Some professionals left “totally disheartened” by the process, raising concerns after BVA president Elizabeth Mullineaux addresses the BCVA’s congress.

A major veterinary group has been accused of being too “defensive” in its response to business regulators’ current investigation of the sector.

Concerns that some professionals had been left “totally disheartened” by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) process were raised after the BVA’s president, Elizabeth Mullineaux, addressed the BCVA’s annual congress.

But while she stressed she did not think the profession had done anything wrong, delegates were also warned not to be “complacent” about how the probe might affect their work.

The three-day gathering at Newport’s Celtic Manor was the BCVA’s first since the CMA launched its formal investigation of companion animal services in May.

‘Real Effect’

In her opening address, the association’s president, Kate Richards, told delegates that while the inquiry is focused on small animal practice, “it will likely have a real effect on the whole profession so we can’t be complacent and assume we won’t be affected”.

Dr Mullineaux also encouraged delegates to “keep half an eye” on it during her presentation as she acknowledged that some aspects may have repercussions for the wider sector.

She said the BVA had sought to emphasise the “perfect storm” of pressures, including recruitment problems, Brexit and COVID, that had impacted on the sector and revealed the group had raised concerns about an upcoming consumer survey planned as part of the process, which she claimed had started “very negatively”.

She also criticised the lack of emphasis on animal welfare in CMA documents, adding: “They don’t seem to get what we are about.”

Issues Statement

The CMA has previously acknowledged concerns about the potential for “unintended consequences” for welfare arising from its final recommendations in the issues statement it published in July. That document said: “Where appropriate, we will take this aspect into account when considering remedies.”

Although the authority declined to formally comment on the issue when approached by Vet Times, officials stressed the issue was being discussed in its exchanges with both veterinary and charitable organisations.

Asked from the floor whether she believed the profession had “done anything wrong”, Dr Mullineaux insisted she did not, although she admitted she could see why some members of the public might think differently, and questioned whether the probe would lead to fee reductions.

She said: “Have we managed change as well as we could have? Probably not but it will be interesting to see what the CMA finds. It won’t all be negative and if the public thinks prices are going to be cheaper, that’s not going to happen as far as I can see.”

Overcharging Clients

But Dominic Alexander, who posed the question, said he knew of colleagues in the small animal sector who felt “totally disheartened” and believed they had been overcharging clients for services.

He added: “I feel the BVA has been too defensive and needs to open up.”

BCVA board member James Adams also suggested there was a perception in some quarters that vets were not as skilled as they once had been, given the involvement of other professionals in procedures such as euthanasia.

Dr Mullineaux acknowledged the ongoing need both to explain the value of veterinary care and make appropriate adjustments to the context of individual cases.

She further stressed veterinary professionals worked for “the greater good” and argued that some issues had been further exacerbated by what she described as “negative” perceptions.