I welcome Mr. Tom Hanley, president; Mr. Frank McRory, treasurer; Mr. John O'Rourke, Mr. Michael Fenlon and Ms Valerie Beatty, registrar, of the Veterinary Council of Ireland who meet us today to discuss the Veterinary Practice Bill 2004 now at Committee Stage in the Seanad. Before commencing the presentation, I draw to Mr. Hanley's attention the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not extend to him. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
Veterinary Practice Bill 2004: Presentation.
Mr. Tom Hanley
The Veterinary Council of Ireland welcomes the introduction of a new Bill to provide for the regulation of the veterinary profession. The council has been working with the Department of Agriculture and Food on various drafts of the Bill and is grateful that many of the innovations suggested by it have been adopted.
The council is pleased to be given this opportunity to address the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food and thanks members for their interest in its views. The council is represented by me, a practising veterinary surgeon in County Clare; Mr. Frank McRory, chief veterinary officer with Donegal County Council; Mr. John O'Rourke, one of the Minister's nominees; Ms Valerie Beatty, registrar, and Mr. Michael Fenlon, also a veterinary surgeon and recently retired registrar of the council.
The Veterinary Council of Ireland is the statutory body which regulates the profession in the public interest and to which will fall responsibility for implementation of the Bill when it becomes law. The council is not a representative organisation but a public body. It is a small organisation with just three full-time staff, including the registrar, and an annual income of approximately €330,000.
The council has studied the Bill in detail and identified a number of areas of concern which we would like to put to the joint committee. We propose to deal with them by separating those items which we consider to be policy requirements to ensure the proper and effective delivery of a veterinary service in the public interest and those items which we consider impact on the day-to-day practicalities of implementing the various requirements of the Bill. We will also deal with items of a technical nature.
I draw the attention of members to Part 5 of the document which relates to the practise of veterinary medicine and, specifically, the definition of the practise of veterinary medicine as set out in section 54(1)(a), on page 41, lines 18 and 19. This is the first time the practise of veterinary medicine has been defined in law. It is the view of the veterinary council that a clear definition of what constitutes the practise of veterinary medicine is fundamental to the success or failure of this legislation. The current definition, while wide-ranging and comprehensive, overlooks the requirement to diagnose health as well as disease.
The dictionary defines "health" as soundness of mind, body and spirit. In many cases diagnosing health can be as important as diagnosing disease. I cite as an example the health of a horse in terms of its soundness for sale on behalf of a purchaser. It is the view of the council that the inclusion of the word "health" in section 54(1)(a)(i) would strengthen the Bill and give a positive connotation to the work of veterinary surgeons in diagnosing disease, injury, pain, deformity, defect, condition or health.
In regard to section 54(2), on page 42, line 5, the council considers it inappropriate to connect surgical procedure with necropsy. The reference to subsection (1)(a) places unnecessary constraints on the conduct of a necropsy. We suggest, therefore, that section 54(2) be changed to read, “in paragraph (a)(i) of subsection (1) diagnosing disease shall be taken to include necropsy”.
The next source of concern is Part 8 which relates to veterinary nurses. Section 92(2)(b), on pages 67, line 2, refers. Veterinary nurses are an important resource and the council is pleased to note that at last they are to receive proper recognition of their profession. We have advocated this in submissions to the Department over many years.
The overriding concern must be the health and welfare of animals entrusted to our care. We are concerned to note that no reference is made in section 92(2)(b) to diagnosis or supervision by a veterinary surgeon. The training which nurses undertake provides them with the skills required to nurse. The Irish Veterinary Nurses Association has expressed concern regarding this section and stressed that nursing skills are complementary to those required for diagnosis. The two professions work hand in hand.
In the interests of animal welfare nurses work under the direction of a veterinary surgeon. Section 92(2)(b) should be amended to read, “procedures which may be carried out by a veterinary nurse on animals, otherwise than in the presence of a veterinary surgeon but under the direction of a veterinary surgeon, consisting of”. Section 92(2)(b)(iv) which refers to the taking of extra images would be improved by deleting the current wording and replacing it with “the use of radiology equipment” which would be more scientific.
I now turn to matters which we consider to impact on the day-to-day practicalities of the implementation of the legislation. I commence by considering Part 3 of the Bill which deals with the Veterinary Council of Ireland with particular reference to the appointment of members. Section 16(1), page 15, lines 35 to 45, and page 16, lines 1 to 19, applies. The composition of the council proposed would reduce the number of elected veterinary surgeons from 12 to just seven.
Section 13 sets out a much expanded role for the council with requirements relating to undergraduate education, postgraduate education, continuing education for members, veterinary practice premises, veterinary codes of practice, the conduct of inquiries, the imposition of discipline as well as registration, mutual recognition and promotion for both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses. It would not be possible to adequately discharge all of these functions with only seven veterinary surgeons on the council. It would require eight veterinary surgeons alone to ensure one would be available to each of the veterinary orientated committees, let alone make provision for finance matters, maintenance of the register, PR, EU affairs and the other areas on which the council must keep an eye if it is to adequately fulfil its remit in the public interest.
As the committee is aware, members serve on the council in a voluntary capacity. The council wishes to see the number of elected veterinary surgeons increased, ideally to the current number of 12 or a minimum of ten. Alternatively, the blockage envisaged in section 16(1)(c) could be removed to allow a veterinary surgeon to be appointed, or section 16(1)(d) and (f) could be changed to provide for the appointment of a veterinary surgeon with the requisite background to fulfil the requirements of the section. Section 16(1)(d) provides for one nominee from the Department of Education and Science who shall be an individual engaged in the provision of higher education while section 16(1)(e) provides for two nominees from the National University of Ireland. To appoint three individuals engaged in higher education appears disproportionate in such a small body with only seven elected veterinary surgeons. The nominee of the Minister for Education and Science could usefully be replaced by an elected veterinary surgeon.
The term of office of council members is dealt with in section 19(3)(a), on page 18, lines 28 to 30. Currently, council members serve for a period of four years and the Bill envisages that this will continue. However, under the current electoral arrangements for the election of the veterinary members, there is a roll-over whereby half of the elected members fall due for re-election or replacement every two years. This arrangement has worked well to ensure the knowledge and experience built up over the period of office of members is not suddenly lost. There is always continuity of experience on the council. We ask the committee to consider providing for a similar arrangement in the Bill. For the first election we suggest that the 50% of elected members with the highest poll are elected for four years while the other 50% are elected for two years. Thereafter there would be an election every two years for 50% of the places.
Part 10 provides for investigations by the council, specifically the functions of authorised officers. Section 126(b), on page 85, line 16, refers. While the section allows for authorised officers to carry out an inspection of veterinary premises, it does not allow for the inspection of other premises where the council has reasonable cause, as specified in section 126(a)(i) and (ii), without a search warrant, as specified in section 128, on page 87. It is the opinion of the council that the restriction is a considerable obstacle to the ability to visit other premises. It would like the word “veterinary” to be deleted from line 16 to allow authorised officers inspect other premises.
The power to inspect premises is set out in section 127(a)(i), on page 85, lines 28 and 29. The section specifies that an authorised officer may enter any premises where he or she has reasonable grounds for believing the practice of veterinary medicine or veterinary nursing is being or has been carried on by a registered person. The council is of the view the authorised person should be able to enter the premises of a non-registered person on the same grounds and requests that the words “by a registered person” be deleted from lines 28 and 29. It has been clear to the council for many years that serious breaches have been perpetrated by non-registered persons in non-registered premises. Non-members should not be treated differently from those on the register.
Section 25 of Part 3, on pages 21 and 22, deals with superannuation in the Veterinary Council of Ireland. The council is funded solely from fees paid by veterinary surgeons. As no funding is received from the State, employees of the council are neither civil nor public servants. The council has pension provisions in place for its three employees through a scheme approved by the Pensions Board. Section 25 applies to civil and public service employees where the State is their employer. It, therefore, has a superannuation obligation to these employees when they retire. However, it has no such obligation to the employees of the council. It is the view of the council that as superannuation is adequately provided for in the obligations imposed by other legislation, the section is inappropriate and should be deleted from the Bill.
Section 29, on pages 24 and 25, addresses the effect of membership of a House of the Oireachtas, European Parliament or local authorities. The Bill proposes that Members of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament and local authority members shall be specifically excluded from eligibility to be appointed to the Veterinary Council of Ireland. The council has been well served since its establishment in 1931 by public representatives and would support any proposal to lift the restrictions imposed by this section of the Bill.
I now turn to items of a technical nature in Part 1, the preliminary and general element of the Bill which sets out the definitions. Section 2, on page 10, line 12, defines "emergency". The council is concerned that there is no provision to safeguard animal welfare and considers it necessary to ensure animals are treated humanely in all circumstances. We request that the wording be amended to include, "the euthanasia of the animal in a humane manner" in place of "the putting down of the animal".
Section 2, on page 11, line 5, features the term "veterinary practitioner". It is the view of the council that the term "veterinary surgeon" has stood the profession well for many years, is well understood by the public at large, thankfully has positive connotations, and is inclusive of all members of the profession. The new term "veterinary practitioner" has a more restrictive meaning in colloquial speech, is not currently inclusive and not in itself any more modern in its meaning than "veterinary surgeon". While one can argue a "surgeon" operates in a branch of medicine and that the term is not inclusive, we believe the public is not confused by the term and that it should continue in use. If a modern expression is required, the Americanism "veterinarian" appears to be the one adopted globally. We prefer the original term "veterinary surgeon" and request that the expression "veterinary practitioner" be changed to "veterinary surgeon" and that all references throughout the Bill to "veterinary practitioner" be changed to "veterinary surgeon".
Section 4(2)(a), on page 11, lines 35 to 37, addresses repeals. The council understands the intention of the section is to confer on it the responsibility to set all appropriate fees without the need for the Minister to draw up a statutory instrument. The council would like clarification that this is the effect of the section.
Part 5 relates to the practice of veterinary medicine. Section 55 deals with emergencies and exceptions. The council requests that the words "is not immediately available" be changed to "is not available within a reasonable timeframe" in section 56(2), on page 42, lines 42 and 43. Section 56(3), on page 43, lines 1 and 2, provides that the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1931 will be revoked following the passing of this Bill into law. To obviate the need to refer back to the revoked Act the council suggests the appropriate words from section 46(3) of the 1931 Act be written in full in the Bill. Lines 1 and 2 on page 43 would be replaced by "which is incidental to the usual care and management of animals of that class, provided that such person or servant does not hold himself out as a registered veterinary surgeon".
Under section 56, the council also suggests the inclusion of an additional subsection (5) to read as follows: "Students of veterinary medicine and veterinary nursing may, in the presence of a veterinary surgeon, carry out treatments and/or procedures in the course of their training". The addition of such a section would allow students to gain appropriate practical experience in their undergraduate years.
Regulations to provide for the practice of veterinary medicine by non-registered persons are dealt with in section 60(2)(a), on page 43. Currently, all anaesthetics and sedatives have been determined as VSO — veterinary surgeon only — by the Irish Medicines Board. This section is inappropriate and should be removed. It is the wish of the council that it be replaced with the words, “procedures which are incidental to the normal welfare of animals”.
I turn to Part 6 which deals with veterinary education and training, specifically the composition of the education committee provided for under section 63(2), on page 45. The Veterinary Council of Ireland requests that an additional paragraph (g) be added which would specify such other members of the council as the council considers appropriate. This amendment would allow the education committee to draw in additional expertise when required. This might be restricted in the suggested composition of the committee.
I will now address section 64(2)(h), on page 47, line 5. To ensure members registered as having specialities in veterinary medicine have kept abreast of developments in those specialities, the council requests that the words “and requirements” be inserted after “specialities” and before “in veterinary medicine”. This would allow the council to specify what requirements specialists should be required to meet to maintain their continuing registration as specialists.
Part 9 deals with veterinary premises. With regard to section 107(1), on page 76, line 27, the council is unhappy with the exclusion of a "farm" as a veterinary premises and would like this reference to be deleted. As some veterinary surgeons reside on farms and conduct their practice from premises on these farms, this section would effectively remove any veterinary premises on a farm from the remit of the Bill.
I thank the Chairman and the joint committee for giving the Veterinary Council of Ireland an opportunity to address the committee, as a statutory body, and express our concerns regarding the new Bill.
I thank Mr. Hanley for his presentation.
I welcome representatives of the Veterinary Council of Ireland and thank them for producing this synopsis of their concerns and the anomalies they believe need to be addressed in the Veterinary Practice Bill. As we did not receive the presentation until this morning, it is difficult for members to take in everything that has been said.
I note with regard to section 16 of the Bill which deals with membership, that under the proposed structure, only one veterinary nurse representative would sit on the veterinary council. Is this provision adequate or should it be changed?
I note the Bill specifically precludes a veterinary surgeon from representing the animal welfare element on the veterinary council. Will the delegation comment on this provision? If the specific purpose of being a member of the veterinary council is animal welfare, the background of the representative should not make any difference.
Mr. Hanley's point as regards the roll-over of membership represents a sensible approach which was adopted in the Oireachtas in the early 1970s with the introduction of the old health board system with its roll-over procedure. This approach should be facilitated in the legislation.
I have two questions on prescription only medicines. Under section 58, will a person who is not registered be able to issue a prescription only medicine? This appears to be the practice in cases where a premises is under the control of a veterinary surgeon but medicine is issued by someone who is not registered with the Veterinary Council of Ireland. What is Mr. Hanley's opinion on this practice? Will it be addressed under section 58 or other relevant sections?
Will Mr. Hanley comment on the consideration being given by the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Irish Medicines Board to the extension of prescription only medicines to other medicines not covered by the relevant regulations?
I thank the group for appearing before the joint committee. As the presentation contains a lot of meat, it is hard to keep up to speed with all the detail. In principle, much of what Mr. Hanley said in terms of refinement makes sense. I particularly welcome the concept of diagnosing health. We are good at diagnosing illness and it has been said we have a Minister for illness rather than a Minister for health. This interpretation is important.
With regard to veterinary nurses, on balance I would like to hear the group's views on the modifications the Veterinary Council of Ireland has proposed before committing to the detail of the proposed amendments. To compare the position of a public health nurse and a veterinary nurse, the former would probably be able to carry out comparable tasks without supervision by a medical doctor. Is it possible to draw a similar comparison in the veterinary context? If so, what would be the implications?
I agree with the roll-over proposal. Again, I would need to think about the detail of the proposal, although continuity is important. Having the same people in situ for a long period has its shortcomings about which I have reservations. The council’s proposal in this regard is, therefore, useful.
Which other premises, apart from veterinary practices, would the Veterinary Council of Ireland wish to regulate and visit?
Will Mr. Hanley spell out in detail the council's proposals regarding the role of public representatives? As a public representative, perhaps I should not say this but is there a risk of a conflict of interest if the veterinary council were to include a public representative, given that it is the governing body which makes regulations? The degree of detail in the presentation requires that we take a closer look at some of the proposals.
I thank the delegation for its detailed presentation. I will comment on two aspects of it. I support the proposal for roll-over elections of members of the council as it would give a sense of continuity and ensure considerable experience was available to it at all times. I will support the proposed amendment.
The carrying out of searches without warrants is a matter of grave concern. I understand much of this may go back to the time of the foot and mouth disease outbreak during which authorised people were allowed to proceed without court-issued warrants. I am most concerned about this and am opposed to it on the basis that it is open to abuse.
I thank the members of the delegation for their contributions and the synopsis I was given by their colleagues in Kerry yesterday. The presentation was most informative.
Mr. Hanley
I will begin by raising the question of veterinary nurses, who currently do not have any status in Irish legislation. Reference was made to having a nurse as a member on the Veterinary Council. The Bill proposes that a register of veterinary nurses would be drawn up within two years of establishment day. In time, an independent veterinary nursing council, which would have equal status to the Veterinary Council, would be established if the Minister for Agriculture and Food should consider the number of registered veterinary nurses had reached a significant level. It is appropriate that a veterinary nurse would be a member of the new council and there is no reason why it should be restricted to one nurse. The final section states that at least one veterinary nurse should be appointed but it is possible that other veterinary nurses could be appointed by the NUI. Somebody working in UCD for instance may be appointed in that category but it is appropriate that there should be at least one nurse represented on the council.
Will nurses be on the same register as vets?
Mr. Hanley
No, it will be a separate register.
On section 16(1)(c) and the composition of council, at present it is specified that it should be somebody involved with welfare but it specifically excludes veterinary surgeons from that area. Most veterinary surgeons would be very well up on welfare issues and we feel it is inappropriate that a vet, per se, should be excluded. The position does not have to be filled by a vet but vets should not be excluded.
In regard to prescription only medicines, POMs, it is my understanding that the Minister for Agriculture and Food will soon bring in animal remedies regulations to update those which were introduced in 1996 and bring them in line with policy in other EU countries. I am not very au fait with that at present but it should deal with concerns expressed on POMs and changes in that category. Reference was made to veterinary surgeons giving out POMs on their premises. Under current legislation it would not be legal for a veterinary surgeon to diagnose and write a prescription which he or she would issue to a client.
Deputy Upton referred to the public health connotations of veterinary nursing. We agree with what she said but even public health nurses who visit patients are not the ones who make a diagnosis or prescribe, for example, antibiotics to patients. If a doctor has prescribed something, they may be the ones to administer it. The changes we envisage in section 92(2)(b) would bring the legislation in line with current practice on the human side in regard to public health nurses. That section deals specifically with what nurses can do otherwise than in the presence of a veterinary surgeon. We feel that a veterinary surgeon should be the one to direct that, for example, a dog is to get an injection of penicillin at 3 p.m. in the afternoon and again at 6 p.m. in the evening or whatever else. Nurses can administer drugs but they would not be the ones making the diagnosis or writing the prescription.
I have a short question on the detail of that. It is proposed to substitute "radiology equipment" for "X-ray". What else is there, and is that not something that is very specific and tightly controlled anyway? Vets are currently entitled to carry out X-rays as part of their responsibility.
Mr. Hanley
Even veterinary surgeons would not be entitled to possess or operate X-ray equipment without being registered with the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. The RPII has a detailed code of practice for the use of X-ray and other equipment in veterinary medicine. We felt the wording which refers to the taking of X-ray pictures almost implies that it can be done by an instamatic camera. We want to have a more scientific wording to indicate that there is more to taking X-rays than just snapping pictures.
That is fine.
Mr. Frank McRory
In regard to Deputy Upton's concerns about what veterinary nurses may feel in regard to this, we took the chairperson of the Veterinary Nurses Association with us to the Department where she reiterated the concerns that we quote in our document. Nurses feel exactly as we do on this matter.
I welcome the delegation. Second Stage debate has commenced in the Seanad on this Bill but, unfortunately, I was not available to contribute to it. However, I look forward to participating on Committee Stage.
Section 60 appears to be a rather unusual one, in that at a time when the legislation is designed to increase regulation and narrow certain fields of discretion, the Minister is allowing certain non-registered persons to be registered. Has a similar provision been introduced in other parts of the EU? This section appears to go against the spirit of the Bill and the Minister's intention is not entirely clear. If we were discussing general practitioners we would not put in a section to allow non-registered general practitioners to practice. Is there opposition to this section?
I support the desire to see an increased number of veterinary surgeons on the new council. The history of the Veterinary Council and the individual attention and commitment on the part of veterinary surgeons with no personal gain to them clearly shows that the maximum possible participation of veterinary surgeons would help the country in the years ahead, as it has heretofore. I am interested in hearing the views of the Veterinary Council on the unusual nature of section 60.
Most of what I wish to raise has already been covered. I wish to return to section 2, which refers to euthanasia in place of putting down animals. Will the delegates elaborate on that? What is the great difference between euthanasia and the putting down of an animal? Is the council afraid that somebody might shoot a horse that has been injured at a race meeting although the vet has recommended that it be put down? That is my interpretation.
I welcome the proposed addition to section 56. It is very worthy and possibly necessary. Will the representatives elaborate on the places or premises excluded under section 107(1)?
I welcome the members of the Veterinary Council of Ireland and thank them for their presentation, which helped to educate us on the Bill. There is much in it and we need to take a closer look at it.
There are very many recommendations by Veterinary Ireland included in the Bill. Some of the points the representatives are making are taken word for word from what Veterinary Ireland has stated to us. That does not surprise me. One thing that does surprise me is that Veterinary Ireland has recommended that section 60, about which Senator Bradford has spoken, should be deleted in its entirety. Will the members of the Veterinary Council of Ireland elaborate on what they mean by procedures which are incidental to the normal welfare of animals?
The presentation refers to the inspection of other premises. What have the delegates in mind in this regard? In the Seanad I have raised many of the issues raised by the delegation regarding this Bill. When the Bill was considered in the Seanad, the Minister stated she would postpone Committee Stage, review the issues we had raised and have further consultation. How much consultation has the Veterinary Council of Ireland had with the Department of Agriculture and Food in the lead-up to the publication of the Bill and since Second Stage was taken in the Seanad?
I support the delegates in believing there is a need to increase representation by veterinary surgeons on the council to at least eight. This is a significantly smaller number to that which existed previously. Bearing in mind that veterinary surgeons are very busy people, the many committees cannot function properly without their hands-on approach. How do the delegates believe the council will operate with eight veterinary surgeons as members given that they must attend all the committee meetings?
Nowhere in the presentation did I hear a reference to the veterinary surgeons' customers, the farming community and others. Is the Veterinary Council of Ireland happy with the proposed representation for farming communities? Is is vital that the people the council serves have adequate and appropriate representation on any new council that will be formed.
Mr. Hanley
I will start with the final question. Senator Coonan mentioned farm representation. The Minister's two nominees on the veterinary council are farmers. Under the new Act, farming interests could be represented under many sections. Section 16(1)(c), which refers to persons performing functions relating to animal welfare, does not preclude a farmer from becoming involved. Although the Minister is required to nominate one registered veterinary surgeon — this is currently the chief veterinary officer — she has room to appoint a number of other individuals, possibly farmers.
That is not a guarantee.
Mr. Hanley
I know there are no guarantees in the legislation. However, farmers' interests should be represented adequately. From a large animal practice point of view, farmers are our biggest clients and will continue to be major consumers of our services.
Mr. Michael Fenlon
For the past ten years we have been consulting the Department. When Mr. Dowling was Secretary General of the Department, we heard the first announcement that there would be a new Bill. Consultation started at this time. Since then, it has been said that the Bill would be introduced on a number of occasions but it failed to materialise. It was only two years ago that we got to the stage where we had a piece of paper we could discuss with the Department. There have been consultations in the past year, during which the original of this document was produced to us. We met the Department on several occasions in the past year, the last of which was last Thursday.
It is all very fine that the Department can listen to us, state our proposals are very interesting and agree with us but it must then obtain the advice of the Office of the Attorney General. However, we do not have the opportunity to meet the Attorney General although it is the coalface where the decisions are made. That is the extent of the consultation. We are happy with the consultation we have had in terms of availability but we are never happy with consultations that result in things staying the same when we are looking for change.
Mr. McRory
As a veterinary surgeon and member of Veterinary Ireland, I would like to see section 60, which pertains to the practice by non-registered persons, deleted from the legislation. However, as a member of the Veterinary Council of Ireland, I must adopt a wider view more in tune with the public interest. The two elements that are mentioned in subsections (2)(a)(i) and (2)(a)(ii) — treating an animal in an emergency and administering an anaesthetic to an animal, respectively — are singularly inappropriate to this section. The first element of treating an animal in an emergency is dealt with in section 56 and administering an anaesthetic to an animal is a veterinary-surgeon-only procedure, as prescribed by the Irish Medicines Board. To improve this section, we have suggested the wording “procedures that are incidental to the normal welfare of an animal”. The idea behind this was simply to try to make provision for those procedures that are now a part of normal farm practice, such as hoof trimming and scanning of ewes, regarding which the existing definition might lead to subsequent difficulties. The clause we propose would allow for those procedures to be carried out in some kind of controlled fashion.
Euthanasia is really just a more scientific way of referring to the putting down of an animal. We were concerned that the relevant section made no reference to the humane putting down of the animal. We are concerned that the method of putting an animal down should be humane and that is why we suggested the change in question.
The inspection of other premises was raised. Nine times out of ten if a veterinary surgeon is on the register and has a registered premises there will be no problem. The difficulty arises when a person has never been registered or goes off the register, or is carrying on illegal activity in an unregistered premises. That is why we wanted a provision to allow for the visitation and inspection of that type of premises without a warrant.
The farm issue has been adequately covered. If we were drawing up this section we might have done so differently. However, there is an attempt in the section to bring various interest groups into the council and we cannot argue with that. We have a difficulty with section 16(c)where the person “who performs functions relating to animal welfare” specifically debars a veterinary surgeon, whereas we feel a veterinary surgeon would possibly be the appropriate and should not be debarred from that role. That would increase the veterinary representation by one. As we said in our submission, to have three individuals from the area of higher education on a body which comprises only seven veterinary surgeons to control the veterinary profession is singularly inappropriate and disproportionate. There may, therefore, be grounds for changing that. It might be appropriate that the person appointed from the Food Safety Authority be a veterinary surgeon because the veterinary council will discuss veterinary public health.
Those are the ways in which we hope the Bill could be tweaked to create more veterinary bodies to do the work laid out in section 13(2). Given that the paragraphs run from (a) to (m) with several further paragraphs there is significant work involved in performing the functions set out in the Bill. That is why it is necessary to have more veterinary bodies.
I am not aware of any conflict having arisen in the past when members of public bodies were on the council. I do not see where a conflict might arise if public representatives sit on the council. These members gave valuable service on the council and there is at least one individual present here who served in that capacity.
I welcome the deputation, especially my old friend Mr. Michael Fenlon. It has been a long time since I saw him. It is difficult to absorb all the information provided at one time. I am interested in section 60 but I am not clear about it because Mr. McRory said that as a veterinary surgeon he held one view whereas on the council he holds a different view. Could he please clarify this for those of us who are still vague about it?
The council's proposals for its composition are reasonable. The reduction from 12 to seven members is significant but we will give whatever help we can when we discuss this with the Minister. I agree wholeheartedly with the point about the roll-over. It is important to have continuity of experience. When we have studied this more comprehensively we will discuss it further.
I thank Mr. Hanley for his precise presentation which was easy to understand. Many of the requests in the presentation are logical and I do not understand why some of those points are not already included. I appreciate the significance of the inclusion of the word "health" in section 54(1)(a)(i) and fully support it. Section 92(2)(b), concerning veterinary nursing, makes no reference to supervision or diagnosis by a veterinary surgeon. It would not be impossible for the Minister, whether by means of appointments to the National University of Ireland or otherwise, to increase the numbers on the council to ten. I support that call too.
The council's point about the roll-over and the appointment of members to the board is also sensible. The point about the inspection of premises for those other than registered practitioners or veterinary surgeons is very important and deserves to be strongly put. There may be many people who do not practise to the same standard as members of the council. The proposal to replace "the veterinary practitioner" with the old wording is common sense.
I am surprised that members and employees of the council are not paid by the State and support its request that the section on superannuation be deleted. I am concerned about the representation of farmers on the board and approve of the point about members of the Oireachtas or local authorities being on the board. This perhaps refers back to the county committees which existed in every county but are no longer recognised by the State.
This is a sad day because farming no longer has the hold or voice that it had in the past. Public representatives who represented farmers were large cogs in the wheel. I have never heard of a farmer who represented farmers having conflicting interests and I support the proposal to place public representatives on the board.
I add my welcome to that expressed by everyone else to the delegation. However, it contains no one from Cork. Many other counties are represented but there is no one from Cork, which is a problem. I do not know how the council arranged that.
Deputy Carty is almost from Mallow.
Having said that——
That is an apology to Deputy Ned O'Keeffe.
The Deputy is a Limerick man.
The man to the Deputy's left is a Carlow man.
He is, and there is a Donegal man and a Clare man.
I congratulate Ms Beattie on her recent appointment as registrar of the Veterinary Council of Ireland. Having worked for a short time with Mr. Fenlon I acknowledge the excellence of the work he did over many years.
Section 16(1)(b) and (c) allows for the Minister to appoint anybody but a veterinary surgeon, including a farmer. If we each had the opportunity to draft the Bill there probably would be 200 different Bills. The Minister and the Department were responsible for it. While I acknowledge the excellent presentation by the Veterinary Council of Ireland, and that yet to be made by Veterinary Ireland which has written to all of us making relevant points about the Bill, the recent television programme “Ear to the Ground” highlighted the extensive role of veterinary surgeons. The programme is based on a group of veterinary surgeons in Bandon, which shows that Cork has a part to play. I will make a point about the number of vets. We have discussed this in the Seanad. As Senator Coonan said, the Bill is moving to Second Stage. There is no mention by the speaker or by Veterinary Ireland of increasing the number on the council from 17 upwards. Mr. Hanley has settled for a figure of 17. If the vets must have ten members, as the speaker says, someone must be excluded. Indeed a number of people from seven to ten must be excluded. When I made my contribution I asked for the number to be raised from seven to nine and I think I indicated how that might happen. It would not be too far removed from Mr. Hanley’s suggestion.
One must recognise the role of vets on the farm and the work they do. One must also recognise the huge workload involved in the Veterinary Council. If it is confined to a limited number such as seven, as proposed in the Bill, the enormity of the task must be borne by the elected members coming in from rural Ireland, including a man from Donegal, Clare, Kerry and usually Cork.
They are from everywhere.
They are. One notes the enormous contribution they must make at council level. They must leave their day's work. I will direct a question to a person who is a farmer and not a vet, namely Mr. O'Rourke, who might respond to it. I contend that the vet's input at council level is such that one might not function as well as one would be expected to function. The first thing one would be expected to do is to function well. If there are too few vets on the council, one might not be able to function as well as would be expected in law. I would like Mr. O'Rourke rather than the veterinary representatives to respond to that.
I will now consider the nurses' side. The case regarding the involvement of nurses in the anaesthetics and radiological roles has largely been made but a question remains. One accepts there is an important role for nurses but I would expect them to be working with vets. I would expect it to be an absolute necessity that the nurses would work with the guidance of a veterinary person rather than operating on the high streets without guidance, which they could do. I again direct this issue to Mr. O'Rourke as a non-vet on the council and would like him to comment. He is sitting there very silently.
I want to comment on the issue of fitness to practise and preliminary investigation. I did not hear Mr. Hanley make any reference to that. One must look at the composition of the relevant committees under the Bill. These are serious areas. There are two vets and two non-vets with a legal person chairing the committee with responsibility for preliminary investigation, for example. I know that this committee meets quite frequently. Are we setting up another tribunal? Who will pay for it? Mr. Hanley might say the vets will pay for it by means of their registration fees. I have asked the Minister and the Department if at the end of the day the council will raise the registration fee to pay legal fees that I contend are unnecessary. One can find an independent person — there are many such people on the board — to sit as chairman of the preliminary investigation committee. I have no problem regarding the fitness to practise committee. I know the chairman is pressing me on time but this is an important matter. One might refine it but if one has a good, functioning, preliminary investigation committee, will the farmers pay at the end of the day? I am talking of the increased registration fee. If it is increased and the charge falls back on the vets, will the vet charge for his or her services at a higher rate? I am concerned about that because there is no need for it.
I have made the points I wanted to make. I made further comments in my submission in the Seanad debate. Mr. Hanley responded clearly to the question about anaesthetic administration and the other roles with which vets might not be involved. I would like to hear him speak a little more clearly about the radiological role because that is currently governed by legislation.
I want finally to raise the matter of nurses operating independently of the veterinary officers. One can call them vets, veterinary surgeons or veterinary practitioners. Regarding the export of animals, it is a legal requirement for a vet to sign for the condition of the animal under one's care. If there is a shared role of medical care and attention being given to an animal, a herd or a crop, can a vet in all honesty and with full authority vouch for the standard of the animal under one's care in such a situation?
I apologise for being late, which was due to circumstances outside my control. I thank the delegates for the information they have given us and I will look through the record of this debate later.
As a farmer, I appreciate the role played by vets, and I do not apologise for repeating that here today. We have a doctor on call system for people but God knows when the service will arrive, while if one contacts a veterinary surgeon day or night, one is certain to get a service on time and at reasonable cost. I make no apologies for putting that on the record.
I am worried about the council membership. I know we have a farmer council member present. Currently, farming is basically being regulated out of business. It is important to have farmers on the veterinary council in a practical sense to ensure that unworkable regulations are not imposed. We now have the nitrates directive which was introduced at EU level in 1992. It was ignored in Ireland with the result that farmers will be heavily penalised. Many of them do not realise the implications. In December a new regulation was introduced regarding the transport of animals to the effect that in two years time a driver must be fully qualified, and so on. That too has major implications. As a farmer involved in farm organisations for a number of years, I would like to see a clearer indication of how farmers, the people who own the animals so carefully dealt with by the vets, are to be represented. I have no objection to increasing the number of personnel on the council and will support that in Dáil debate but in fairness, if that happens, it cannot happen within the current regulations as outlined by the Minister.
I will return to the fitness to practise issue. I have concerns about the anomalies involved which seem to militate against practising vets more so than against those in the Department. Private individuals may be open to stricter regulations than departmental veterinarian surgeons. My main concern about regulation is that we must have food that the consumer, whoever he or she may be, can stand over. I have no problem with that. However, I have a real problem with the amount of imported product over which we do not have proper security. I have been abroad and seen hormones, steroids etc. being used. If Egyptians import meat from Ireland, as they did in the past, their vets oversaw that operation before it entered their food chain. We are bringing in products at present in quite sizeable measures of which we certainly do not have necessary oversight, either as a country or as a European Community. All we want is a fair playing pitch and we do not have this currently. I will certainly go through the issues raised today with my colleague, Deputy Stanton, and try to follow them up in the Dáil on behalf of the Veterinary Council of Ireland.
I concur with everybody else in thanking Mr. Hanley and his members for their constructive presentation. The case is well made and, for the most part, reasonable. Mr. Hanley will have seen the degree of consensus within the committee and I believe members will be supporting most of the proposals submitted in our discussions with the Minister and the Department of Agriculture and Food. I am particularly interested in the issue of the evolving role of the veterinary nurse. An analogy was drawn by Deputy Upton, I believe, between the role of the public health nurse and what might be the evolving role of the veterinary nurse practitioner. It is highly desirable to have an inextricable link between the veterinary nurse and the veterinary surgeon. I am concerned that the Bill appears to allow for the "high street" operation of some sort of a nursing practice. Albeit that the district nurse does her job in the community, she is part of a medical care team and does not act independently, as such. I was not aware of the veterinary nurses' association alluded to by Mr. McRory in one of his responses. It might be useful to the deliberations of this committee if we were to make contact with the nurses' association and invite its representatives to come in and give us their side of that evolving situation.
Finally, I was thinking very much along the lines of the point made at the outset by Deputy Crawford about the really valuable work veterinary surgeons do in this country. I was at a social function over Christmas where a heated argument developed between a farmer and one of his relatives, a medical doctor, about the fact that it is much easier in many areas to get the vet than the local doctor. In some places one has to be sick by appointment. A constituent of mine rang a particular practice recently because a child was not well and was told to come in the next day at 3.30 p.m. I had experience myself where I rang the vet, very reluctantly, on Christmas Day and he was there within half an hour. That is an indication of the quality of the service the farming community has received from veterinary surgeons through the generations. It is something of which I am very appreciative and the Oireachtas should recognise that in any new piece of legislation being brought forward.
We have just a couple of supplementary questions and I will take them all together. I want the meeting to wrap up as soon as possible.
As regards the membership of the council, again, I have two questions that are interrelated. Has the delegation any comment to make on the need for gender balance in the council? What number of registered veterinary surgeons are female?
I have two related questions. One relates to section 54(1)(a) of the Bill. On page 41, on the definition of the practice of veterinary medicine, it refers to “diagnosing disease, injury, pain, deformity, defect or condition”. Does “condition” include something such as scanning an animal and so forth because section 60 appears to be extremely ambiguous as regards current practices, which could be regulated under that section? From my interpretation of section 60 it may not include practices such as the scanning of animals which are not necessarily supervised by a veterinary surgeon. In some instances farmers give inter-muscular injections to animals and that does not appear to be covered by the definition in section 60. This refers to an animal being treated only in an emergency and the rest of the section seems to deal with other elements in that procedure. The council’s proposed amendment to section 60 encompasses many of the procedures which are ongoing, whereas the Department’s proposals appear to be much more proscriptive and prohibitive regarding current practice. Will the delegates please elaborate on those two particular elements?
Reference has been made by someone in the delegation to prescription-only medicines, POMs. As someone from a farming background I maintain there is over-regulation. I would ask the council to steer clear of that, although I know the Department emphasises the need for tracing.
Two direct questions were put to me and I want to reply to them. Before I do that and with reference to Deputy Crawford's concerns, I would like to tell the members of the committee who do not know me that I am a full-time farmer and a former manager of one of the largest marts in the country. I also managed another mart for 15 years, which I built out of necessity to meet the regulations. I am a prime supporter of the regulations and professional conduct etc. However, I want to tell Deputy Crawford that in my years on the council, I have been afforded adequate time by its veterinary members. Both male and female members of the council are excellent. I want to go on record in saying that any farming questions I raised over the past five years or any small day-to-day issues have all been treated with the height of respect. The professional veterinarians on the council are 100% dedicated to the job.
I want to reply to Senator Callanan's question as regards the composition of the council. I welcome the new Bill and believe it is a great step forward, as someone with a farming and marts background. It is a great Bill, but there is no way that the new council can function with seven vets. That must be faced up to by every member of the committee. It cannot and will not happen if that is put into law because there is no way any of the committees may be properly run without a professional person at the head. There are eight committees as well as sub-committees and meetings that take place from time to time which require the presence of the professional veterinarian. I have done my sums and will not go through the details now because the committee has reviewed them already today. The council cannot function properly without ten vets, so far as I am concerned. I want to put that on record, because as an old farmer I may not be on the council in a few years time. Future councils will not function properly with fewer than ten vets and I warn members of the this Oireachtas committee of that. There is not a chance.
I must emphasise the role of education. We have two members from the universities and I cannot see why there has to be an additional one from the Department of Education and Science. I believe the Food Safety Authority of Ireland nominee should be a vet. When one walks into marts early in the morning, as I have, one sees that when the veterinary people are present the law is upheld. However, we must face the fact that when killing starts early in the morning and the veterinary surgeon is not present, things are done differently. We must have at least ten veterinary surgeons on the council. We must acknowledge the significant commitment of the 17 council members to this overworked council. In fact, one or two could not stay on it because they could not devote the time to it.
I welcome the long overdue recognition of veterinary nurses. There are three women on the council. The new registrar is also a woman. They each make a valuable contribution. Veterinary nurses should work only under the direction of a veterinary surgeon. However, the provisions of section 92(2)(b) are far too serious and leave staff open to exploitation. We have to put our house in order. We now have a clean meat processing system in place. I would not like to see a return to the use of angel dust or hormones.
Mr. Hanley
We will try to address all the questions raised. If we inadvertently forget something, please do not hesitate to remind us.
Deputy Upton raised the issue of the feminisation of the profession. When my son qualified as a veterinary surgeon in 2004, two thirds of his class were female. I understand that at least two thirds of every class are female. In time ladies will take over the profession. We have no objection to this because many females have contributed handsomely, both in practice and other areas of the profession. I have the statistics to hand.
Deputy Crawford stated veterinary surgeons provide a 24 hour service, of which we are very proud. I hope this will continue. Even the use of language reflects well on the profession. To vet something means to examine it to a high level, whereas to doctor has another connotation.
Senator Callanan mentioned the fitness to practice and preliminary investigation committees. I chaired the preliminary investigation committee for four years. The original draft was more cumbersome than the Bill, as presented. The Bill will be workable. The preliminary investigation committee can consist, as heretofore, of two persons, a veterinary surgeon and a non-veterinary surgeon. Prior to this, ten members of the council were required to sit on the council of inquiry. The figures could be tight as some members would be excluded from dealing with some of the evidence involved. Under the new proposal, five members may sit on the council of inquiry — two veterinary surgeons, two non-veterinary surgeons and an independent chairman who should be either a practising barrister or a solicitor of ten years practice.
This is an area that will have an impact on the public interest. We have no problem with veterinary surgeons being in the minority on a council of inquiry. This will involve employing a barrister full time, a professional who will not come cheaply. Our current income could be eaten up rapidly. The retention fee is €165 per veterinary surgeon per year which is cheap when compared with other professions. This fee must increase substantially, possibly doubled in the short term, to cover the costs of adequately servicing the requirements of the Bill, when enacted.
Nobody, be it a veterinary surgeon or other professional, can be in possession of or operate X-ray equipment without a proper licence from the Radiological Protection Institute which keeps a register of all those licensed to use X-ray equipment. The code of practice states that not alone must a veterinary surgeon operate the equipment but that he or she must also have adequate training to operate it. Although section 92(2)(b) refers to nurses taking X-rays, we believe the Radiological Protection Institute will cover what is required of them adequately under its regulations.
There is absolutely no regulation of what in England is termed ancillary disciplines of veterinary practice such as hoof paring, scanning by lay people as well as the profession of farriers. Iinitially it was proposed there would be three Parts to the Bill, one dealing with the practise of veterinary medicine, the second with the profession of veterinary nursing, and the third with ancillary disciplines but due to time pressures and legal implications, it was decided to drop the third part. This is enabling legislation. We believe a Minister could introduce regulations that would control ancillary disciplines if we were to replace section 60.
I seek clarification on the last point. My understanding is that, as it stands, the legislation, when enacted, will require the Minister to introduce a regulation to allow farriers to continue with procedures such as scanning, paring of hooves, intramuscular injections, not the other way around.
There is a certificate to sign for animals under one's care, which is a requirement for animals for export. If nurses were operating independently, how would that situation be dealt with? I do not believe that a vet could undertake to sign a certificate of quality or otherwise of the animal's health if two or three people were dealing with it.
I want to comment on what Mr. O'Rourke said. I think he was saying that if the veterinary nurses were allowed to have more responsibility than is indicated here, then the equivalent of a black market would emerge. I have concerns about that. Veterinary nurses are highly qualified, well trained and very professional and will be more so in the future. I have serious concerns that there could be implications regarding their high standards.
I stated that the veterinary nurses are allowed to diagnose and treat within a practice until 6 p.m. I am delighted to see the veterinary nurses recognised, but I have concerns that they could be employed by people other than veterinary surgeons after 6 p.m. That is the danger and that loophole should not be left open.
I have to disagree with that point of view.
Mr. Hanley
I agree with Senator Callanan's comments on health. All agricultural exports of animal origin must be accompanied by a health certificate signed by a veterinary surgeon. Diagnosing health is very important and should continue to be included in that definition.
Mr. Fenlon
We calculate our figures from 1 January of each year. In 2004, we had 2,322 people on the register, of which 486 were female. Two elected members of the council are women. In my time as registrar, I have tried to encourage women to take part in elections for the council. Unfortunately, the ladies have other things to do. They are busy with families and they cannot commit themselves. The fact that we have two elected women from six places is quite representative. The number of women is rising steadily as Mr. Hanley pointed out.
My point was that maybe there should be something in the Act regarding gender balance. It is a point I would raise on any Bill brought before the House.
For the sake of the men in the future.
Exactly.
Mr. McRory
Many comments have been made about the representation of farmers on the council. As a council, we would favour the representation of farmers. We have been very well served with the farmers we have on the council. We would be happy to see farmer representation. However, we would have concerns if the total number of members on council were increased unduly because that would have cost implications.
Can Mr. Hanley explain why the council cannot work without at least ten members? Can he give us an example of the allocation of vets to the various committees? Can he do that before the Bill reaches Committee Stage in the Seanad?
Mr. Hanley can contact the clerk of the committee and he will circulate the information to us.
I thank Mr. Hanley and his colleagues from the Veterinary Council for attending and for responding to questions raised by members. I suggest to the members that a copy of the submission made by the Veterinary Council be forwarded to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. Most members here are supportive of its submission. I am sure they will have alternative methods of seeking changes to the Bill. When we have met all the interested groups, we will then decide whether we will bring in officials from the Department as well as the Minister to discuss the issue with them. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Mr. Hanley
I thank the Chairman and the committee for inviting us here and listening to our submission. If any member requires further information, please contact us.