I call Deputy John Browne who has 30 minutes.
Veterinary Practice (Amendment) Bill 2011: Second Stage (Resumed)
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I will not take that long. I welcome the Bill. While our spokesperson on agriculture, Deputy Michael Moynihan, is not here because he is in Belfast meeting the Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, Fianna Fáil will be supporting the Bill.
It is a good idea to review the Bill. The Veterinary Practice Act 2005 was the first update of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1931, which was an enlightening piece of legislation. It is a good idea to review a Bill every five years. Often, even though anomalies arise in respect of Bills passed by the Houses they remain on the Statute Book for years without change. I welcome that the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, and the Minister, Deputy Coveney, have decided to update the Veterinary Practice Act 2005 and to address some of the anomalies contained therein.
Veterinary surgeons are a little like doctors, consultants and barristers in that everyone gives out about and criticises them saying their charges are too high and that they monopolise the animal health sector. At the end of the day, we all need veterinary surgeons, in particular farmers, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the pet sector. I believe they have provided us with a good service down through the years. The Minister referred in his speech to the 250th anniversary of the veterinary profession. I join with him in congratulating the profession, which was established in France. The Irish veterinary sector is not that long in being but is more than 100 years old. We have many highly trained veterinarians in this country.
The role of the veterinary profession is important in the animal health sector. Farming is going through a vibrant period. The previous Government introduced the Harvest 2020 strategy, which has been taken on board by the current Minister and Minister of State. It will drive the food industry for the next seven or eight years. There are great opportunities for expansion and development of the food sector. As the Tánaiste stated earlier, it is all about jobs. There are also great opportunities in the food sector for the creation of jobs. It is important our products are produced in a green manner. The veterinary sector has a particular role to play in this regard.
The Veterinary Practice Act 2005 introduced many changes. This Bill proposes to empower the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make regulations to exclude specified practices from the definition of practice of veterinary medicine. Certain procedures which could be interpreted as being reserved for vets or veterinary nurses will no longer be so reserved. The Minister is hoping this amendment will provide the legal certainty for people carrying out certain procedures.
The Department's regulatory impact analysis of the 2005 Act noted a broad and general definition of veterinary practice under the Act which is the subject of varying interpretations. Concerns were expressed that several activities traditionally performed by non-vets may amount to a practice of a veterinary medicine under the 2005 Act. The Veterinary Council of Ireland, VCI, heard concerns from physiotherapists and equine dentists on this matter. It is viewed that some ancillary activities are inadvertently covered by the definition which was not the intention of the 2005 legislation and it has the potential to cause confusion.
A wide consultation process was held by the Department involving the VCI, Veterinary Ireland, the Irish Society of Chartered Physiotherapists, the Equine Dental Association of Ireland, the Farm Relief Service and the Irish Master Farriers Association, along with the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Health. Interested parties broadly agreed with the aim of securing greater legal certainty with regard to specified activities. The VCI supported the aim but indicated the matter would be preferably addressed under the forthcoming animal health and welfare Bill. Veterinary Ireland also supported this approach. The advice of the Attorney General, however, concluded the issue was best addressed through an amendment to the Veterinary Practice Act 2005. Will the Minister explain why this approach was taken?
Activities identified that may be excluded from the definition of practice of veterinary medicine are set out in the Department's 2011 regulatory impact analysis. These comprise microchipping of companion animals, farriery, scanning of cattle and sheep, bovine hoof trimming, physiotherapy and equine dentistry.
The Veterinary Council was dissolved by the 2005 Act and replaced by the VCI, a self-funding body, which comprises members reflective of broad interests including education, consumer interests, food safety and animal welfare. Its functions include keeping registers, establishing codes of conduct, approving programmes of education and performing an investigative role in regulating the veterinary profession with the power to impose sanctions on members. Will the Minister give an overview as to how this body is working, as we do not hear much about it? Has it imposed any sanctions on any of its members? I note the Minister wants to introduce certain changes in how the council works with proposals for reducing the quorums for council meetings, for example. Does the Minister see problems with how it is currently operating or are these just minor administrative changes?
A 2008 Competition Authority review of the veterinary sector noted a large influx of foreign-trained vets between 2001 and 2007 with up to 40% of new vets registered having qualified outside the State. Has this figure changed since 2008? The authority expressed a concern in its review on Ireland's reliance on other countries to produce vets for Ireland's needs. It recommended the number of vets trained should be closely monitored to ensure no shortage arises in the future. Will the Minister give an update on this?
The Competition Authority also suggested some changes to the provision of non-vets to carry out bovine TB testing services or other routine procedures which would free up vets' time to deal with more complicated procedures. It suggested the Department should consider introducing a new paraprofession of TB testers in a wider context of overall animal health. Is the Department considering implementing these suggestions?
The UK's Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 restricts the practice of veterinary surgery and outlines the works that can be carried out by non-vets in a list that is larger than the one contained in our legislation. Was this legislation examined when drafting our Bill? Will our legislation extend the work that can be carried out by non-vets?
This Bill and the changes it will bring about have been widely welcomed. A high-level consultation process was carried out with the different interested bodies which are quite happy with this amending legislation. Recently, I contacted the IFA about the Bill and it had no comment to make on it.
That is unusual. Hopefully, it will be the same in December.
It is unusual. I spoke to Elaine Farrell, executive secretary, who said the organisation is more than happy with the Bill and had no issues it wanted raised. That is a first from a major farming organisation.
Yesterday's Irish Examiner carried a report on how the Animal and Plant Health Association conference was told preventive medicine used on farms increased by 25% over the past 12 months and by 64% in the past five years. This highlights the importance farmers are putting on prevention when it comes to animal health. While this is to be welcomed, is this a good development in the long term? Farmers also tell me about the high costs of veterinarian services and preventive medicine used on farms.
I welcome the Bill and Fianna Fáil will work with the Minister to ensure it has a speedy passage through the House.
I was supposed to be attending the meeting of the Joint Committee on Health and Children at 11.30 a.m. With no disrespect to the Minister, Acting Chairman or the Dáil, I will have to leave immediately after I have made several points on this legislation. Will the Minister communicate a response to these points in writing afterwards?
I will keep my contribution brief and to the point. Sinn Féin agrees with the broad thrust of the Bill and will support its passage to the next Stage. The Bill represents a sensible way forward for agriculture. Having just come from a meeting with the national leadership of the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, I can confirm that it is content with the Bill's introduction. As such, many of the Bill's measures must be good and I compliment the Minister of State on its introduction. Unusually, only one and a half pages of this 28-page document addresses the Bill's main objective. The remaining pages went through each of the sections.
Is there an opportunity to review the curriculum for the agricultural and animal training programmes so that we might explore more fully what can be done by unregistered practitioners? We should not assume that the current curriculum is in a position to exploit the new opportunities that will open once the Bill is enacted. Does the Minister of State propose some form of licensing rather than registration of unregistered practitioners working continually in the field and using non-prescribed procedures? Will unregistered practitioners need to be covered by indemnity insurance? It is proposed that registered practitioners be covered.
Will the House be supplied with the list of procedures that can be carried out by unregistered practitioners? I have bovine bone setters and the like in mind. Someone from the Department will examine practices elsewhere, including procedures carried out by unregistered practitioners. Could we have access to the list of procedures that the Minister of State intends to designate as non-prescribed procedures?
While it may not be a function of the Bill, the Department may take this opportunity to consider the monetary value associated with procedures carried out in other jurisdictions. If we are gathering data on how procedures are designated between registered and unregistered practitioners elsewhere, we could also collect valuable data, if it is available, to set a standard fee for a veterinary procedure, if that is our intention.
Entering a premises without notice or warrant is a significant new power. Some form of adjudication or redress should be available to farmers or producers who believe a registered practitioner has abused his or her powers. Redress should not be to the High Court, as people could not afford it. A panel or ombudsman should adjudicate on issues.
It is strange that there is no requirement for practitioners working on behalf of the Government or a State agency to have indemnity insurance in respect of their official duties. Some people will read this as meaning it is okay for Government practitioners to tell people what to do, but that the former do not need to do the same. What is the rationale for not requiring registered practitioners on official duties to possess indemnity insurance?
I suggested an ombudsman for people who are aggrieved by certain parts of the inspection process. On a related note, people who apply for registration and believe they have been unjustly treated by the registration authority only have recourse to the High Court. That court is an expensive place to attend and has a long waiting list. If people are aggrieved by a decision of the registration body, perhaps we should consider a different form of redress, be it mediation or adjudication.
Undischarged bankrupts will still be forbidden from registering. There has been a great deal of discussion regarding people who have been bankrupted, many through no fault of their own. Their bankruptcies seem to hang over them like life sentences. Perhaps we should re-examine the proposal in the Bill.
The Bill and the ensuing examination of procedures should be used as an opportunity to gather data that would help the Department to set standards for the fees associated with different veterinary procedures.
Sinn Féin believes this is a good Bill and we will support its passage to the next Stage. I apologise for needing to leave to attend a committee meeting.
The Bill arises from concerns expressed regarding the definition of veterinary practice contained in the Veterinary Practice Act 2005. That Act provides a broad and general definition of the term "practice of veterinary medicine" under section 53. However, this definition has proved to be lacking in certainty and overly ambiguous. It potentially includes certain procedures that traditionally have been carried out by non-vets and thus leaves those practising them open to criminal sanction. The Act sets out penalties of up to €320,000 and prison sentences for repeat offenders.
The amendment legislation allows the Minister to define by regulation the term "practice of veterinary medicine". Procedures that could be interpreted as being confined to vets or veterinary nurses under the existing legislation can now be carried out by non-vets. The attempt is to provide legal certainty in this case.
It seems that concerns are also being expressed by the Competition Authority regarding the definition of veterinary medicine. There is a risk that where a greater number of activities are reserved for the veterinary profession, vets would, in the absence of competition, provide a more costly service than other less qualified service providers. This would be particularly acute for members of the farming community who should have the option of paying people with a lower level of qualification to carry out simple procedures at a lower price.
I must wonder why an Act that is only six years old should need to be amended now. Why could this certainty not have been provided for in the original Act? Could it be that interests wishing to preserve their privileged position had a greater influence on the passage of the legislation? At least two Members of these Houses flagged the possible difficulty around the definition as a risk during the debates on the original legislation, but it seems that their concerns fell on deaf ears. Time must now be taken up in the Houses to correct a previously identified problem.
In preparing the Bill the Minister considered a number of possible resolutions to the problem, including voluntary agreement on codes of practice; the amendment of the 2005 Act to remove the activities concerned, although this could quickly become outdated; and allowing the Minister to make regulations to describe the procedures and define the required qualifications of the people involved in those procedures. The Minister has opted for the third proposal. Regulations will be adopted to define the procedures to be allowed and the qualifications and insurance the practitioner will need. It is important that the statutory instrument used be scrutinised and brought before the committee to ensure as full a discussion as possible and that there will be no need to revisit it time and again.
The regulatory impact assessment has identified the types of procedures that may be excluded from the definition of "practice of veterinary medicine". I ask the Minister, in drafting the statutory instrument, to include emergency treatments that may be required where a veterinarian is not available. It should also include the taking of tuberculosis tests.
It is imperative that regulatory procedures be stringent and robust. We must, however, be careful to ensure they are not over-restrictive and cumbersome for the agriculture industry and impact negatively on the competitive aspect.
The veterinary nursing profession plays a very important role. The 2005 Act recognised this officially. Subsequent to that Act, over 500 nurses have been registered to practice. That five colleges offer approved and accredited courses is most positive.
I welcome the legislative measure that ensures activities and services concerning animals that have traditionally been carried out safely by non-veterinarians or nurses will not be reserved solely for the veterinary profession. The procedures in question include farriery, equine dentistry, microchipping, physiotherapy, bovine hoof trimming and the scanning of cattle and sheep. It is most important that the scanning of cows before calving be in the category of ordinary scanning and not extended to hormone treatment or other practices, which are happening to a minor extent. There is malpractice in isolated cases and we need to ensure it is prohibited completely. Quality assurance to the customer is paramount. Any professional misconduct that would bring the profession into disrepute will have to be addressed in the Bill.
Due to the ever-growing importance of agriculture and the emphasis on the quality of food, animal health care is essential. The veterinarians perform a vital function in assisting their farmer clients in maintaining the health and well-being of their animals and minimising disease risk, which can have a significant impact on farm income. Veterinarians play a vital role in official inspection services on the farm, and in factories at processing level where they verify the health and safety aspects of food in the interest of consumers. It is vital that our international reputation as a provider of excellent food products be maintained to ensure economic prosperity.
I welcome the Bill in general. It is needed to clarify many issues and I hope it will be teased out further on Committee and Remaining Stages.
I wish to share time with Deputy Tom Barry.
The Veterinary Practice Act 2005 provides a very general definition of "practice of veterinary medicine", which has proved to be lacking in certainty. It includes procedures traditionally carried out by people who are not qualified as veterinarians. This leaves the practice of such procedures by non-veterinarians very much open to criminal sanction. Fines of up to €320,000 or ten years in prison are set out under the relevant sections for repeat offenders.
The Bill proposes to give the necessary power to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make recommendations that would exclude certain aspects of the definition of "practice of veterinary medicine". In other words, certain procedures that would only be carried out by a qualified veterinarian or veterinary nurse would no longer be reserved for these people. It is hoped this amendment to the Act will provide proper legal certainty for such people.
The Bill will make technical amendments to the 2005 Act based on experience since it was brought into effect in 2006. For example, the Veterinary Council of Ireland has expressed concern that some of the activities carried out by persons not qualified as veterinarians may amount to the practice of veterinary medicine under the 2005 Act. Physiotherapists and equine dentists have expressed a view that some procedures are inadvertently covered by the definition. This, however, was not the intention behind the 2005 Act, yet it has the potential to cause some confusion and perhaps lead to litigation. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concludes that legal certainty and clarity are needed to allow certain procedures to be carried out and to offer services to farmers and other animal owners where a qualified veterinarian or veterinary nurse is not required and where the need to protect animal welfare comes into play.
The main purpose of the amending legislation is to make clear the definition of "practice of veterinary medicine". When the Veterinary Practice Act 2005 came into being, it did away with the Veterinary Council. It repealed the Veterinary Surgeon Acts 1931 to 1960 and established the Veterinary Council of Ireland, VCI. The latter's membership reflects a broad spectrum of people, with an interest in education, consumer affairs, food safety and animal welfare. The council was given functions such as keeping registers, establishing a code of conduct and approving certain programmes of education, and it was given investigative powers in regulating the profession in addition to imposing sanctions on members.
The Minister retains the power to give general policy direction and ultimately to remove the Veterinary Council of Ireland should it fail to carry out its functions. However, when the 2005 Act was introduced, the Minister found there were some faults and weaknesses in the disciplinary procedures and sanctions that previously obtained, and a lack of proportion in the range of sanctions offered.
The 2005 Act reformed the fitness-to-practice provision so there would be more transparency in disciplinary procedures. It also established the Veterinary Nurses Board of Ireland and recognised statutorily the veterinary nurse profession. This group had no legal status, which was identified as a key restriction in engaging in the profession. The Act sets out a number of functions that veterinary nurses can carry out, but which can only be done under the supervision of a veterinarian.
The 2005 Act introduced for the first time a definition of "veterinary medicine" that means it is an offence for anyone other than a veterinarian to practice veterinary medicine. The primary purpose of the Veterinary Practice (Amendment) Bill is to provide clarity in the definition of "practice of veterinary medicine", as referred to in the 2005 Act. The definition in the Act is now regarded as lacking in certainty considering that taking part in the practice of veterinary medicine without the proper qualifications is an offence.
The vagueness of the definition has now become problematic. With this in mind, the Minister proposes to amend the 2005 Act by inserting new provisions that would empower the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make regulations prescribing procedures that may be carried out by non-registered persons, that is, non-veterinary professional. The Minister would also be able to prescribe in the regulations certain requirements that would be applicable to a non-registered person carrying out a special procedure. These could relate to training; special skills; being a competent member of a prescribed body; an obligation to consult a registered person before carrying out a procedure; having indemnity insurance; the maintenance of records; and other prescribed conditions. In this way, the Minister can allow someone who is not a registered veterinarian to carry out a certain procedure but, for example, require a person who is performing the procedure to demonstrate certain skills and competencies or undertake specified training and be appropriately insured. The amendment to the 2005 Act is designed to ensure persons not qualified as veterinarians can carry out certain procedures without fear of prosecution.
I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Bill. It broadly highlights how Ireland leads the way in animal welfare and in its practical approach to regulation. I congratulate the Minister on his approach.
This is a progressive, practical and common sense Bill which brings the experience of those working on the ground to the forefront, with the primary role of ensuring good animal health. I have farmed for many years and I have experienced the build-up of regulation over the past 20 years. Sometimes, we gave out about it and found it was over-burdensome. In the Bill, the Minister clearly sets out his stall, which is that while he wants regulation he wants it to be practical. This gives great confidence to everyone.
I congratulate the veterinary profession on being 250 years old, which is of some note, and it is more than 100 years since the profession was established in this country. Animal health care and the role of the veterinary profession encompasses a large spectrum, from working with farmers such as me to inspecting food in industries at a processing level. The main goal is to ensure we have safe traceable food, because this is what the consumer demands and is entitled to. Food Harvest 2020 commits to producing high-quality safe food at a competitive price and having robust regulatory procedures will help to achieve this goal.
I welcome the Minister's comments that he does not want to see regulatory procedures becoming unduly restrictive or over-burdensome on the industry. This is very important as in the past regulations have become a bottleneck to progress. One could state that at one stage regulation was a boom industry in itself in the State, while we had a banking sector with no regulation. It shows how our agriculture has pushed forward and made huge strides because it had practical regulation while our banking sector went out of control and left us in the mess we are in. However, agriculture is one of the sectors that will pull us out of this and we must be positive in this regard.
The Bill will build on the 2005 Act. We now have more than 500 registered veterinary nurses and five colleges accredited to train them. This shows us that we have the confidence to train people and that we know what we need to get our industry working. It is a snapshot of the strength of Ireland's educational system; we continue to produce high-quality graduates in all fields including agriculture. Many other countries look to Ireland's high-quality production of milk, cheeses and beef and would like to emulate what has taken us decades to achieve. However, it is not all about rules. It is about the industry understanding where it needs to go, having targets and respecting every layer from the farmer to the fork. We have this environment in Ireland along with a sense of purpose about what we need to do.
The Bill contains procedures, such as bovine hoof trimming and scanning animals, which can be carried out by suitably trained people who do not necessarily have to be vets or veterinary nurses. This is important because there is no point in adding additional costs to farmers or tying up the time of professionals on procedures which can be carried out by suitably trained people. It is also appropriate that there will be proper consultation with the Veterinarian Council of Ireland before any exemptions are allowed; the Minister is bringing people with him.
The Bill gives us confidence in how the profession is regulated and takes into account exemptions for horses coming from abroad on short trips. The training requirements in the Bill will be recognised throughout the EU. I have worked with the veterinary profession for many years and have always considered its members to be highly professional in their approach, sympathetic to farmers who land in trouble and always seeking to help farmers achieve better standards. I welcome the Bill and I thank the Minister for taking another step along the way to achieving the targets of Food Harvest 2020.
I welcome the Bill, which I see as a pro-farming initiative designed to allow the farming community, many of whom have been carrying out certain procedures over many years, to do so now without fear of prosecution. This is not to say I would in any way seek to interfere with the right to work and the payment of appropriate fees to veterinary surgeons. However, what all of us who work with animals know only too well is that there are times when it is necessary to intercede to save livestock, although this contingency is allowed for under section 55 of the 2005 Act, or to carry out routine procedures which do not need the intervention of a professional vet or veterinary nurse, which is also allowed for under the 2005 Act but only as long as the treatment is not tied to the usual care provided by a vet.
Regulations, bureaucracy and red tape have been the ruination of many farmers. What we are talking about in this sector is regulation gone mad. What I want to see, and the Bill will go some way to ensuring it, is common sense and experience being allowed to direct a farmer's actions without fear of legal action. We have seen regulations introduced by EU directives which should never have made it onto paper, let alone to enforcement. I have milked cows by hand and taken the milk directly without any harm and I am still here today, but dare I engage in such a natural action now, the full force of directives one to 1,000 would descend upon me.
Rules and regulations affect the sale of vegetables and other farm produce, with the end result being an increased cost to the consumer and sometimes a diminished market. Many of these products are washed or treated with products which destroy the taste and quality. I would prefer to buy potatoes with earth on them, rather than the washed varieties, although of course I would wash them before I would eat them. It is time we returned to sanity and common sense.
This common sense dictates it is not necessary to call out a vet for simple procedures which farmers and farm workers, including me, have carried out for decades. While the number of food animals has decreased to a marked degree in recent years, regulations have multiplied, requiring an increased need for veterinary services. One could argue this has increased the quality of the subsequent products, but at what cost? To some extent, I would dispute the notion of increased quality. I know from first-hand experience as a farmer that it has been extremely expensive and frustrating to be compelled to call out a vet when I could easily carry out most day to day procedures myself as I have done previously.
We must also bear in mind that the work specification for many vets has changed dramatically. For example, the demand for services for pets has risen considerably over the years. How much of this is driven by world-wide over-attention to the perceived needs of these pets, as opposed to necessary care, is open to question. With celebrities making pet ownership a fashion statement and the "pampered poodle" image extending far beyond that breed, vets experience such demand in this sector that they work extremely long hours to meet requirements. For many owners, frequent visits to the vet are perceived as essential for their pet's welfare, which is not to say that many of these visits are not urgent and necessary.
We must also be conscious of the very real threat of shortages of Irish-trained vets in the profession. There was a huge influx of foreign-trained vets between 2001 and 2007. During this time, almost 40% of new vets registered in the country came from outside the State. The Competition Authority has recommended that this situation be carefully monitored to ensure there is no shortage in the profession. However, according to the CAO, this year has seen an increase in demand for veterinary qualifications, with points for veterinary medicine rising to 565 from 560 and veterinary nursing increasing from 435 to 450.
I congratulate the Minister on taking the necessary steps to remove the adverse impact the 2005 Act has had on farmers. In recognising that it was never intended that the 2005 Act would unnecessarily restrict the ability of skilled persons to care for their animals, he will remove an unnecessary restriction on farmers. While I am aware that it is intended to adopt detailed regulations after the Bill has been enacted, I implore the Minister, Deputy Coveney, not to remove the benefit of the intended legislation by the imposition of red tape and bureaucracy. There is not much benefit in having the supposed freedom to care for one's own animals if it means consulting a list of rules and regulations at every turn.
I am delighted to welcome any cost-cutting initiative for Irish farmers and in that regard I draw the Minister's attention to the cost of animal medicines in Ireland. While veterinary fees may be near the top of farmers' expenses, medication is also a major expenditure. The situation is extremely inequitable when compared to the cost of animal medicines in the North and in the United Kingdom. Allied with the cost of medication, Caesarean sections are far more expensive in this country than in other European countries, with little competition between veterinary practices.
It is good to see legislation that is intended as a cost-cutting measure, which will work to the advantage of farmers. I hope the results of the legislation will be not only peace of mind but considerable financial benefit for farmers. Measures brought in by the previous Administration have not been in the interests of farmers or vets, or indeed local communities. There was much uproar prior to the enactment of the 2005 Act. We all had visits from the IFA and other farming organisations which were protesting at the proposed legislation.
The closure of Longford's district veterinary office last year, which was undertaken as a saving to the Exchequer, led to a considerable loss of employment in the county. The beneficiary in this move was Drumshanbo, which became home to integrated services. Westmeath was affected also due to the closure of the agricultural office in Mullingar, which was relocated to Tullamore. With farming very much an economic backbone of Longford's economy, the new arrangements were far less efficient for farmers and were very much an erosion of people-centred rural life. Apart from the job losses, herd owners faced considerable inconvenience and time loss due to extra travel involved.
Farmers in the midlands and throughout the country have faced one blow after another in recent years. Whether it was a new directive from the EU involving considerable expense to implement, withheld or delayed grant aid, stealth taxes or planning restrictions, the farming sector has seen it all. However, since the current Minister took office things have begun to improve. The recent efficient 100% payments under the disadvantaged areas scheme give hope of a new era in farming. Following on the previous staggered payments, that was very much welcomed by farmers. I am happy that this Bill is another step in assisting rather than obstructing the farming industry on which so much of our economic recovery depends.
I am pleased to speak on the Bill, which I welcome. It brings clarity to issues that arose following the 2005 Act, where farmers and even vets could be prosecuted. I compliment the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on its common sense approach to practices taking place on farms at the time.
I wish to speak on the operation of vets and the administration of veterinary drugs in the equine sector. With Goffs in the news this week, most people are well aware that the equine sector is a major employer of people in this country, with approximately 17,000 people involved in the sector. This year, 6,500 thoroughbred foals have been registered. In addition, there are approximately 1,000 non-registered thoroughbred foals as well as the foals born in the sport horse sector. Approximately 50% of the registered thoroughbred foals will end up racing. One could ask what happens to the other 50%. It is sad, but we must talk about the fact that many of those animals end up being slaughtered. Horse meat is a valuable export, in particular to continental Europe. The French market for Irish slaughtered horses is considerable.
The drugs administered by vets for the cure of ailments in the equine sector are not licensed. There is a requirement relating to minimum residue levels but because the equine sector is such a small part of the veterinary-pharmaceutical industry, time is not taken to do testing on the drugs used. As a result, there has been a derogation from the Commission on the administration of veterinary drugs used in the equine sector. That means there is no withdrawal period for most of the drugs. Consequently, when vets administer drugs to horses they stamp the animal's passport as "Not fit for human consumption" which affects the livelihoods of those involved in the horse breeding sector whose horses do not end up on the racecourse and cannot be used for their intended purpose.
There is no licence for the drugs used in this area. Perhaps the Minister could examine the matter and address it in the regulations under the Bill or by some other means. The meat from a horse whose passport is stamped "Not fit for human consumption" can only be used as dog food. Both Deputy John Paul Phelan and I have equine slaughtering facilities in our constituencies which are at capacity in recent years due to the downturn in the economy. The people who own the horses end up getting either a nominal fee or may have to pay for the animal to be slaughtered themselves. Breeders suffer a loss of earnings as a result.
The horses to which I refer are not bred for slaughter but for the racetrack. One should consider the statistics involved: of the 7,000 thoroughbred foals born this year, only seven will win a group 1 race. Only 3,500 will make it to a racetrack, which means 3,500 thoroughbred foals will end up being slaughtered before they reach their potential. The sad part for the sector is that breeders have potential to earn much more if the stamp "Not fit for human consumption" were to be removed from the passport. Horse meat could be a valuable export for this country. I hope the Minister will examine the regulations. The Bill improves the way in which livestock is looked after. It will also ensure that Irish produce is the envy of the world because of its quality. I would like to see an opportunity for us to export horsemeat for human consumption on the Continent.
I also welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation. It is nice to contribute to a debate on a Bill that has cross-party support, as well as the support of the IFA. This year marks the 250th anniversary of the establishment in France of the practice of veterinary medicine. For over 100 years, Ireland has been producing high quality veterinary practitioners and other professionals who work in that sector.
The veterinary industry is rarely discussed in the country at large because of the exemplary fashion in which the sector conducts itself. We should congratulate the many people who work in what is an important part of our economy. Farm animals provide the vital link in the farm-to-fork concept, in addition to giving the economy huge potential for the production and export of food along with the ancillary employment involved. The veterinary industry in all its forms provides much of the regulation, checking and security consumers have when sitting down to eat Irish food produce. For that, the industry is to be commended.
The Bill effectively concerns deregulation so that certain functions and activities that may hitherto have been seen as reserved for the veterinary profession will now be open to others. That is in tune with the programme for Government which seeks to cut business costs generally and strengthen competition in sheltered sectors. This concerns not just the agricultural industry, but all businesses. As agriculture has been modernised and developed, the gap between regular mainstream business and farming has narrowed. In both cases in recent years we have seen an onerous increase in the number of groups and bodies involved in farm regulation. This Bill has come before the House quickly and I hope it represents just one step in the move towards reducing regulation in farming and in business generally.
We must identify how we can broadly unleash the potential of high-growth sectors in the economy. Much reference has been made to the fact that our agricultural and food production sector is currently one of the economy's shining lights. We must also develop such potential through our third level facilities by educating foreign students here. Ireland is renowned for its production of sporting animals and those bred for consumption. Some years ago, the National Consumer Authority produced a study showing that Ireland is still a significant net importer of vets and other professionals in this industry. Given that we have such strong institutions and a strong culture of engaging in all forms of livestock production, we could find ourselves exporting such talent in this area over the next ten to 15 years. This would provide revenue for institutions and get added value from an area where currently the reverse is occurring.
The Bill is straightforward legislation which I welcome. I compliment the Minister and Minister of State on bringing it before the House. We must continue the journey towards deregulating farming and other industries.
I wish to make a few points on the Bill, but because some of them have already been made, I will not dwell on them too much. Like other contributors, I also wish to support the Bill. It is the first time I have spoken in the Dáil when there has not been a single Opposition Member present, but I suppose they are supporting this legislation too.
I agree completely with what Deputy Anthony Lawlor said about the slaughter of horses. In addition, Deputy Ann Phelan will be familiar with a premises in Kilkenny that is currently engaged in that business. There has been a significant increase in the number of horses being brought to that premises and other such facilities around the country.
One current difficulty is that we have very small numbers in the thoroughbred sector and because of that we cannot get the drugs to be certified. That presents a problem with the horse passport and meat being deemed as unfit for human consumption. Perhaps the Minister can examine that issue.
Deputy Dara Murphy spoke about veterinary education, which I also wish to address. In yesterday's debate, the Minister outlined the changes that have taken place. Some five or six colleges are now offering veterinary nursing courses as well as veterinary practitioner courses. The Department of Education and Skills and third level institutions need to examine student access to those courses. I am familiar with the cases of several vets who trained overseas, particularly in various parts of Europe, because they could not get into colleges here. At a time when we are bringing a significant number of vets from other jurisdictions to work here, it would be appropriate to extend such courses for more Irish students who have a genuine interest in the care of animals.
I have traditionally supported the CAO points system, but there is more to professions involved in animal care — as with caring for humans — than just the bare points race. If people have a genuine aptitude for such professions, it should be taken into consideration. It is unsustainable to export Irish students to gain qualifications abroad while at the same time having to attract foreign vets to service our domestic industry.
Many vets in my area — I am sure it is the same in other parts of the country — have expanded their practices greatly in the last few years. I am familiar with vets whose practices would have been solely agricultural, but who now have practices that almost entirely treat domestic pets. With the economic downturn, however, more vets are returning to deal with farm animals as there have been obvious improvements in the agricultural economy in the past 12 months in particular. These have coincided with a reduced number of citizens attending veterinary clinics for their pets' problems.
The Bill focuses on a key aspect that the Government must address across the economy in the next four or five years, which is the need to reduce the cost of professional services. It might be argued that the terms of this legislation could be extended to other practices that may not necessarily need to be carried out by vets or veterinary nurses. In this context, it is welcome that certain practices such as scanning and micro-chipping, farriery and others, are specifically listed in the Bill and as a result of these changes, will be permitted to be carried out by persons who are not qualified veterinary practitioners.
I ask the Minister of State to refer in his concluding comments to some points I wish to raise. Deputy Bannon referred to the closure of veterinary offices in different parts of the country. The veterinary office in Kilkenny was downgraded a number of years ago and there is widespread speculation that the Waterford office, which services the Kilkenny area, is due for a similar downgrading over the next couple of months. The Minister of State may not be in a position to comment but if he is, I would like to hear his views. Deputy Tom Barry hit the nail on the head in his contribution when he spoke about Ireland leading the way in respect of animal welfare. We have a strong record in that regard. Irish vets and veterinary nurses are respected across the world for their work. The change in the legislation governing those professions is to be welcomed.
This is straightforward legislation which will clarify certain issues provided for in the 2005 Act. I wish to make some brief comments. I acknowledge the quality of the veterinary service in this country. I come from an agricultural background and I have seen at first hand the commitment of veterinary professionals to their work. They are available late at night or early in the morning and are always ready to come out when they are asked. They play a vital role in the agrifood sector.
The agri-sector of the economy is doing well and exports have increased as has the income of farmers. I come from the west and I know that the rise in farming incomes is not universal and rising costs have to be considered.
I ask the Minister of State to comment on the cost of veterinary medicines. I come from a farming background and I have a farming education. I know that every farmer does everything possible to ensure animal welfare. Farmers understand that the care given to the animals is reflected in the price paid at the mart or factory and farmers who do not commit to that level of investment will not get the returns. There is never a situation where farmers want to skimp on these costs because it will affect the final profit.
However, the cost of veterinary medicines is a significant issue for farmers. The beef industry and the export of live cattle trade is a very important part of the sector. Vaccinations are required for animals being sent to the factories and for those being exported on the hoof to ensure the animals are disease-free. The vaccine is very expensive and every farmer must ensure his or her animals are vaccinated if the best price is to be achieved.
I do not advocate the cutting of costs across the board in the agri-sector. It has taken many years to achieve our reputation. If we were to start cutting costs this would damage our reputation on the Continent and would have a detrimental effect on sheep and cattle prices. However, we must understand that large profits are not being made by every farmer in the country.
This amending legislation clarifies what procedures may be carried out by persons who are not veterinary surgeons. I received my agri-education at an agricultural college and many of the people who carry out these procedures were similarly educated. We are fortunate in having many excellent agricultural colleges around the country who are providing this level of training and skills to young farmers which will all help to cut farming costs. The colleges have a very valuable role in this regard. Mountbellew Agricultural College in my own area services the whole western seaboard and these colleges must be funded so as to continue this valuable training for young farmers.
It is acknowledged in the agri-food sector that Harvest 2020 is the goal. This strategy will help boost production and exports of cattle, sheep and food. I would not wish to see this policy tampered with. While the price of cattle and sheep has risen slightly, so has the price of veterinary medicines. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, and the Minister, Deputy Coveney, to examine ways of providing subsidies to farmers in order to reduce the cost of medicines. I know that farmers do not skimp on animal welfare. They know well that the care of animals is vital in order to boost future profits. It is vital for Ireland's reputation abroad that this continues to be the case but it must be understood that this is a high cost for farmers and every effort should be made to keep it cost-competitive.
I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak on this Bill. The major difference between this Bill and the Veterinary Practice Act 2005 is that we can legislate with the benefit of hindsight. The 2005 Act was a landmark decision and the proposed amending Bill is a progressive step towards bringing veterinary practice into the 21st century.
In 2005, it was accepted that veterinary legislation was outdated and in desperate need of reform. The primary function of the Bill is to fully clarify the legal position in enabling the Minister to exclude specified activities from being reserved to veterinary practitioners and nurses and to fully expand the definition of the "practice of veterinary medicine". The definition in the 2005 Act was far too vague and as a result it has been subject to varying interpretations. Stock owners and practitioners were unhappy with the vague definition.
The Veterinary Council of Ireland concluded that various ancillary activities were being inadvertently covered by the definition. In the effort to protect animal welfare and safety, legal clarity is needed to define the activities that may be offered to farmers and other animal owners by service providers or non-vets when a veterinary practitioner is unavailable. Many of these activities such as farriery, bovine hoof trimming and the scanning of cattle and sheep, are already being carried out by other service providers. This Bill will legalise and regularise those services in the interest of protecting animal welfare.
There is also a growing need for competitiveness in this sector to be protected. If a significant number of procedures are exclusively reserved to the veterinary profession, there is a greater probability that these services will prove more costly for the individual, in the absence of a competitive market. As other speakers have noted, veterinary costs are a large factor for farmers. As it stands, many of the veterinary practices throughout the country and particularly in Carlow-Kilkenny match the prices of their competitors for procedures such as scanning.
On the issue of the export of horsemeat, I do not believe Irish people like the idea of their horses being eaten. However, there is a particular problem for the horse sector. I draw the attention of the Minister of State to the very bad winter weather last year. It was not an uncommon sight to see horses standing in two to three feet of muck with nothing for them to eat. At that stage I asked whether we could introduce a national cull, because it was hard to watch these animals suffer in the bad weather.
A particular problem with regard to the disposal of horses concerns the cost to the owner for the disposal of the carcass. I will not seek a roll-back of legislation introduced in that regard because I agree we must dispose of animals properly. However, I would like the Minister to consider other options for disposal, particularly in the case of horses. This is also a huge problem for local authorities. They must round up these animals and dispose of them in the correct way, which involves significant cost. Perhaps it would be better to export these animals for meat. This might be kinder to the animals and would be better than leaving them languishing. With that in mind, should the reporting of specific cases of animal cruelty encountered by veterinary practitioners be made mandatory?
Before the 2005 Act, the veterinary profession had been self-governing. There is an inherent weakness in self regulation, but this amendment should correct that. Major shortcomings existed regarding disciplinary aspects and the measures which could be taken to deal with them under the code of practice, with a noted lack of proportionality in terms of the range of sanctions offered. However, the 2005 Act reformed the disciplinary proceedings, giving due regard to human rights standards. With this Bill, a further progressive step is being taken to advance the effectiveness of the Veterinary Council of Ireland's investigative functions through authorising its officers to enter a premises other than a domestic dwelling without a search warrant. I welcome this as it will make the investigative process more transparent.
I would, wearing my parochial hat, like to refer to the situation in Kilkenny with regard to district veterinary offices, DVOs. I have asked the Minister of State why the DVO in Kilkenny was downgraded and have asked him to consider having somebody from the Department attend the Kilkenny Mart in Cillín Hill rather than make it necessary for the farmers to drive to Waterford. It would be better if one person was in Kilkenny to service the needs of the farmers on that day.
While this is not part of the jurisdiction of the Minister of State, I would like to draw his attention to a sad fact, namely, that the incidence of suicide among vets is among the highest in the country. While I do not wish to introduce a sad note to the Bill, it is worth reflecting on this. I commend the Bill to the House.
I compliment all those who have contributed on the wide range of issues raised. I am glad Deputy Browne has come back into the Chamber because I thought that I was about to find myself talking to myself for the first time in my life and would have to see a doctor afterwards. I knew the Deputy would not let me down.
I would not do that to the Minister of State.
Many agricultural issues have been raised here and it is crucial we follow up on everything. We are entering a new stage of production and the need for a vet in each area is crucial. I know as a farmer that when farming was going badly, it was just as hard on the vet as on farmers. Vets had to wait for their money and might only get it two or three years after providing a service.
I am delighted with the increase in milk, beef and sheep production and that some practices are being exempted. It is critical that some traditional family businesses, such as hoof-paring and scanning, can be continued and allowed to grow and create jobs. Several Members spoke about the education of our vets. No disrespect to anyone, but I am aware from my area that people could not understand some vets who came into the area. It is a serious loss to our education system that we are not providing more vets, particularly since we are a country with such high standards. As an illustration of just how high our agricultural standards are, I learned when at the ploughing championships that some 300 students from China are to come to Ireland next year to be educated in farm practices. I urge all those who spoke so passionately about this issue to follow up on it.
The issue of the disposal of horses and their use for meat must be addressed at EU level. I would hope this is taken up because €3,500 multiplied by 1,000 would be a significant amount. The suggestion of a cull is a very good idea, because we will have the same problem again when the winter comes.
Deputy Browne asked why the Department decided to use the Veterinary Practice Act as a vehicle for exempting certain practices rather than the Animal Welfare Act. The reason is simple, namely, that the difficulty that needs to be redressed results from the definition of "veterinary practice" in the Veterinary Practice Act 2005 and the problem can only be addressed through an amendment to the Act.
A significant number of issues and questions have been raised in this debate and it would be wrong not to follow up on these. We must ensure the growth in agriculture continues along with best practice in the veterinary area. I thank colleagues for their constructive participation in the debate.
As I explained in my opening speech, the amendments proposed in the Bill can be divided into two broad strands. The first strand derives from the relatively broad definition of "the practice of veterinary medicine" in the 2005 Act and the need to ensure that certain ancillary activities and services concerning animals, which have traditionally been carried out safely by non-vets or nurses, do not become reserved to the veterinary profession. In this context, I refer in particular to procedures such as farriery, equine dentistry, bovine hoof trimming, micro-chipping of companion animals, scanning of cattle and sheep and physiotherapy. The legal advice obtained by the Department is that, having regard to the existing definition of veterinary practice in the Act, there could be doubt about the status of these procedures carried out on animals, particularly in the event of legal disputes arising.
In summary, I propose to resolve the issue by inserting provisions into the Act to enable me, under delegated powers, to make regulations to exempt certain procedures from being reserved to veterinarians or veterinary nurses. The amendments also provide for these exemptions to be made subject to appropriate conditions, including education, training and skills, membership of specified bodies and so on. In so doing, the process will build on existing informal arrangements in some of the areas in question and it will provide clients with a greater degree of quality assurance. It will also facilitate, where appropriate, the specification of the parameters associated with particular procedures which can be performed by non-registered persons, which will bring a much greater degree of legal certainty to the area.
Clearly, in exercising these regulation making powers, I will be subject to the principles and policies which are set down in the Bill. We can, of course, examine these principles and policies in much greater detail on Committee Stage. The Bill also provides for formal consultation with the Veterinary Council of Ireland before any activity is exempted. There will also be extensive consultation with the various stakeholders before any regulations are adopted.
The second strand in the Bill relates, in summary, to changes being proposed to streamline and improve operation of the 2005 Act in light of experience since its implementation in January 2006. In the majority of cases, the changes proposed derive from suggestions put forward by the Veterinary Council of Ireland, based on its direct experience of implementing the 2005 Act. The proposed amendments also take account of more recent legislation governing regulation of the professions, in particular, the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 and the Pharmacy Act 2007.
As I indicated in my opening statement, the Department has consulted widely on the Bill and there is a general welcome among the various stakeholders that the substantive issue of the ancillary activities is being addressed. This broad consensus is reflected in the contributions made in the debate today. I am not particularly surprised that there is some disagreement about some of the detailed provisions in the Bill and we can deal with the issues raised on Committee stage. The door is not closed and it is important people know that.
Question put and agreed to.