Fury over CMA vet report access

Clinicians, professional groups and a senior MP have all demanded answers over regulators’ plans to give advisors of the veterinary sector’s biggest operators access to their unredacted reform recommendations.

Thousands have signed an online petition which accused the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) of jeopardising the future of independent practices through its approach.

The CMA said it was “legally obliged” to share the document, before later indicating it would do so with other interested parties on a similar basis.

But, ahead of that clarification, Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael, who chairs the Commons EFRA select committee, said the concerns raised were “legitimate in my view and answers need to be provided”.

‘Unfairness’

He added: “It’s the appearance of unfairness that is my main concern at this moment.”

The row relates to the investigation’s Provisional Decisions Report (PDR), which is expected to be released soon, following a delay to the anticipated timetable last month.

A CMA email, seen by Vet Times, said it planned to share an unredacted version of the PDR with external advisors of the six large veterinary groups (LVGs) in a “confidentiality ring”.

The document said the disclosure was considered “necessary and appropriate” to ensure the LVGs had a “fair opportunity to assess and respond” to its findings.

Statutory function

It also stressed the CMA’s statutory function to consult parties whose interests were thought “likely to be substantially impacted by its provisional reasons”.

Competition law academics David Reader and Scott Summers argued the approach signified a “new normal” in the authority’s operations in line with government demands for regulators to focus on promoting economic growth.

But while the authority disputes that interpretation, critics fear its approach risks putting independent practices, particularly those who were required to provide information to the inquiry, at a commercial disadvantage.

The change.org petition, which has already attracted more than 3,870 signatures, demanded “equal access and fair representation” for independent practices as well as the LVGs.

‘Mistaken’

Vet and campaign organiser Amy Revill said the authority was “mistaken” if it believed only large groups would be significantly affected by its measures.

She continued: “Improving competitiveness and transparency is the overriding goal here, therefore representation from every sector of our industry is essential in every step of this process.

“Otherwise, it feels very much like the CMA are giving their “confidentiality ring” (who all represent businesses with a completely different business model from independents) the opportunity to shape the PDR and our future.”

Legal obligation

A CMA spokesperson said: “We are legally obliged to share the unredacted version of the report – which contains commercially sensitive information – with legal advisers but cannot share it with any businesses.

“Advisers cannot share with others – it’s a criminal offence to do so. This is the same for all our market and merger investigations.

“Legal advisers representing relevant organisations in this investigation can see the unredacted report but only the large veterinary groups have them currently.

“Our provisional decision report will be published on our website and accessible to everyone including independent vets.”

‘Equal basis’

The authority later said it would share the document “on an equal basis – with any appointed external legal advisers of the parties to the investigation” while others who are similarly appointed now could also apply.

But the Progressive Veterinary Association (PVA) said the CMA’s actions risked bringing the whole process “into disrepute”, while new BVA president Rob Williams said his group had sought “clarification and explanation” on the issue.

He added: “We’ve specifically requested reassurances that this does not place independent practices at a competitive disadvantage.”

The row erupted as one of the firms whose advisors were set to be given initial access to the unredacted report, the CVS Group, revealed it had already spent £3.9 million on responding to the investigation in its latest annual results.

Bosses said the money was used for legal advice, specialist economists and PR consultants and they anticipated other large operators would have incurred similar costs.

But, in its annual report, group chair David Wilton said he was frustrated the veterinary profession was “often misunderstood and under-appreciated” as he praised the resilience of staff through the inquiry process.