Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Nov 2004

Vol. 178 No. 12

Veterinary Practice Bill 2004: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I mentioned the issuing of licences for drugs, in respect of which enormous costs are involved in terms of manpower and expertise. However, the issue of co-operation as between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom needs to be addressed. For example, some drugs are designed for occasional use only. This might mean that while a veterinarian in Newry could use a medicine, his or her counterpart in Dundalk could not because it has not gone through the same process. Significant expertise and resources have been used in the United Kingdom. This has been the criterion employed here for years in shaping and developing the profession. It should also be the model through which we measure uniformity and develop a direct link between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland in the licensing of such drugs. It is a lengthy process that requires significant inputs. I am not suggesting that if something is good enough for the United Kingdom, it should be good enough for here. However, in practical terms, we should be able to apply the same standards. To a lesser degree, the broader principle applies to the issuing of the MRCVS.

One of the many provisions that I welcome in the Bill is the one that veterinary nurses are to be recognised for the first time. I appreciate there is now a three-year diploma course available in UCD. Vets are no different from GPs. They also need the assistance of professional nurses who bring a unique set of skills to the profession. Current working conditions might not be appreciated but there is a good level of remuneration. I hope this augurs well for the conditions of employment of veterinary nurses and the level of remuneration they will enjoy when they qualify and join practices. I hope veterinary nursing skills will be looked at in the same light as those of general health nurses.

I welcome the intention to broaden the membership of the VCI. I again stress that it is important no one is precluded because of his or her participation, chiefly, in the local authorities. It is appropriate that this matter is being raised in the House because local authorities represent the electoral college that elected some us to the Seanad.

The Senator has nothing to learn. He is right, too.

There are vested interests, but I believe there is a serious issue to be considered. The legislation is long and detailed and obviously I will be tabling amendments where I believe it needs improvement.

I welcome the thrust of the Bill and appreciate what it aspires to do. I know the former Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, first proposed it in 2001. There was a press release from the Department at the time to this effect. Finally, it is on track.

I reiterate that there is a need for broad consultation on the legislation. It would be a pity if the Bill was to meet with needless opposition owing to the lack of consultation but I know the Minister will take account of this. I look forward to the debate on the remaining Stages.

I welcome the Minister and the Bill. As regards that last point made by Senator McCarthy, I have the impression, which perhaps the Minister will deal with, that the Bill is based on substantial consultation, as it would have to be. That is not to say, however, that every particular detail is necessarily agreed. However, I got the impression from the Minister and the tenor of the Bill that it is based on much discussion with the veterinary profession during the year. I am not aware that there was much opposition to it from any quarter.

A point I would like to emphasise is the sheer importance of the veterinary profession. Farming in all its facets would not be possible without access to vets. The veterinary practice is one of its most important adjuncts. However, there is another side to the importance of the veterinary profession which was brought home to me about ten years ago or more when I was brought in by the then Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, to meet some Libyan vets.

The question of whether the live export trade to Libya was going to be reopened appeared to hinge, at least on the face of it, on a veterinary judgment in Libya. I forget what the precise veterinary problem was at the time, but we have had a few since — BSE, foot and mouth disease and so on. The question of exports and the livelihoods of farmers hinges on veterinary advice and the view of the state of animal health in particular countries. It is probably true that sometimes exports to particular countries are cut off on flimsy grounds. I dare say a certain amount of protectionism takes place for which veterinary reasons are provided as the excuse. As we know, the 100 years war between England and France has probably been going on for many hundreds of years. It happens in this field as well as others. What is underlined is the vital importance to the livelihoods and prosperity of people across the entire agricultural industry of a veterinary profession which is soundly regulated to the highest standards. It is a point worth stressing.

I took particular note of the definition of "veterinary medicine" in the Bill which seems to be a very accurate description from my experience of the veterinary profession. There are a couple of points to make, one of which was partly alluded to by Senator McCarthy. We now have women farmers and are privileged to have a woman as Minister for Agriculture and Food. As we have heard, we will have many female veterinarians. There is no point in disguising the fact that a certain amount of prejudice continues to be encountered among farmers vis-à-vis the idea of women veterinarians. Modern equipment and utensils make false the assumption that one requires brute force to practice as a veterinarian. Indeed, the assumption that many young males possess brute strength is also false.

This is a changing aspect of the profession and cultural changes are taking place in tandem. Perhaps the Minister will give a leg up during her term of office to the women veterinarians on whom we will inevitably have to rely much more in the future to aid their wider acceptance. Among their functions will be night visits, to which another speaker referred. I cannot speak for other counties, but during the calving season in Tipperary veterinarians are out at all hours of the day and night. I appreciated Senator Coonan's observation that there are no waiting lists for animals. It is a tribute to the profession that one can obtain prompt service the vast majority of the time provided one does not abuse the facilities and goodwill of veterinarians.

Prohibited substances do not seem to be covered by the Bill. While the subject of prohibited substances has recently arisen in the context of the Olympic success of one of our competitors, it can be an issue in a wide variety of circumstances. I ask the Minister to reassure me that stringent regulations on the administration and supply of such substances under veterinary supervision is contained in other legislation. I welcome the Bill.

I welcome the Minister and the Bill to the House. I was reminded of the importance of veterinary practice when the Minister said it was not simply a question of animal care, but also one of food safety. I met an American some time back who planned to come to Ireland on business but expressed fear about eating beef while here. I asked him what he meant, to discover he was thinking of BSE and its human form. It is not just the beef industry but tourism and the other aspects of our economy which depend on confidence in food safety.

In 1989, my company began to hear from customers, mainly from Dublin, who were worried about what they were eating. The source of their worry was advertising on radio for the products of pharmaceutical companies which were calling on farmers to inject them into animals to protect them from various diseases. Customers were concerned about what was happening to our beef. One does not hear such advertisements now though I am sure they exist in some form or other. The work of protecting the nation in this context has been carried out by professionals in veterinary practice. Given the importance of animals to our economy and the technological changes which have taken place in the last 70 years, it is almost incredible that we continue to regulate the veterinary profession on the basis of legislation which dates from 1931. Since then, a need has arisen to provide a legal basis for the recognition of veterinary specialists and veterinary nursing qualifications.

Changes in EU law make it easier to move animals internationally. Inevitably, this leads to the importation of new diseases which were previously considered exotic. I was amazed recently to disembark from a plane which had come from Ireland to the United States of America and see a dog being taken off which had travelled with a passenger. I expressed my surprise that she could bring a dog into the United States of America from Ireland and she told me it was not a problem. She had taken the dog to Ireland three years previously but had to keep it in quarantine for six months. I realised the extent to which animal travel was taking place. With the advent in Europe of passports for pets, we require the professional skills of veterinarians to a greater extent.

The standard of animal care must continue to be as high as we can make it if we are to identify and treat new problems. When we have asked customers in our business what influenced them in the food they eat, they have always said taste and food safety. Recently, customers have begun to point to animal care, especially with regard to eggs, but also beef and pork. In this regard, BSE comes to mind first. It is largely due to our veterinary controls that we managed to maintain our beef markets in the European Union. We were alone among those countries with BSE to achieve such a success. Our successful containment of the foot and mouth disease outbreak three years ago was largely due to the efficiency of our veterinary controls and the diligence of our State and private veterinarians. As a nation, we owe a great deal to our veterinary professionals who have served us well.

Individual animal owners, whether farmers or pet owners, have a right to expect members of the veterinary profession to be well educated, up to date and capable of providing the best care to animals placed with them. Until now, responsibility for professional standards has been in the hands of the Veterinary Council, which has done an excellent job. One change proposed in the Bill involves the membership profile of the new council. Whereas the membership of the existing council consists entirely of veterinarians, the Bill recognises the modern realisation that the regulation of any profession is too important to be left entirely in the hands of the professionals themselves. It is right to provide for a lay or non-professional component in this council as one would in any other. Lay people bring a sense of independence to the deliberations of a council. They come without baggage and the bonds that can result from professional associations or friendships. As a result, regulation by a council that includes lay people is likely to be welcome to the public, who can have greater confidence in it. That does not apply to only one profession. I wonder whether the Minister has not gone too far in this direction and over-egged the pudding as a result. I am not a great cook but that was the problem I had when I tried to make pudding some years ago. As I understand the Bill, the membership of the council would consist of a majority of people who are not veterinary practitioners. The total membership is to number 17, of whom only eight will be practising veterinary practitioners, including the chief veterinary officer who will be nominated by the Minister.

Contacts I have had with some veterinary practitioners in recent days suggest to me that many members of the profession are disturbed by the idea of being regulated by a council on which their peers will be in a minority. To put non-professionals in a majority on a council that is ostensibly meant to be a profession's self-regulating body appears to be a contradiction in terms. It results from a misunderstanding of the role that lay members should play in a such a situation. They are there to provide the balance of an outside view. To leaven the lump, as it were, but surely not to become the lump itself.

I remember a few years back proposals were put forward to regulate the Judiciary, proposals that so far, to the best of my knowledge, have come to nothing. One of the elements of those proposals that received much praise, and was considered even to be revolutionary in some circles, was the idea of including a lay element in the overseeing bodies. There was no suggestion that those lay members would be in the majority, and if there had been such a suggestion, I am sure the Judiciary and the entire legal profession would have erupted in revolt.

I urge the Minister, therefore, before Committee Stage to consider altering the balance of the membership of the proposed new council. I am not arguing for a wholesale reduction in the number of lay members — but just enough to leave the professional veterinary practitioners in a majority in their own council. That would involve increasing the number of elected veterinary practitioners by two and reducing the number of lay members by two. It is a retrograde step to provide for completely changing the membership all at one time. Members will be aware that in the American Senate every six years one third of the members are changed and, therefore, there is not a total change. On the present council there is a system whereby only half the members are replaced at the one time. That guarantees an element of continuity from council to council. As a principle, I thought it had been accepted as a good practice. The recent Arts Act, for instance, provides for the replacement of members of the Arts Council in stages rather than all at the one time and this was generally hailed as a useful step forward.

Moving to another aspect of the Bill, the role of veterinary nurse requires clarification in terms of what procedures they may carry out, and the degree of veterinary supervision required. In the Bill, it would appear that a veterinary nurse would be able to initiate the taking of X-rays and administer medication, including anaesthetics, without prior examination by a veterinarian, and without veterinary supervision. That kind of procedure impacts profoundly on animal health and in some cases on human health. I would question whether they should be performed without direction based on veterinary diagnosis.

Another ambiguous provision appears to allow the Minister to enable non-veterinary practitioners, or nurses, to carry out procedures defined as acts of veterinary medicine, including an undefined means of administering euthanasia. This area should be clarified now, rather than wait for a crisis in public confidence to develop in time. In the long term the public will not be best served by people who over estimate their expertise, no matter how well intentioned.

Apart from details such as this, the Bill is a welcome and overdue step forward, and I am happy to support it on Second Stage. I hope the Minister will give thought to some of the points I have raised before Committee Stage.

I welcome the Minister to the House and wish her well with the Bill. At this stage it is still not too late to have consultation with various groups as it appears some groups have not been consulted. The farming organisations have a major role to play as they are the main users of veterinary practices. Also the Irish Veterinary Union is disappointed there has been no consultation with it.

On the issue of the make-up of the board, why is it that members of local authorities have been excluded? It is ridiculous that a veterinary member of a local authority would be precluded from being a member of the board. As Senator Dardis and others have pointed out this would be a person with vast experience whom one would wish to have on a board. There could be the farcical situation whereby a veterinary person working for a local authority could be a member of the board while a veterinary person who is a member of a local authority would be precluded from being a member of the board.

In regard to setting of fees for the registration of members, is it up to the board to set the registration fee, and, if so, will the same fee be charged across the board whether one is the owner of a large practice or an employee?

TB testing and blood testing is contracted out to veterinary surgeons who have a temporary contract with the Department. Will they pay the same fee as the owner of a large practice or an employee, or, will there be different rates for different categories of veterinary surgeons?

The Bill should specifically state that members of the farming organisations should have representation on the board. While they may not be precluded under the provisions of the Bill as drafted they may not be represented. The large farming organisations should be specifically named in the Bill, whether the Irish Farmers Association or the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association or whoever, and should have specific representation on the board as they have a huge role to play in farming practices, beef, milk and lamb production and so on. It is only right that the farming organisations — and the veterinary profession — should be one of the first groups to be represented on the board as they represent thousands of farm families and have a direct interest. I support my colleague Senator Coonan who said the farming organisations should be represented on the board.

I thank Senators for their participation in the debate and I note the general support for the legislation. Contrary to what people think, there was consultation, some of which was informal. I met the council late on Tuesday night. This Bill has been in gestation for ten years. It has been with the Attorney General for three years and we spoke and thought about it for a considerable number of years prior to that. It is often the case that only when a Bill comes to the floor of the House, organisations begin to see what is in it. That is when they make representations to Oireachtas Members. I assume some of the issues raised by Senators have come from such organisations because they are exactly those which have already been brought to my attention. I have no problem with that process. If further consultation must be engaged in, we will do so. However, I want to carry it out in a structured manner so that ten years do not pass before the legislation is completed.

There is some cross-over in the Senators' comments about the make-up of the council and the number of veterinary practitioners represented. Senator Paddy Burke is correct that farmers can be involved with the council, however, I will not put a member of each farming organisation on the new veterinary council. The Bill provides for an exception whereby two persons who are not eligible to be registered but one at least of whom avails of veterinary services in the course of business, trade or his or her profession, may become members. This covers farming but I take on board the Senator's views. However, I do not want to be specific in suggesting that the representatives should be from the ICMSA, ICOS or the IFA because I must be fair to them all. Nevertheless, as the Senator pointed out, they are recipients of veterinary practice and are equally entitled to be involved as the Food Safety Authority, as referred to by Senator Quinn.

Senators have re-enforced the fact that a tremendous veterinary profession exists in Ireland and there is recognition of veterinary nurses. The supervision of veterinary practise has been raised as has the issue of emergency attention about which one must be practical. For example, as a former Minister with responsibility for the islands, I am aware that it is not possible to get a vet to an island in the middle of the night. The issue of the fitness to practise and education committees has been raised in which respect I acknowledge Senator O'Toole's experience and will take his views into consideration.

The diagnostic aspect of veterinary medicine will not change in that the only person who can make a diagnosis and prescribe treatment is a registered veterinary practitioner. However, the interpretation of the legislation may include veterinary nurses and their practice, an issue which I will examine further. Given the concerns raised by Senators and because I want to review the issues, I respectfully request that we put back Committee Stage of the Bill for some time in order to perhaps reconfigure some aspects to ensure it is as effective as possible.

The organisation is self-financing and it sets its own fees but I acknowledge Senators' points about additional qualifications about which we can perhaps have further discussions with it. I do not want to be seen to be issuing diktats to a self-financing regulatory organisation because it would be beyond my competence to interfere. However, given that we propose to change the ethos of the council, the issues raised in regard to accountability and so on are very important. Some very constructive points have been raised, many of which concur with mine, and the issues are not insurmountable. Therefore, it is important to have more time to reflect upon them. In reply to a Senator's specific question, there is a two-term limit to a person's entitlement to remain on the council.

I reflected upon Senator O'Toole's question as to why Oireachtas Members were not allowed to sit on these boards and I acknowledge that, when I was a backbencher, I wholeheartedly agreed with him. The Leader of the House also had problems with the VEC Bill when this same issue was debated ad infinitum. The electorate, represented by the House, will examine the council. Other Senators mentioned that there had been some changes in this regard to other Bills, an issue which I wish to examine further.

Thank goodness people wish to participate on the Veterinary Council because one will often receive no credit, less thanks and much bother for being a member of such an organisation and it is often not worth it. I appreciate that Senators have read the Bill and, like me, have had an opportunity to consult with the representative organisations. I would like to reflect further on these issues, some of which are legal questions about which I will have to take further advice from the Attorney General. On that basis, we may have to review some of the issues raised by Senators and I may contemplate introducing amendments.

I thank the Seanad for affording me the opportunity of getting a first taste of what people want from the Bill and for Senators' sincere comments. I hope we will have an excellent Bill when we conclude Committee, Report and Final Stages.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Not before next Tuesday, 9 November 2004.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 9 November 2004.

When is it proposed to sit again?

At 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 9 November 2004.

Top
Share