legislation.

While I accept the animal remedies regulation is outside the Veterinary Council's sphere of regulation, it is central to this as well. As a committee, we have been discussing animal medicines, in particular the availability of non-prescriptive animal medicines, and the worry about resistance among animals and, more importantly, the danger of resistance to drugs for human use, as well as the over-usage of those drugs. The Department’s view is that it wants to regulate the availability of those remedies very significantly.

We now have a situation where lay people are able to purchase drugs and keep them in their control, and the Veterinary Council has no regulatory control over those people. This happened in Northern Ireland, where a vet was locked out of the practice where he worked and kept away from the drugs that were in the practice. We have physical evidence of where this has happened. While I accept the animal remedies regulation is in the remit of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Veterinary Council’s regulatory powers over drugs and the usage of drugs, in my view, are seriously diminished when veterinarians are not in ownership of the practice.

Ms Muldoon said in her statement that ownership was never in the legislation but the previous position was that a veterinary practice in a commercial premises must be wholly owned by veterinary practitioners. The Veterinary Practice Act operates in conjunction with the code of professional conduct governing the veterinary profession, and that is the statement that was made, namely, the commercial premises have to be completely owned by veterinary practitioners.

I do not want to get into a civil war with the witnesses and I would not see that as in any way constructive in the scrutiny of this legislation. I have been focused on this since the Oireachtas meetings we had and, before that, when representations were made to us by stakeholders about their unhappiness at what was happening in the interpretation of the legislation by the Veterinary Council. My view is that the Veterinary Council, in changing the interpretation of the legislation, operated outside its remit. If legislation was to be changed from how it had been operating for the previous 13 or 14 years, it should have been done with amending legislation and that should have been done by the Oireachtas. If the Veterinary Council was unhappy with the legislation, it should have proposed to the Department and to the Government that it wanted that legislation amended. Changing the interpretation of it was, in my view, outside its remit.

As I said, we have this legislation and we are doing pre-legislative scrutiny of it today. With the last witnesses, I read out different European Court of Justice decisions which clearly state that, as a state, we have the remit and the authority to make changes and to make any profession restrictive, if we want. It has been done in Germany, where legislation has been brought in for pharmacies, which is not far removed from what we are talking about, to ensure there is a ban on outside ownership and that there is job-related independence of the pharmacist.

That is done in Germany so we are very much in line with EU law in bringing forward this amendment Bill. As I said, the principal reason for bringing the Bill forward is to ensure the VCI will have the authority to regulate the operators in the industry. As it stands, the VCI has not got authority over the owners. I think that is clear. They are lay operators and the council does not have authority over them. The protection of the consumer, animal health and welfare and public health must be paramount. This Bill will reinforce the powers of the VCI to regulate the industry in the interest of all the aspects I mentioned.

The VCI representatives have made it clear they cannot come in here and dictate to us on what is a policy issue and I respect that. They have come in to give their views on what the impact of the Bill will be and that is fine. I would say clearly that protecting public health by limiting the sale and supply of critically important prescription drugs to veterinary practitioners and pharmacists and ensuring the independence of veterinary practitioners and their practice of veterinary medicine are, in my view as a legislator, two very important things to do. This amendment to the legislation will in my view ensure the VCI has the regulatory power to do that. As it stands at the moment I am convinced the council has no regulatory authority over lay operators.

There are an awful lot of other issues regarding career paths for young vets. They will see that corporates taking over practices will curtail their career progression and these are obviously all important issues as well, but human health and the control of medicines is paramount. These are my principle reasons for bringing forward the Bill but as I said there are other reasons. We in this country have been very fortunate to have an excellent veterinary service over generations at a reasonable cost. While we have issues in some isolated rural areas with the availability of vets for large animal practices, I am very clear in my mind that lay ownership of veterinary practices will actually hinder the entry of young veterinarians into the sector.

Lay corporates will target the more lucrative practices. With some practices that mix small animals and large, the small animal work keeps the practice viable and if that is taken away by a competitor that has no interest in large animals it is going to make it harder to provide services in rural areas. Vets will tell one it is the small animal work that subsidises the other side of the business. I think we all agree ensuring public health is protected is paramount. That is my reason for bringing forward this Bill.

Some people will say we have corporates in now and ask what we are going to do with them. Again, there are cases in France where practices have been delisted. Corporates were set up and the French authorities delisted them so in my view that is something that can be addressed and overcome.

What we as a committee must decide is whether this Veterinary Practice (Amendment) Bill, which would confine ownership of veterinary practices to veterinarians, is in the best interests of public health and animal health and welfare, whether it protects the consumer and whether it is the best possible way to ensure a 24-hour service is provided at a reasonable cost to the consumers vets deliver that service to. I am very much of the view this is the way forward for us. As I said, we have seen other countries which have corporates taking over practices in rural areas and the level of service has declined to such an extent that animal welfare has become as serious issue. I do not want to see us descending to that. I am first and foremost a farmer and I always had a very good relationship with my veterinary practice. The services practices provide, virtually at the drop of a hat, must be admired. That we have such a service provided to us is the envy of other sectors.

This amendment Bill will ensure that service is protected and that the VCI has the regulatory power to ensure public health and animal health and welfare are protected to the utmost. As I said, I fully accept the council representatives cannot pass a view on the Bill and that it is our job as legislators to do that. I accept the representatives can come in and point to where they see issues with the impact of this Bill. We have been discussing the best way to proceed on this for three or four years now . I am convinced this amendment will deliver what we want for our citizens and also for the veterinary profession.