Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD debate -
Wednesday, 1 Jun 2005

Veterinary Practice Bill 2004 [Seanad ]: Committee Stage.

I welcome the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, and her officials. With the agreement of members, I suggest that we try to conclude our business today. Is it agreed that we sit until 4 p.m. or 5 p.m.? Agreed.

It is proposed to group amendments for the purposes of debate in the manner suggested in the document before the members. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 10, subsection (1), line 12, after "the" where it firstly occurs to insert "humane".

When we refer to emergency treatment of an animal and where there is a need to have that animal put down, it is important to include the word "humane". This would ensure that, despite it being an emergency, there would be a humane method of dealing with the animal.

This legislation has been changed considerably since it was initiated in the Seanad. The definition of "emergency" is inserted to cater for the practical situations that would arise in cases where an animal would have to be treated or put down. Such situations particularly include animals severely injured or suffering severe pain and distress. The definition of "emergency" is necessary to prevent farmers who would act out of concern for the welfare of an animal being criminalised due to the fact that the practice of veterinary medicine is being legally defined in precise terms for the first time in this legislation. The definition cannot be seen in isolation from other sections of the Bill.

I refer to sections 55 and 59 which regulate the way in which an unregistered person may act to deal with an emergency. As regards section 55, two amendments were made in the Seanad which will provide significant additional safeguards for the unfortunate animal involved. The first of these stresses that the primary concern is the welfare of the animal. The second provides for a more realistic assessment of the timescale within which a vet would be available by replacing the phrase "immediately available" with "available within a reasonable period of time".

Before deciding to put down an animal, a person other than a vet would have to base his or her decision on the welfare of the animal. The means of putting down the animal might not, in all cases, be totally painless but would nonetheless avoid further severe suffering and, therefore, be in the overall welfare interests of the animal. Accordingly, it would not add anything to the Bill to include the word "humane". I stress, however, that this is an exceptional provision which could not be relied upon by non-vets as cover. The emergency must be real and the welfare of the animal must be of primary consideration. On that basis and with particular reference to the amended section 55, what the Deputy is putting forward, while valid, has been covered.

The animal welfare aspect of my amendment has to a large extent been taken care of in section 55. The word "humane" has added value but on the basis of the welfare aspect of section 55, I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 10, subsection (1), line 30, after "public" where it secondly occurs to insert "free or".

It is true that in the definition of "printed and published" the Bill does not specifically require the Veterinary Council to charge a fee for making information available to the public by reason of using the words "if any". However, it seems appropriate to highlight the possibility of making information available free, rather than the current wording which puts the emphasis on a reasonable fee being charged. Therefore, the emphasis is more on a fee being charged, rather than the information being freely available.

I refer the Deputy to the definition in the legislation, to which she adverted. She forgot a small bit of it. It states, "At such reasonable price, if any". I am, therefore, giving the Veterinary Council the flexibility to decide whether to charge. As the Deputy knows, everything, including veterinary registers and annual reports, will be available on the Internet, which is free. On that basis, we are not saying the council must charge a fee. We are saying that if there is a necessity to do so, it can do so. In any case, the majority of reports will be available on the Internet. I am assuming that if something in particular is sought, a reasonably small fee may be charged, if necessary.

To some extent, the words "if any" take care of the matter. However, the emphasis is being placed on the option of applying a fee, whereas it should be on making the information freely available. However, it does not read like this in the Bill, although I accept that if the words "electronic availability" were inserted, they would take care of the matter to a great extent.

The emphasis should be on making the information available free of charge, rather than emphasising the option of charging for it.

The definition reads, "In relation to a document, ‘made available to the public', means making it available to the public at such reasonable price (if any) as the council may determine, and includes publication of it by electronic means, including means of the Internet". Sometimes, as the Deputy knows, services are not appreciated if provided free such as the professional services we provide. It would be unreasonable to state the information must be provided free if something expensive has to be done such as investigative work. As the Veterinary Council is self-funding, it has to find some funding mechanisms.

I am not suggesting the information should necessarily be provided free. The point I made was that it should be made available to the public "free or". I do not feel particularly passionate about this point which is not a major issue.

It is not a matter of life and death.

I am quite happy to withdraw the amendment.

I have a brief question which relates to a subsequent amendment I have tabled. Under the definition, information can be published via the Internet.

Is it "can be" or "will be" published? That is an important point.

It will be published.

If there is such a guarantee, it will get over many of the points Deputy Upton has raised. There is a difficulty with some agencies in that they do not publish information on the Internet, or else there is a delay in publishing it in that way compared to the production of paper copies. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is notoriously slow in publishing documentation on the Internet which is available more quickly in hard-copy format. That seems ludicrous in the case of a Department which is supposed to be reducing the amount of paper used. Is the Minister satisfied that information will be published?

It will be published.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
Sections 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

The Bill provides for the appointment of a registrar.

Will the existing registrar assume the role of the incoming council? Subsequent to the registrar's retirement, will the post be advertised? I am flagging this point because legislation was recently brought before the House concerning the break-up of Aer Rianta in which case the chief executive of the company was not subsequently appointed as chief executive of one of the three airport authorities. The State had to cough up a substantial amount in compensation. We do not want to end up with such a liability in this case. Will the Minister clarify the role and position of the existing registrar subsequent to enactment of this legislation?

We have a new registrar who will be involved in a direct transfer. Everybody else employed in the former council will also be directly transferred. There will not be any problems about this.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 9 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 15.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 15, line 35, after "writing" to insert the following:

", which shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas,".

This amendment is self-explanatory. The Minister has the power to give policy directions to the Veterinary Council. I have absolutely no difficulty with this. However, in the interests of transparency it is important that they be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in order that we will be aware of the directions given to the council. The Minister stated the council would be self-financing and independent. Therefore, to ensure transparency and protect the Minister of the day, provision should be made to lay the directions given before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I was surprised that the amendment was tabled. First, account must be taken of the scope of a direction a Minister may issue under the section. Such directions are limited to the council's statutory functions, as stipulated in section 13. Therefore, there is no question of the council being directed to do something not envisaged in the legislation. In addition, such directions will not have financial implications for the Exchequer, given that the council will be self-financing. In a small number of cases where such a provision appears in existing legislation, the Exchequer could be implicated. There is no need to lay directions to the council which would be made infrequently before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Opportunities are provided for discussions on policy issues with many organisations in the Department but the policy direction is never printed. Parliamentary questions will be tabled regarding my policy in various areas, which Members are entitled to do. However, I am little uncomfortable with the amendment.

I have tabled similar amendments and the common issue is that of accountability and transparency. I acknowledge I can table a parliamentary question, following which I will receive a polite letter from the Ceann Comhairle informing me the Minister has no official responsibility in the matter and that the Veterinary Council is independent. Members have been fobbed off in the past and asked to use parliamentary questions to seek information but when they are tabled, it becomes a different issue. That is the reason it is important flexibility should be provided.

The implementation of a policy may not result in a charge on the Exchequer but it could be a charge on the council which would have implications for veterinarians, veterinary nurses and consumers through a knock-on increase in charges. It is important that directions are laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

We should not lose sight of the regulatory and educational functions of the council. I propose to include the council within the remit of the Freedom of Information Acts and, therefore, that option will be available. It is also proposed to allocate additional functions or duties to the council which will be laid before the Oireachtas as per the legislation. I have never given a direction to the council.

Will the Minister give a direction under the previous legislation?

Yes but I am not in the business of telling an independent body how it is supposed to do its job. I will keep a cursory eye on the council. That is why the Minister will always be represented on it. If issues of concern are raised, the Minister will be informed accordingly. The council is well able to make its concerns known. It is important that its functions should be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas but I wonder about the necessity of laying directions before them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.

Amendments Nos. 5 to 10, inclusive, are related to amendment No. 4 and all may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 15, subsection (1)(b), lines 41 to 43, to delete all words from and including “but” in line 41 down to and including “profession” in line 43 and substitute the following:

"one of whom shall be a representative of persons with a farming interest and one of whom shall avail of the levies of a small animal veterinary practice".

This amendment seeks to ensure appointments of non-veterinarians or veterinary nurses made by the Minister to the council would be representative of the consumers who avail of the services of veterinarians. The vast majority are drawn from the farming community. However, small animal veterinary practices are expanding continually and a representative of the sector should be appointed to the council. We also seek the appointment of a representative of consumers, of whom there is no mention in the legislation, which is a weakness.

The Minister will say that until now the Minister of the day has always appointed a representative of the farming community but the difficulty is no guarantee is provided that representatives of consumers will be appointed to the council. This is critically important, as small animal practices and agriculture will be the two main sectors. A balance needs to be struck on the council. I, therefore, ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

I refer to amendment No. 6. I fail to understand why a veterinarian cannot represent animal welfare groups. I do not understand the logic behind this. I do not see why veterinarians should be excluded from holding that position. This is also a weakness in the legislation. The representative of animal welfare bodies traditionally is the chairperson of the ISPCA. However, if the association appoints a veterinarian as its chairperson, why should he or she be precluded from membership? He or she will not be appointed because of his or her role as chairperson of the ISPCA.

The legislation focuses on UCD and the NUI whereas HETAC, the only other awarding body in the State, has been completely excluded. A balance is needed in this regard. While the NUI is the largest educational body in the State, that may not be the case in the future. HETAC has certified a course and should not be excluded from the legislation. Either no institution is included and specifically mentioned in the legislation or all institutions training students and certifying courses should be included. That is why I have tabled amendment No. 8. I do not understand why graduates of the Institute of Technology in Athlone should be excluded under the legislation.

Amendment No. 5 reads:

In page 16, subsection (1) (c), line 1, to delete “who is not eligible to be so registered, but”.

The same point has already been made. It is a matter of keeping the option open for a vet to be appointed under section 16(1) (c), someone who performs functions relating to animal welfare. There is no reason this person should not be a vet.

The next amendment relates to the higher education aspect. I strongly favour ensuring good representation from the higher education sector on the Veterinary Council. The next section takes account of this. That is why I tabled the amendment.

The third amendment seeks to ensure the Dean of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at UCD would retain a position on the Veterinary Council. Traditionally, this nominee has had a place on the council. Given the role of the veterinary school in UCD, the only one in Ireland, and, traditionally, the only provider of veterinary education in the country, it is important that this position be retained on the council.

My amendment seeks to include in section 16(1) (h) the words, “and that these be chosen to reflect different specialities in the profession”. It would strengthen the credibility of the section to have at its core representation of all specialties within the profession.

This is an important section which reflects the make-up of the Veterinary Council. It was amended considerably during recent discussions with the council and in the Seanad where a number of Members contributed to the debate. As the Deputies rightly pointed out, a very small cohort is currently providing for the educational aspects which come under the NUI because there is only one veterinary college in the country — in UCD. Equally, I do not have a problem with an institute of technology providing a veterinary nurses course.

Subsection (2) (a) reads: “Where the Minister considers it appropriate in the circumstances, the Minister may by order specify one or more than one relevant body for the purposes of subsection (1)(e)”. In other words, if UCC, for example, decides to establish a veterinary college, it would be included, or if the institute in Athlone decides to provide a veterinary nurses course——

It is doing so. That is the difficulty.

There is nothing to preclude me, as Minister, from specifying that an institute of technology be involved. However, I am not sure they wish to be involved and I do not wish to dictate to them that they should be represented. The amendment is slightly at variance with Deputy Upton's requirement on the basis that she only wants UCD to be included. I cannot be over-prescriptive because if there was another veterinary college, equally, it would have to have an opportunity to be included. Traditionally, the Dean of the Veterinary College in UCD has been a member of the Veterinary Council, given very good advice from an educational point of view and been very helpful in regard to this legislation and many other aspects of the council's work. When the legislation is passed, there will be nothing to preclude an institution from being considered. I am not sure whether there will be another veterinary college. If we make specific reference to the Dean of the Veterinary College in UCD, it will tie my hands.

Deputy Ferris is correct that the representatives on the Veterinary Council should reflect a number of services and specialties. Because the vets concerned are elected, I cannot specifically lay down or pre-determine that there must be so many who deal with big animals, horses and pets. For this reason, I cannot accept the amendment.

Deputy Upton asked the reason a vet who deals with animal welfare is not entitled to be on the Veterinary Council. My basic premise is that vets will always place animal welfare to the fore. That is their ethos. What I have tried to do is consider others who have a different interest. The Deputy expressed the view that if the head of the ISPCA was a vet, he or she would be excluded. He or she would be because I want to strike a balance on the council. There are people who have a different agenda and who should equally be entitled to be included in the council. Many veterinary practices and institutions do very good work in this regard, which is the reason we give them money every year. They should have an equal opportunity to be represented.

The number of vets who will be elected or appointed to the Veterinary Council will be adequate. I want to ensure a broad spectrum, as is the case with the Medical Council. One of the questions always asked is why would one expect vets to be involved in examining themselves. Therefore, to achieve a balance, I want to provide for a greater spread on the council. Vets will be more than appropriately represented. That is why I considered extending the numbers and as a consequence, on committees.

I have provided flexibility for the Minister, whoever he or she may be — it could even be Deputy Naughten — to consider other options should the necessity arise and if others want to be involved. If they express a view, there will be nothing to stop the Minister making an order to specify that one or more persons be included. I do not have a problem with this.

The Minister may return to amendment No. 4.

We had a fruitful and lively discussion on the issue in the Seanad. The problem is that if I were to specify that a farmer be included, there would have to be a decision on whether he or she should be a member of the IFA, the ICMSA, the Hill Sheep Farmers' Society, the Hill Sheep Farmers' Organisation and so on. All of the large farming organisations would insist on being represented on the council, which is not what I plan. I said in the Seanad that I would gladly accept the kind offer of one of the Opposition Members to nominate a farmer on my behalf. I told him he could forward the nomination and I would consider it in due course but that the farmer concerned would need to be from County Donegal.

I think the Deputy appreciates where I am coming from. It is right that farmers should be represented because they are consumers. However, I do not want to be tied to having so many farmers from organisations of every kind where some are involved in the partnership process and others are not. We would end up with a mess, which is not what I want. My view is that farmers should be represented but only by one. Otherwise I would have to extend the membership of the council by five or six, which would not be appropriate.

I am sorry I did not have the opportunity to speak on the Bill on Second Stage.

We wondered why the Deputy did not.

The surgeon saw to that.

While I appreciate this is a delicate issue, I would have asked on Second Stage why the number of farmers was limited to one, or possibly two. While I appreciate the Minister's difficulties with regard to the various organisations involved, I am concerned that a person will be appointed because he or she is in a particular position rather than representative of farmers' needs. Farmers are disappearing fast. As the relationship between vets and farmers is vital, there is need to have somebody on the Veterinary Council who has a clear understanding of farming and who knows what is or is not possible.

Some of the current administrative procedures are forcing farmers out of business and do not bring any benefits to the industry or the consumer who is vitally important. The Minister faces a difficult choice. She has said she cannot have nominees from the farm organisations but I do not want to see somebody appointed for the wrong reasons. While I appreciate the Minister would not do this, it could happen. People have been appointed to councils or boards because they are the friend of a friend, not because of their essential practical experience.

I would like to come back to section 16(1)(h). My reading of the provision in section 18 is that the Veterinary Council shall make rules not later than three months after establishment day. In other words, the rules it will make will determine the election or nomination under section 16(1)(h) as to how many persons to register. The Minister’s argument is that she does not want to interfere with the electoral process.

I argue that if she were to incorporate my amendment, the members should be chosen to reflect different specialties. That would give a direction as to how the election should take place and not interfere with the electoral process.

I want to come back to the Minister's response. I accept the point she made with regard to amendment No. 4. It was because I had no difficulty with it that I worded my amended in the way I did. It reads, "one of whom shall be a representative of persons with a farming interest". That is as broad as it can be. It also states, "and one of whom shall avail of the levies [services] of a small animal veterinary practice". It does not specify the person concerned should come from a particular organisation. However, it is critically important that the consumer is represented on the Veterinary Council and that this is written into the legislation. No provision has been made for the consumer in this regard.

There is. Section 16(1)(b) reads, “two persons who are not eligible to be so registered, but one at least of whom avails of veterinary services in the course of a business, trade or profession”. Therefore, the consumer must be represented. Also included in section 16(1)(g) is a nomination from the Director of Consumer Affairs.

It should be written into the legislation that it should be someone who is representative of farming interests and the small veterinary practice.

With regard to amendment No. 6, I cannot see the reason vets are excluded. I do not dispute the points made by the Minister and accept she wants to strike a balance but why exclude someone? There is nothing to stop her appointing whoever she wishes but I do not believe a vet should be excluded.

Amendment No. 8 is critical. The Veterinary Council will include one nurse representative. Within two years the council will administer for veterinary nurses and at some stage in the future a council for veterinary nurses may be set up. While the rules and regulations for veterinary nurses will be established by vets rather than veterinary nurses, the council will only include the token veterinary nurse. It is disappointing that the only other authority providing qualifications has been excluded under the legislation. I accept that the Minister has provided for a situation where another body may be established. However, I cannot understand the reason, when there are two awarding bodies, the name of one of them is written into the legislation and the other is ignored. If the Minister wants to strike a balance, it is important to write in the the name of the other awarding body or delete the name of the other. All I seek is fair play.

The Minister mentioned tradition. Traditionally, it has been the dean of the faculty who has been nominated. UCD has had so many representatives on the Veterinary Council. The Minister says there is nothing to prevent HETAC or the Athlone Institute of Technology from having a representative on the council but there is nothing to guarantee that they will have a representative either. We need to strike a balance. There are two awarding bodies. Why is one included and the other excluded?

I will take Deputy Ferris's point first. I refer to page 93 of the Bill which deals with elections. It states in paragraph 6(a), “a poll shall be taken and each elector shall have the same number of votes [1] as there are positions in relation to which such nominations can be made”. Therefore, the legislation sets out that every member will have an entitlement. It is one man, one vote.

Or one woman, one vote.

Yes. There are nearly more female than male vets now. There will be a poll followed by an election. Anyone who wishes to put his or her name forward for election can do so. It will not depend on his or her number of years in practice or the type of person he or she is. I know the Deputy wants me to say particular specialties must be represented.

We could end up with nine members who have expertise in a particular specialty as opposed to a wider representation.

Everybody with a basic qualification as a vet which is very hard to achieve will be entitled to put his or her name forward for election. This has nothing to do with being a specialist in dealing with certain animals. It is not necessary to be a specialist in any one field to do this job, which is to represent the profession. That is the reason I do not wish to say a person must fit into a particular box.

I will not have a problem with gender in the Veterinary Council; it may be the other way around given the number of female vets. Unlike many other organisations, everybody is entitled to put his or her name forward for election. In the past a person had to be included in a particular box before he or she was entitled to be nominated. With all due respect, a vet on the peninsulas of County Kerry has equal entitlement as a vet with a big practice in Ballsbridge.

The largest sector will have the most representatives.

Anybody going forward for election will have to canvass his or her own support. People will always work together within their specialties. For instance, all of the vets operating in the equine sector know each other, as do those involved in the pets or big animals sectors. The Deputy wants to strike a balance between the sectors. That would be okay if we were going to decide on new methodologies of veterinary practice in a certain sector such as the equine sector but that is not what I am doing. In this case vets are members of the Veterinary Council to represent their common interests and they need fairness, transparency, support and education. There is a balance with others who are not vets to ensure the council will have credibility when decisions must be made. Perhaps the Deputy and I should meet to sort out this issue. Section 16(1)(e) reads: “2 persons who are nominated for such appointment by a relevant body or bodies, specified by the Minister, by order under subsection (2) or, where no body is specified, are nominated for appointment by the National University of Ireland.”

If the Minister does nothing, the NUI will decide.

Yes. Who says I would do nothing?

We are enacting legislation. It is our job to ensure there will be a balance but I do not believe that is the case in this legislation.

The NUI controls the qualifications and standards applied in many institutions. The Deputy is trying to have HETAC inserted but I will not do so because the position will change in five years time. There is nothing to say someone from the University of Ulster could not be involved if the veterinary college is as ecumenical as we would like it to be.

Section 16(1)(e) reads:

or, where no body is specified, [by the Minister] are nominated for appointment by the National University of Ireland, of whom—

(i) one is registered or is eligible to be registered under Part 4 or 8,

(ii) one is not eligible to be so registered;

One could be a vet and the other an academic or a veterinary nurse.

The Minister is missing my point.

We will park the issue and come back to it on Report Stage.

Why is one institution included and the other excluded? There are only two such institutions in the State.

I suggest that the Deputy square the matter with his colleague, Deputy Upton, because she wants the dean of the veterinary college to be included. He has been included traditionally because he is nominated by the NUI. I ask that we discuss amendments Nos. 8 and 9 further on Report Stage.

I do not wish to leave section 16(1)(c). I reiterate that I do not understand the reason vets are excluded, a matter about which Deputy Naughten has spoken. It seems there would be occasions when a vet might be the best person from an organisation to represent the particular category of animal welfare. To exclude them entirely seems wrong.

I am trying to strike a balance between vets and non-vets. In the main those involved in animal welfare issues are not vets. Who is to say that in a moment of weakness I would not include somebody from Compassion in World Farming?

I hope the Minister never has such a moment of weakness. If she does, all hell will break loose.

Groups such as PAWS and the Blue Cross are fabulous but none of those involved has veterinary qualifications. I hope everyone involved in that profession has the welfare of animals at heart, just like a doctor in looking after his or her patient. I want flexibility to allow the agenda to be delivered in a different way as opposed to being delivered by a vet. There is a temptation to put too many vets on the Veterinary Council. There could be a temptation to take away from the general ethos of the Bill which is to strike a balance between the numbers.

In a moment of weakness, of course.

It is unusual to exclude a category but that is what is happening in this section.

The purpose is to strike a balance within the framework in case I will not be Minister the next time around and someone might be tempted.

As with the last point, I suggest we come back to this important matter on Report Stage.

The best people to deal with animal welfare are those involved in animal husbandry, those who own animals. They have a vested interest and will look after their welfare. I agree with the Minister that she should be entitled to appoint to the council those whom she believes have the best qualifications.

I made arguments on the basis of the animal welfare ethos. That is why I want representatives of consumers, farmers, members of the profession, those involved in education and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. This will give a good spread in terms of representation on the Veterinary Council. I will revert to the Deputy on amendments Nos. 8 and 9 and we can discuss the matter of representation for those involved in education.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 16, subsection (1)(c), line 1, to delete “who is not eligible to be so registered, but”.

Provided we can come back to this matter on Report Stage, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.

That is up to the clerk. I will be happy to come back to the subject matter of amendments Nos. 8 and 9. The Deputy can do as she wants. It is not up to me to tell her what to do.

In that case I will press the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 16, subsection (1)(h), line 19, after “section 18” to insert the following:

"and that these be chosen to reflect different specialities in the profession".

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 16 agreed to.
Sections 17 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 23.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 20, subsection (9)(a), line 43, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.

Section 23(1) states: "There shall be a chief executive officer of the Council who shall be known and is referred to in this Act as the Registrar." It seems logical that in the absence of a registrar who might be ill or suspended, there should be a requirement to appoint an acting registrar. While there is an absolute obligation to always have a registrar, section 23(9)(a)(iii) states that where the registrar has been suspended, “the Council may appoint a person, who shall be known as the Acting Registrar, to perform the functions of the Registrar.” In these circumstances it might be possible to have no registrar, despite the Bill stating there “shall” be a registrar.

I recognise the importance of ensuring the office of registrar operates effectively at all times without causing disruption to the affairs of the Veterinary Council due to the absence of a registrar. However, if we were excessively prescriptive by using the word "shall" on this occasion, we would remove any latitude from the council from a practicality perspective. If somebody was sick or otherwise absent, it might not be necessary to formally appoint an acting registrar.

I appreciate the Deputy's point about the chief executive. Section 23(1) states: "There shall be a chief executive officer of the Council who shall be known and is referred to in this Act as the Registrar." This provides that the chief executive shall be known as the registrar. If the registrar is ill, it should not be necessary to use the definitive word "shall". For example, if a person is out on maternity leave or breaks his or her leg and is out sick for a short period, we should not be obliged to appoint an acting registrar.

The definitive part of the section is that the chief executive shall be known as the registrar. It is a legal determination of what the chief executive is. If we are to allow the Veterinary Council some flexibility, there is no point in specifying there must be an acting registrar if the registrar is out sick for a few days.

I accept that aspect of the section.

We may need to appoint an acting registrar if the registrar is absent for the long term. However, making such an appointment to cover a short-term absence would not allow for flexibility or latitude for the Veterinary Council. If after three days, including times when a registrar went on holiday, we needed to appoint an acting registrar, we could be running around in circles.

If he or she were on holiday, he or she would still be the registrar.

Section 23(5) provides that the Veterinary Council is enabled to make arrangements to ensure its affairs can continue to be conducted during various short-term absences from the office of the registrar. Another member of staff may be duly authorised to carry out specific tasks. It would be prudent for the council to have such arrangements and protocols in place in advance. It may authorise another member of staff to do the work.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 23 agreed to.
Section 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.

Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 21, subsection (2), line 46, to delete "€3,000" and substitute "€10,000".

The fine specified in the Bill is too lenient in the case of a person disclosing confidential information. While it is unlikely, commercial sensitivities could be involved. More importantly, it could destroy the reputation of an individual, for example, in a case where a registered vet or veterinary nurse was under investigation. While such an investigation may determine that the person concerned has an exemplary record, because an investigation has commenced with possibly some of the documentation leaked, it could be prejudicial to the result of the investigation. Therefore, the penalty of €3,000 is too lenient. It will be extremely difficult to prove that a person has disclosed confidential information. I have proposed amendments Nos. 12 and 13 because I do not think the legislation, as it stands, contains a sufficient threat. We need to strengthen the penalties imposed if a person is eventually convicted of having leaked confidential information. It will be extremely difficult to prove there has been such a leak.

It is beneficial to include a deterrent of this nature in the Bill. It will be normal for the Veterinary Council to initiate a due process of disciplinary action when a person is suspected of leaking information. One might lose one's job and be fined €3,000 on foot of such action.

The acceptance of amendment No. 12 would necessitate the creation of an indictable offence. The proposed fine of €10,000 is in excess of the maximum fine that can be imposed under current legal policy. Such a fine would have to be imposed by the District Court. I do not know whether we should deem that offences under this section are indictable. The Deputy has proposed the imposition of a fine that would have to be imposed by the District Court. That is the only problem I have with the amendment.

When disciplinary proceedings take place within bodies of this nature, one is usually removed from one's position if one is found to have committed an offence. The Bill provides that one can be fined €3,000 or imprisoned for up to six months if one commits a crime under section 25(1). Both penalties can be imposed, which is serious as nobody wants to go to jail. The prospect of losing one's job and being fined €3,000 is a substantial deterrent. I am not sure there is a need to increase the maximum fine to €10,000.

We both agree on the point I have made.

Yes. The Bill provides an obvious deterrent.

I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter before Report Stage. If she tables an amendment in this regard, that will be fair enough.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
Section 25 agreed to.
Sections 26 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 32.

As amendment No. 15 is an alternative to amendment No. 14, they may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 26, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) Information as respects gifts accepted by the Council in any year shall be included in the report referred to in section 30 as respects that year.”.

The provisions of this amendment reflect the contents of amendment No. 15 tabled by Fine Gael. The Office of the Attorney General has advised that the wording of this section of the Bill should be slightly different from that suggested by Fine Gael.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
Section 32, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 33.

As amendments Nos. 16 to 18, inclusive, and amendment No. 38 are related, they may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 26, subsection (1), line 4, after "it" to insert "and when they fall due".

The amendments have been tabled to address an issue raised by the Veterinary Council recently. The removal from the register of persons who fail to pay the requisite registration fee is dealt with in section 79 of the Bill which relates to disciplinary procedures arising from fitness to practice proceedings. Amendment No. 38 will amend section 79. I accept that removal from the register for the non-payment of fees is completely different from removal from the register on foot of fitness to practice proceedings. In the latter case, it is necessary to provide for appeals procedures, including access to the High Court.

Amendment No. 18 provides that the Veterinary Council will be able to remove a person from the register on the basis of the non-payment of fees when three months have elapsed since the due date. I emphasise that the council is being given leave to decide on any extenuating circumstances which justify the retention of a person in a political case. A consequential amendment will have to be made to section 79 while section 86 will have to be deleted.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 26, subsection (2)(b), line 14, after “person” to insert the following:

"and the period of time for which it shall be retained".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 26, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following subsection:

"(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3), if the fees prescribed under subsection (2)(b) have not been paid by a registered person not less than 3 months after the date on which they have been prescribed as falling due the Council may remove the name of the registered person from all or some of the Parts of the Register or the Register of Veterinary Nurses where he or she is registered as the Council considers appropriate.”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 33, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 34.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 27, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following subsection:

"(6) A person entered on the Register may describe himself or herself as a veterinary surgeon.".

Section 34 of the Bill relates to the registration of veterinary practitioners. I am interested in how such a person is defined. My amendment seeks to ensure "a person entered on the Register may describe himself or herself as a veterinary surgeon". A strong case can be made on the basis of tradition for the retention of the title of "veterinary surgeon" which is commonly recognised. The title which was mentioned in the 1931 Act will remain in common practice, regardless of whether it is mentioned in this legislation. People will always refer to a vet as a "veterinary surgeon". For that reason, it is right to provide that a vet "may describe himself or herself as a veterinary surgeon".

I have considered at length and in detail the serious issues raised by the Members of the Houses and members of the profession. I hope section 54(1)(b) of the Bill which provides that members of the veterinary profession can call themselves whatever they want as long as they are qualified ensures they do not become apoplectic about what they are called. They can continue to use the term “veterinary surgeon” as well as the term “veterinary practitioner”. Deputy Upton is aware that they are usually just called “vets”.

Will they receive the qualification of "doctor of veterinary medicine"?

The qualification they will have is "bachelor of veterinary medicine".

Why does the Minister not insert that phrase in the Bill?

Certain veterinary practitioners do not have the "bachelor of veterinary medicine" qualification. We have to recognise qualifications from the North and Britain.

Is there an EU regulation on veterinary practice?

Will the Irish qualification meet the criteria of the EU regulation?

Yes. We have to meet the criteria.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 34 agreed to.
Sections 35 and 36 agreed to.
SECTION 37.

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 27, subsection (1), line 37, after "published" to insert ", including by electronic means,".

The Minister has provided some clarity in this regard. I am sure a list of the names included in the register will be available on the Internet.

Yes, it will be.

It is important to be able to find out who one's local veterinary practitioner is.

The register must be published.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 37 agreed to.
Sections 38 to 44, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 45.

As amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are related to amendment No. 21, they may all be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 35, subsection (3)(a), line 25, after “requisite” to insert the following:

"educational qualification prescribed under section 66, and”.

This amendment seeks to ensure a person offered limited registration should have the appropriate "educational qualification prescribed under section 66", as well as having "the requisite knowledge and skill". It is possible that a person with the knowledge and even skill to carry out a particular job or function would not have the appropriate educational qualifications. It is important to ensure the educational qualifications of practitioners, especially those from outside the State, conform to national and EU requirements and are appropriate.

The Minister knows what we want as the matter was debated at considerable length in the Seanad. Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 seek to clarify that what is in question is limited registration in the case of a class A disease or disease which poses a significant threat to animal or human health. While in most instances the latter would be a class A disease, circumstances may arise overnight where a disease breaks out among animals which has not been classed as a class A disease. We are not referring to the normal disease eradication programmes. I am aware of the Minister's intention and in general terms we are not at variance. What is at issue is the definition, which is why my amendments seek to provide the necessary clarity.

Before I respond to the specific amendments, it would be useful to make a few general comments on section 45. There has been an underlying concern that the provisions of the section could be used as a back door to register unqualified persons in a way which would undermine the veterinary profession. That is not the intention.

Despite being geographically limited, the foot and mouth disease outbreak of 2001 demonstrated the extreme pressure a significant outbreak would place on the State and private veterinary services. It must be noted that a disease episode might be EU or hemisphere-wide, in which circumstances we could not call on practitioners from elsewhere in Europe. Given the possibilities, it is no more than prudent to make statutory provision for an exceptional recognition mechanism to allow persons with the requisite skills such as trainee veterinarians from a third country to be employed expeditiously to carry out specific tasks determined by the Veterinary Council.

Provision is also made under section 45 to recognise persons who do not hold a conventional veterinary degree, despite being eminently qualified in particular fields to the extent that their presence in the veterinary college for teaching purposes would very desirable. The section contains a number of very important safeguards. The Veterinary Council of Ireland must satisfy itself that it is appropriate to activate the provisions of the section. The council's educational committee has been designated under section 63 as having the function to advise the VCI on the skills and knowledge required. The grounds for limited registration are specified in section 45(2) which provides that registration is limited to the short-term needs of the occasion in question after which a person shall be removed from the register. Section 45(4) sets out the basis for attaching conditions to limited registration, including time and geographical limits and a requirement to operate under supervision.

Bearing the above in mind, it would be overly limiting to accept amendments Nos. 22 and 23 to confine the provisions of the section to so-called class A or other significant diseases. Some class B diseases have the potential to give rise to real emergencies. It is conceivable that distinctions between class A and class B diseases may disappear under revised legislation. The formula set out in section 45(1) provides the Veterinary Council rather than the Minister with an adequate framework within which to decide when it is appropriate to activate the provisions of the section.

Deputy Upton's amendment seeks to specify educational standards. It is for the Veterinary Council to satisfy itself as to the knowledge and skills required for a function to be carried out under the provisions of section 45. As part of the process, section 63 provides for the council to seek advice from its educational committee. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to add the suggested wording as its effect is already provided for. The council will determine whether a person has a recognised qualification to practice in Ireland. It will receive information and support from the educational committee after which a person will be entitled to be registered. In Europe it makes no difference as everyone's qualification must be recognised and at a certain level. We will have circumstances where veterinarians from South Africa and Australia will wish to practice here. Those veterinarians will have to prove their qualifications equate to ours on the advice of the educational committee. Otherwise they will not be permitted to register or practice.

I hope we will never face a pandemic of the type spoken of in the Dáil. If we do, any person such as a trainee veterinarian, required to operate under supervision, will be limited according to the terms of registration to the performance of one specific task determined by the Veterinary Council. When the task has been completed, he or she will no longer be registered. Those with qualifications not relevant to the section of which I speak must seek the advice of the educational committee to determine what they have to do to have their qualifications recognised. The same is true of every profession. A person may be required to spend a further year in college.

The provisions relate only to circumstances where there is a pandemic in which the number of veterinarians available would be overstretched if others were not employed to perform specific tasks. The legislation in no way undermines the professional qualifications required by a person who wishes to practice. Everybody wants to see educational attainment protected.

As the Minister explains it, the educational committee of the Veterinary Council will have control over who is admitted to practice. As registration will be short term and related to specific functions, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 36, subsection (11), line 44, to delete "disease" and substitute the following:

"class A disease, or such similar disease which poses a significant threat to animal or human health".

While I accept the Minister's points overall, at issue are diseases which pose a significant threat to animal or human health, be they class A or class B. Making the amendment to include the wording outlined would provide for clarity. The term "class A" could be left out completely. Will the Minister consider including the wording on Report Stage?

To amend the legislation in this way would make the provisions very vague and it would be difficult to determine whether specific circumstances had arisen. While I do not wish the provisions to be too restrictive, neither do I want to provide for a carte blanche. As the Deputy knows, we are preparing substantial legislation on veterinary diseases which will address the matter. If I make the provision too vague, I will give too many parameters to the council to allow people to be registered on a temporary basis. I do not want to do that either. If any disease could be determined to pose a serious threat, all hell might break loose.

I will withdraw my amendments on the basis that I will have leave to reintroduce them on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Amendment No. 23 not moved
Section 45 agreed to.
Sections 46 to 52, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 53.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 41, subsection (1)(b), line 6, after “Minister” to insert “with the approval of Dáil Éireann”.

The amendment was tabled for a simple reason, namely, that many of the regulations made by the Minister have not come before the Dáil. My fear is that too many responsibilities will be transferred to veterinarians. Farmers produce food and the products they use are their responsibility. The amendment proposes to insert the words "with the approval of Dáil Éireann" to ensure regulations would be discussed by the House, either in the Chamber or in committee, rather than being laid before it.

This legislation does not cover certification. The relevant primary legislation is the European Communities (Certification of Animals and Animal Products) Regulations 1999 while the relevant regulation is Statutory Instrument No. 380 of 1999. This separate legislation governs certification by veterinary practitioners.

Would the insertion of a requirement to receive the approval of Dáil Éireann not be an improvement?

It would be over-prescriptive in that we would not be able to sign off on a regulation without it first being placed before the Dáil.

I am concerned that the majority of changes are now made by regulation.

The Attorney General would have a different view

Every day it is being made more difficult for farmers to operate their business. In milk production, for instance, the farmer is the only person liable for fines or to pay the cost of a tanker of milk. Farmers are competent and we should not impose further requirements that would stop them using ordinary medications which are essential to everyday farming. We ask only that this change be made with the approval of the Dáil rather than through ministerial regulations. I am sure my colleague, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, will agree with me.

I missed the point.

The primary legislation is the basis on which we will make regulations. The European Communities regulation on the certification of animals and animal products rather than this legislation is the relevant primary legislation. A report is made to the Oireachtas on all such regulations every six months and, as such, they are de facto made available within a six month period. The regulations are done as an amalgam and reported to the Oireachtas. They will, therefore, be made available every six months.

The problem is that regulations are already signed into law when they are brought before the House. The Minister referred to the ability of the veterinary sector to lobby. I do not detract from its right to do so.

With all due respect, the Deputy is referring to the regulation of animal remedies which has no connection to the Bill. This is a separate issue which is up for consideration. We now have the primary legislation and the regulation is being prepared. We are amalgamating two regulations because one will reflect a directive from the European Union in October this year. I have a committee which will advise me. We have undertaken considerable consultations with the farming organisations, pharmacies, veterinarians and public representatives and a decision must be made in due course. Many of the regulations reflect discussions which have taken place in the House and its committees.

The Deputy is correct that there has been considerable disquiet that regulations have been made which are at variance with the primary legislation. The Attorney General's advice is that this is not permitted and we have frequently been required to change regulations to reflect the primary legislation.

Animal remedies will be addressed in other legislation while the certification of animals and animal products is dealt with in a European regulation. All the relevant regulations will be laid before the House once they have been decided. Consultations must take place with relevant organisations before many regulations can be signed into law.

I am concerned not only with the use of medicines but also issues such as farm relief services providing hoof care and carrying out other animal practices.

All normal husbandry, for want of a better word, is outside the remit of the legislation. Routine practices are dealt with in another section. I will not be over-prescriptive or require farmers to have such practices carried out by a vet. One would wait a long time to have a vet do a hoof.

While I am not suggesting the Minister will be over-prescriptive, I am afraid of what will be included in legislation.

Section 55(3) states:

... a farmer who is not a registered person, or an employee of the farmer acting in the course of his or her duties who is not a registered person [this could be the farm relief worker], may carry out a treatment or procedure on, or administer an animal remedy to, an animal owned by the farmer provided that carrying out the treatment or procedure on, or administering the animal remedy to, the animal is incidental to the usual care and management of that animal.

This issue has been widely discussed. There is no point requiring farmers to have a vet for everything. The legislation provides that an employee, for example, the farm manager, farm hand or farm relief worker, will be able to carry out what we would describe as the normal practice of animal husbandry and welfare which farmers have performed for hundreds of years.

I accept the Minister's word.

I understand the Deputy's view as it is important to have flexibility.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 53 agreed to.
Section 54 agreed to.
SECTION 55.

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 42, subsection (1), line 5, after "person" to insert ", under Part 4 or Part 8,”.

The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that the registered person may be a nurse or vet in the case of an emergency such as a ewe lambing and to ensure the legislation would not be too prescriptive.

The definition I outlined takes on board the Deputy's point. In the definition I discussed in section 2, I have taken on board the point put forward by the Deputy. It includes both specifically. I have taken on board what was sought in the amendment in regard to the definition in section 2.

I was not here for that so I cannot argue.

We discussed that. "Registered person" means, except in Part 7, a person registered under Part 4 or 8 etc. I have done what has been sought in the definition. That covers the point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 26 and 30 will be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 42, subsection (5), line 27, after "regulations" to insert the following:

"following the approval of each House of the Oireachtas".

This also relates to the issue of regulation. Prescription only medicines are open to being changed. Although it may not be directly relevant to the Bill, we are concerned that the power is there to bring in regulation. Prescription only medicines could have significant implications for the re-emergence of a black market. We have seen what the black market does north of the Border. I was deeply involved in the IFA at the time of the banning of growth hormones and I said it would lead to the development of a black market, which was the case. That is the only reason we sought this clarification and asked that the matter would come before the Houses.

We are at cross purposes in this discussion because what the Deputy is trying to do is not what will happen. This issue is past its sell-by date. The Deputy seeks that any regulation under this legislation would come before the Houses before I signed it. Under the legislation at present, regulations must be signed and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas with a 21 day allowance to annul a regulation if needs be.

Deputy Crawford is coming at it from a different angle. His concern relates to the Animal Remedies Act which was passed in 1993 and does not relate to this legislation. I have consulted and been prepared to listen to concerns about the Animal Remedies Act. I have taken on board different points of view and await the advice of a committee before a final decision is made.

If every regulation I sign were first to go before the Houses, there would not be a stroke done in the place. We would not know where we were at. We have basic legislation and regulations must be introduced. There is consultation on many types of regulations with industry, the farming fraternity and political representatives and it is at that stage that a regulation is signed off. Sometimes people are not happy with regulations. Sometimes I am not particularly enamoured with directives but we have to work within the existing framework.

The Animal Remedies Act is completely different legislation, for which I was not responsible. I will do my best to reflect the issues on the ground and the particular concerns expressed by a number of people. When I bring this to finality in October, not everybody will be enamoured with it, but we will do as good a job as we can and take as balanced an approach as possible.

It would be impractical to adopt the proposal tabled by Deputies Crawford and Naughten. It would tie a Minister's hands if he or she had to publish a regulation prior to it being signed. That is not to say regulations cannot be made available in draft form for consideration and fine tuning.

The only worry the Fine Gael Party has is that the more regulation that exists, the higher the cost. There are implications for animal welfare if the issue goes beyond the viable cost to a farmer due to the degree of regulation and this could give rise to problems. Our main reason in tabling the amendment was to minimise the regulations that would be introduced that would affect the availability of medication which farmers currently administer. I am concerned the regulations imposed on farmers will be too severe.

We are specifically talking about regulation for emergency and exceptional measures in this case. We would take into account the definition of emergency cases. We must have that flexibility. It might be an alternate to what Deputy Crawford is proposing, which is to ensure we have the normal flexibilities for the farmer but in case of emergency, we would take into account welfare aspects and people who are employed. I accept what Deputy Crawford says, that he does not want any regulations——

——unless they go before the Houses before they are signed. That cannot be done from a practical point of view. The regulations regarding this section in particular will reflect what can and cannot be done in an emergency or exceptional circumstance. Section 55(2) ensures that the normal farmyard practices are protected, which is exactly what is sought by Deputy Crawford. It deals with particular animal remedies and procedures and such matters that would usually be carried out on a day-to-day basis in farming without a vet or a nurse being involved.

I am concerned about this matter and I make no apology for saying it. I allowed issues like this to go through previously. It is on the record that I was assured by the then Minister, Deputy Walsh, that we would revisit an issue in 12 months and deal with it then. Some of the legislation that was introduced during the foot and mouth disease outbreak was to be reviewed. It is now two years later——

Does Deputy Crawford mean the 30-day rule?

There are a number of issues.

I evaluated those last week. Deputy Crawford can be assured the regulations are reviewed regularly. Unfortunately, we are very much tied to the European Community.

They may have been reviewed by the Minister, Deputy Coughlan.

The Minister should be allowed to conclude.

I am the Minister now. The former Minister, Deputy Walsh, promised matters would be reviewed and this was done by me. We discussed these issues last week. These things do happen. Deputy Crawford would like to see some of these regulations, such as the 30-day test and the one relating to the export of sheep and so on revised. We are tied by the European Community which is not prepared to remove those regulations at present, mainly because it blames us for allowing the spread of foot and mouth disease. Deputy Crawford is aware that this is the position. As a result, the European Community is cautious. I accept we are losing out on opportunities to export breeding stock from Kerry for example. Breeding stock would also have been exported from our part of the world to the North. That is precluded at present. The regulation is most stringent on the transportation of sheep for slaughter. I would like to change these provisions. The European community is reluctant to remove some of them. There is a great fear, as the Deputies know, regarding the food chain and the spread of diseases. I have re-examined the provisions and will evaluate them further in discussion with my colleagues. I know there is pressure regarding the exportation of sheep but my head will be on the block and I will be on the way home to Donegal on a bus if I allow foot and mouth disease to start again and if we were accused of spreading it to the North, Great Britain or the European Union.

The regulations are very strict. The Deputy is correct that such regulations are sometimes introduced and people are afraid to remove them or make them less strict. I have examined this matter. On the question of my making a definitive decision, unfortunately I am not always in a position to make a decision myself and have to obtain support from others.

We were successful in respect of the live exports issue, as the committee knows. We got permission to remove the ban on the transportation of live animals through the United Kingdom. This was achieved through a committee of the European Union, at which we lobbied very hard. We received no help from certain people and one can guess who they were. However, circumstances did change. If there is a possibility of doing something, I will certainly take the opportunity to do so.

Section 55 will not be over-prescriptive and will balance the animal welfare aspect, which we all desire. In an emergency, we can do X, Y and Z, as prescribed, and the normal day-to-day animal husbandry done on every farm will not be tied up in knots by regulations. It will be exempted. This is why section 55(2) is very strong. Anybody who prepares a regulation must refer to that.

I allowed the Minister to elaborate because I was very interested in her remarks on 30-day testing. On behalf of people in my county who exhibit cattle at shows——

There is a one-day rule whereby one must carry them over——

Could the 30-day period be extended, particularly in the show season of July, August and perhaps September, to a 60-day period, specifically for show purposes?

I can consider it. However, the official on my right will have to be resuscitated in a minute because he will say everybody should be subject to the same 30-day rule.However, the Deputy is correct that an issues arise in respect of a 60-day period and the transportation of animals to shows. There is also an opportunity at shows for diseases to spread and move from one species to another, including humans.

Matters are progressing. We had to impose a regime at a time when regulation was so lackadaisical that matters got out of control. The question of whether we have become a military State in terms of the transportation of animals must be evaluated as changes occur. In my short term as Minister, I noticed that the minute one thinks of relaxing a regulation, another worse incident occurs. We must remember our markets. We hear farmers saying we should not have a slaughter-out policy pertaining to BSE. We are trying to sell beef to France and if we tell the French there is still an animal standing that has a BSE-affected relation, we will sell nothing. We are different from many other countries because we export nearly 90% of our produce. We must safeguard the market and, as a consequence, our farmers.

The Deputy and the show people have points of view and we will certainly try to consider these. One can always discuss them again with me or the committee in due course.

There may be another way of doing what Deputy Crawford proposes which would not involve going through Dáil Éireann. People are fed up of regulation. The overwhelming "No" vote of the French in the referendum on the constitutional treaty is just an example.

Ireland should be disease-free because it is an island surrounded by water. If anything goes wrong, it is at the point of entry. Are we vigilant enough at the point of entry? I support the continuation of the 30-day test because a small number of people abuse the system and upset the industry. Therefore, there should be a protection in place. The cost to the taxpayer must also be taken into account.

I know well that Deputy Crawford has the interest of the farming community at heart and I sympathise with many of his views. The animal medicines issue is sending shivers down the spines of farmers. The making of regulations by Dáil Éireann is a very clumsy way of doing what Deputy Crawford is trying to do. He should consider a simpler proposal for Report Stage.

On a previous occasion we agreed on a particular issue. It did not concern the 30-day test but a much more minor matter.

What was it?

The regulation of movement.

Is the Deputy referring to the lack of certification?

It concerned sheep and so forth. I will elaborate on it some other day. It is not relevant to this meeting but the principle is relevant. We received a commitment that we would get an opportunity to discuss the issue again in light of the new circumstances that would obtain whenever foot and mouth would be cleared. It never happened and the Chairman is aware of this. I support the Chairman regarding his point on shows. There is a need to ease the regulation in this respect.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 55 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 43, before section 56, to insert the following new section:

"56.—A person may transport an animal to a veterinary premises under the meaning of Part 9 for the purposes of first aid or medical assistance in an emergency, without complying with normal animal movement regulations.”.

The purpose of the amendment is to make it legally acceptable not to comply with normal animal movement regulations where there is a need to bring an animal to a vet in a hurry, for a Caesarian section, for example, given that the procedure can be carried out better in the vet's yard than on the farm. There should be a commonsense regulation such that farmers do not find themselves in the hands of the law for doing something practical and reasonable. This is all we are trying to achieve.

This is not the legislation to which that amendment should be made. I would consider the matter in respect of the new animal health Bill when it comes before the House.

As soon as we can condense about 150 years of regulations into a couple of pages. The amendment would not be appropriate to this Bill but the Deputy is correct that we should consider the matter. We can do so when dealing with the animal health Bill.

It very much concerns veterinary practice.

It has nothing to do with the suspension of vets.

We still want to ensure that, wherever the provision is included, it will be possible for farmers——

We will note this amendment and consider it in the context of the animal health Bill. Is that fair enough?

That is fine.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 56.

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 43, line 6, to delete ", the details of which are registered on the Register".

Section 60, as drafted, makes it a criminal offence for a vet to advertise or use any qualification that is not registered on the register. This seems very harsh. It is a matter of having such a qualification on the register. The amendment makes it clear that the vet would be committing an offence by claiming to have a qualification that he or she did not have. It would not be necessary for the qualification to be registered on the register to avoid criminal liability. The vet should be obliged to give all details and be registered but this could be dealt with in a way other than under the criminal liability section. Such liability is harsh in the circumstances. The amendment relates to qualifications people have that are not registered.

The current legislation ensures we do not mislead the public. It states a registered person shall not take, use or affix to in connection with his or her veterinary premises any title that he or she does not possess, or mislead a third party to the opinion that the person possesses a qualification or professional status other than the qualification and professional status relating to that person, the details of which are registered on the register. It is important that people cannot pretend they have a qualification; the qualification must be registered on the register. If someone overlooks registering a qualification or speciality, it will only be a simple matter of him or her bringing it to the attention of the Veterinary Council as an oversight; it will not be a problem. It is important, however, that the public is not misled to think a person has a qualification when he or she does not. We do not envisage any serious disciplinary procedures as a consequence, as I alluded to in a previous amendment.

As it is written, it implies the person concerned would be liable.

We will look at the issue before Report Stage. We are not trying to hang a person because he or she has a qualification.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 56 agreed to.
SECTION 57.

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 43, subsection (1), line 9, after "medicine" to insert the following:

", including the issue of prescriptions and prescription only medicines,".

This amendment brings us back to prescription only medicines. We worry that only vets would be able to issue prescriptions. If a vet is not available in a surgery, could someone else do it on his or her behalf? For example, could a chemist issue it? Chemists are open late on Saturday evenings when vets are not available and vaccines can be stored in pharmacies. We worry about a lack of competitiveness and the control of medication and vaccines.

If we were to accept this amendment, we would be saying only vets could write a prescription. The Bill states a registered person shall not employ a person who is not a registered person to engage in the practice of veterinary medicine, including the use of prescription or prescription only medicines on behalf of the registered person. If we were to accept the amendment, only a vet could do this and that is not what the Deputy wants. He wants to talk about animal remedies, prescriptions and regulation.

We certainly do not want that; we want products to be available for the ordinary farmer.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 57 agreed to.
Section 58 agreed to.
Amendment No. 30 not moved.
Section 59 agreed to.
Sections 60 and 61 agreed to.
SECTION 62.

Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 45, subsection (2)(e), line 18, to delete “two” and substitute “three”.

We would like three members of the Veterinary Council and the education committee to be vets. Veterinary practitioners and council members who spoke to us before this debate argued that it was important to have more vets on the education committee.

Deputy Naughten has made his feelings clear. The awarding council is being excluded from the Bill. That is why he wanted a member of the education committee to be nominated by HETAC. He discussed this matter earlier with the Minister and I support the comments he made.

During the debate in the Seanad I made provision for the Veterinary Council to appoint an additional three members to the educational committee should it see fit. Any or all of these could be elected members. That addresses the problem. I left it up to the council to make the determination.

While all members of the education committee must be members of the Veterinary Council, it is not prevented from consulting outside expertise, as provided for in section 63(4). The composition, as stipulated in the Bill, already leans heavily towards educational expertise. The nominees of the providers of veterinary education and the Minister for Education and Science must be on the education committee. I have made provision for additional places on the committee because there are many challenges within education.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 32 not moved.
Section 62 agreed to.
Sections 63 to 74, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

Amendments Nos. 33 and 64 to 75, inclusive, are related and will be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 53, before section 75, to insert the following new section:

"75.—The Council may, where it is of opinion that it is reasonable to do so, of its own motion investigate the fitness to practise of a registered person.".

During the passage of this Bill through the Seanad there was considerable debate about the powers of entry to be given to authorised officers of the council. In the course of that debate I indicated that, having considered the matter since the publication of the Bill, I had considerable sympathy with many of the views expressed and was in consultation with the Attorney General on the matter.

In the meantime, the Office of the Attorney General has completed re-examination of the matter. I am bringing forward amendments which address those concerns and the concern underlying amendment No. 72 tabled by Deputies Naughten and Crawford, and amendment No. 71 tabled by Deputy Upton. I am grateful to the Attorney General and his office for looking afresh at this complex area in which considerable care must be exercised.

While amendment No. 66 addresses the nub of the issue of power of entry which affects section 127 arising from the comprehensive review carried out by the Attorney General, consequential amendments arise in this section which will be in the new section 75 clarifying the remit of the council in terms of initiating an investigation. Accordingly, the activities of authorised officers under sections 126 and 127 will flow from a decision of the council under this section.

Amendments also arise in sections 125 to 129, inclusive. The position now is that authorised officers, when carrying out an investigation on behalf of the council, will require a search warrant to enter any premises, veterinary or otherwise. As provided for in the new section 128, authorised officers will be enabled to carry out routine inspections in the context of the grant or renewal of certificates of suitability without the need for a search warrant, on the assumption that the applicant will give his or her consent to entry to the premises concerned. This amendment also addresses the concerns underlying the amendments tabled by Deputies Naughten and Crawford and by Deputy Upton.

Turning to the two further amendments tabled by Deputies Naughten and Crawford in regard to electronic media, this matter is covered in the definition of "record" at the end of section 127. In light of the legal advice from the Attorney General's office, I cannot accept amendment No. 70 tabled by Deputy Upton regarding seizure of animals. Where authorised officers of the council seize animals belonging to a third party they would be assumed to be taking on the duty of care to these animals and it would also be reasonable to assume they would inform the owner. It is not appropriate to cover such procedural matters in primary legislation.

I also have some difficulty with paragraph 2(b) of Deputy Upton’s amendment. There may be situations other than potential ill-treatment in which it would be neither possible nor appropriate to return an animal to its owner. For example, the animal might have been given banned drugs requiring its removal from the food chain. Accordingly, I am not in a position to accept amendments Nos. 67 to 72, inclusive.

In the Bill as it stands authorised officers can enter a registered person's premises without a search warrant but not any other premises without a search warrant. That is unfair. The amendment provides that an authorised officer must obtain a search warrant for every search. When people want to be registered, and if their premises are up to standard, there will be no need for a search warrant. I am providing that people can make an arrangement under normal circumstances to go into the office of a veterinary surgeon to ensure it meets the required standard and receives the certification. The crux of the new section is to give equality to everyone.

Amendment agreed to.
Sections 75 and 76 agreed to.
SECTION 77.

Amendments Nos. 34 to 37, inclusive, are cognate and will be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 57, subsection (6)(a), line 16, after “oath” to insert “or affirmation”.

This is a drafting amendment.

Did the Deputy's colleague in the Seanad talk to her?

Yes. We believe the Bill does not take account of that point.

Amendments Nos. 34 to 37, inclusive, propose to supplement the reference to "oath" in the four places where the word appears by a reference to "affirmation". This presumably covers people who have a difficulty in taking oaths. The Attorney General advises me that under the Interpretation Act 1937 reference to "oath" in legislation can be construed as including affirmation. I indicated to the Senator who raised this issue that he would be more than adept at putting forward his views on the Interpretation Act because he is anxious to see that changed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 35 to 37, inclusive, not moved.
Section 77 agreed to.
Section 78 agreed to.
SECTION 79.

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 58, to delete lines 42 to 51 and in page 59, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following:

"79.—(1) Where the Council receives a report from the Fitness to Practise Committee under section 78(1), in which that Committee gives as its opinion that the registered person to whom the inquiry relates is not fit to practise, or is not fit to practise a specified type of veterinary medicine, or veterinary nursing as appropriate,it shall decide to do any of the following—".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 79, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 80 to 82, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 83.

Amendments Nos. 39 to 41, inclusive, are cognate and will be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 63, subsection (1), line 34, to delete "triable".

The word "triable" should be replaced with the phrase "in the opinion of the council would have been appropriate for trial". The section is considered to be too broad as it refers to persons convicted of an offence "triable on indictment" which could include summary offences which are not tried on indictment. It would include several minor offences which it might not be appropriate to treat as triable. They should be considered to be appropriate for trial, to differentiate between minor offences which might be of little consequence and other more significant offences.

I responded to a similar amendment in the Seanad and outlined how this amendment could go too far in that it requires the council to demonstrate how the ability of a person to practise has been affected by a decision of the courts on a matter which may be totally unrelated to the person's veterinary practice. I indicated that a conviction for an offence that may be tried on indictment is a serious matter which, if the person were to continue to be registered, could bring the profession into disrepute.

I understand the Deputy's concern for the rights of the accused which underlies this amendment. We must, however, have balance and this is a "may" provision which does not imply the person is automatically struck off because of such a conviction. The council would be required to examine the matter thoroughly and form a view on whether the person's ability to practise has been compromised or whether the profession might be damaged by virtue of the person remaining registered.

It should be borne in mind that the person affected has available to him or her the full procedures of appeal and in the final analysis the courts would determine whether the decision of the council had been reasonable. There is a balance there and I do not know why the Deputy feels there is not.

The term "triable" seems to imply that automatically there is almost going to be a major trial involved. One might better say it is "appropriate for trial". A minor offence is more or less included, and that might not be appropriate.

It is not determined that the person "shall" do something. The person "may" do it. I understand where the Deputy is coming from. I would not want a situation where something totally alien to the profession is involved.

I am slightly concerned that someone might take on board something which is not really a serious issue, yet which has enormous consequences if it proceeds to trial.

Under the disciplinary procedures we have allowed for a great deal of change regarding work practices.

I would be happy to withdraw the amendment and perhaps reintroduce it later.

We introduced the word "may" but will look at the matter again. The advice I have been given is that "may" will cover the matter. The Deputy may be considering the possibility of a vendetta being pursued. Is that so?

To a certain extent. The current wording could leave the door open slightly for someone who might want to pursue a matter.

The fitness to practise element would be part of this, along with the appeal procedure. I changed the fitness to practise aspect so that people would be informed of what they are accused. Previously, that was not included in the Bill. That will still apply, so if a very minor offence is involved, people would have due recourse to appeal it to the courts if necessary. We could talk about this matter later.

There is a knock-on effect involving the three grouped amendments. Could we have leave to re-introduce all of them?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.
Section 83 agreed to.
Sections 84 and 85 agreed to.
Section 86 deleted.
Sections 87 to 90, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 91.

Amendments Nos. 42 to 44, inclusive, are related and may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 67, subsection (2)(b), to delete lines 22 and 23.

This relates to the situation of veterinary nurses. This section would seem to curtail quite dramatically what they can do. We are talking of minor emergencies. Veterinary nurses could, for example, be called in to help take a lamb from a sheep. People who are not veterinary nurses could do that job for a neighbour, possibly quite successfully, but if veterinary nurses were to do the job while not under the supervision of a vet, they would lose their licences. We must be sensible regarding this sort of situation.

The incident the Deputy alludes to, taking a lamb from a sheep, is not a veterinary procedure but a normal farming procedure, so the issue does not arise in that case.

We are concerned about such a situation.

The situation will not arise. When we discussed this issue in the Seanad, I drew attention to the amendment to which I had agreed, which is now in the Bill, whereby nurses will carry out functions under the direction of the veterinary practitioner. That was overly prescriptive at the time, including the words "in the presence of" a practitioner, words which have been changed to "under the direction of". As well as that, a definition of "minor" is provided for in the context of medical or surgical procedures. In light of this and given that we are not adopting a similar approach in respect of other tasks which a veterinary nurse may carry out under the direction of the veterinary practitioner, I see no necessity to provide for ministerial power for making regulations in this one instance. It is not appropriate to make a change.

Regarding amendment No. 44, it would not be appropriate to link the functions to be carried out under section 91(3) with section 55 as in itself it is designed to cater for a range of unusual situations involving both registered and unregistered persons. That relates to farmers and the farm relief scheme of which we spoke earlier. We are providing in section 91(3) for a definition of minor surgery in so far as it can be carried out under the direction of the veterinary practitioner. Stitching is an example of what could be done by a nurse under the direction of the veterinary practitioner.

I see dangers in linking the two matters. In section 55 there are flexibilities for farming emergencies, animal husbandry and the normal events that occur. Flexibility has rightly been given to nurses. This is the first time we are recognising veterinary nurses in legislation in terms of including the words "in the presence of" and "under the direction of". We also define a minor procedure so that nurses can continue handling such procedures, which they are well capable of doing.

We are concerned about this matter because there will be fewer vets. Considering the direction in which farming is going, there is no doubt about that. Veterinary nurses will therefore become a very important part of the practice. We want to ensure a commonsense situation.

One must be careful not to go over the edge on this matter. That is why I want to see a balance. There are now great opportunities for people to become veterinary nurses. However, there must be a balance and I cannot allow the current definitions to be extended. I will not undermine the veterinary profession, with people being allowed to carry out procedures for which they are not qualified. The Deputy is aware of the difficulties which could arise.

I have provided the flexibility for veterinary nurses to carry out many procedures which are either minor or can be carried out under the direction of or in the presence of a veterinary practitioner.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.
Section 91 agreed to.
SECTION 92.

Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 48 are related and may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 68, lines 23 to 29, to delete subsection (5) and substitute the following:

"(5) Prior to making a regulation under subsection (1) the Minister shall seek and obtain the approval of each House of the Oireachtas.”.

I refer to the power of the Minister and the fact that so much can be introduced by means of regulation. We are asking that proposed regulations be brought to the attention of the House. The Veterinary Council will set the rules and standards. There is a genuine fear on our part that much of the business of the House is being handed over to an outside body or the Minister by regulation. That is what we are trying to get around.

The common thread running through the amendments is the need to provide for more proactive oversight by the Oireachtas of the regulation of the veterinary nursing profession. With regard to sections 92 and 103, the standard procedure for laying ministerial regulations before the Oireachtas is already provided for. I believe the form is appropriate, given that the Oireachtas may annul regulations within 21 days.

Section 98 deals with the establishment of the Veterinary Nursing Board. The criteria to be taken into account by the Minister in setting up the board are stipulated in section 98(1). Consultation with the Veterinary Council is also required. Given that the Bill already signposts the direction to be followed, I see no need to require further clearance from the Oireachtas. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment.

As I stated, the powers which the Minister is awarding herself are the source of our anxiety. I will not press the matter at this hour of the evening and will withdraw the amendment with the right to retable it on Report Stage.

I will not change my mind at any stage. Members are getting very vindictive on the other side of the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 92 agreed to.
Sections 93 to 97, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 98.

I move amendment No. 46:

In page 72, subsection (1), line 25, after "Council" to insert "and the approval of each House of the Oireachtas".

Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 98 stand part of the Bill."

Regarding subsection (1)(a), can the Minister give us some idea of her definition of a sufficient number?

I will read the text:

Where the Minister is satisfied that—

(a) there is a sufficient number of veterinary nurses in the State to justify the establishment of a body to regulate veterinary nurses and the practice of veterinary nursing in the State, or ...

We have very few nurses. One cannot have just one person. It refers to a cohort of people who have come together. This is the natural process. In fairness, we met representatives of the veterinary nurses during the preparation of the Bill.

Some of them.

We cannot meet them all. We met their representatives.

In Dublin.

Yes. When a group comes together, it will establish itself. Once that has happened, the natural process will continue. This is enabling legislation which will allow that to happen. I assume and hope they will do so. It is the first recognition of this very important profession and there will be good opportunities for those involved.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 99 to 101, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 102.

I move amendment No. 47:

In page 74, subsection (1)(g), line 11, to delete “including age limits (if any),”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 102, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 48 not moved.
Section 103 agreed to.
Section 104 agreed to.
SECTION 105.

Amendments Nos. 49 to 52, inclusive; 54 to 56, inclusive; 58, 59 and 63 will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 76, to delete line 32 and substitute the following:

"‘exempted place' means a place where the practice of veterinary medicine by a registered practitioner occurs—

(a) under regulations made under the European Communities Act 1972,

(b) by or under an Act that relates to—

(i) export or slaughter of animals, or

(ii) export of meat,

or

(c) under regulations made under section 107;

‘register of certificates of suitability' shall be construed in accordance with section 121;

‘State premises' means a veterinary premises that is under the control of—

(a) a Minister of the Government, or

(b) a local authority;

‘under the care of a registered practitioner' has the same meaning as it has in Regulation 44 of the Animal Remedies Regulations 1996, save that Regulation 44 shall be read as if any reference to a registered veterinary surgeon in that Regulation were a reference to a registered practitioner within the meaning of this Act;

‘veterinary premises' includes any place where the practice of veterinary medicine by a registered person occurs, including an ambulance or other vehicle equipped to facilitate such practice.".

During the Bill's passage through the Seanad several amendments were made to section 106 to better define situations where the certificate of suitability should not apply. My Department has reflected particularly on the exemptions and amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 56 tabled by Deputy Upton. Arising from this and bringing forward a further amendment to address situations where, apart from farms, a vet treats an animal away from his or her registered premises, I refer Deputies to section 106(1)(c), in particular, which addresses situations not only on farms but also, for example, in the case of a pet owned by an elderly person or horse kept as a companion animal. These aspects are covered in the amendment which also makes it clear that the practitioner must nonetheless, in the general sense, practise from accredited veterinary premises.

I am also taking on board advice from the Office of the Attorney General that the relevant provisions should be reformulated to make them clearer and more coherent. For example, sections 105 and 106 of the current version in effect contain definitions and it is desirable that they be merged into a new section 105. In addition, a new section 106 sets out more clearly the basic requirements for a certificate of suitability and the exemptions that apply. Arising from this, section 109 in the current draft becomes redundant and can be deleted. A cross-referencing amendment also arises in section 124. Furthermore, it has now been made clear that the requirement for a certificate of suitability becomes mandatory only after the Veterinary Council has made regulations specifying the details relating to different classes of veterinary premises and the application procedure for such premises.

In summary, the reformulation of sections 105, 106 and 108 to 112, inclusive, and the deletion of section 109, for the reasons outlined, make for a more coherent code governing the premises accreditation regime. The amendments will also address the heart of the amendments tabled by Deputy Upton. I understand the Veterinary Council is happy with these provisions from the point of view of implementation.

I need time to digest all of what the Minister said because it is quite detailed. I am particularly anxious that the word "regularly" be included. Its omission means there is an implication that certain places could be defined as premises for the purposes of the legislation. The insertion of the word "regularly" would make the Bill more definitive.

However, it would then be necessary to define what was meant by "regularly".

I appreciate the difficulty of interpretation in this regard. I need time to consider the alternative the Minister has put forward.

I propose that the meeting be suspended for five minutes to allow members time to consider the amendment.

That is agreed.

Sitting suspended at 4.41 p.m. and resumed at 4.46 p.m.

I will withdraw the relevant amendments and accept the proposal brought forward by the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 105, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 50:

In page 76, before section 106, to insert the following new section:

106.—(1) A registered person shall not practise veterinary medicine otherwise than at—

(a) a premises to which a certificate of suitability applies,

(b) a State premises,

(c) a premises, including a farm, that is under the control of the person who owns the animal or who for the time being has custody of the animal that is under the care of a registered practitioner, which registered practitioner usually practises veterinary medicine at a premises to which a certificate of suitability applies,

(d) an exempted place,

(e) a place where an emergency veterinary procedure is performed,

(2) It is an offence for a registered person to contravene subsection (1).

(3) Subsection (1) shall not come into operation until such time as the Council shall make Regulations under section 108.”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 106 deleted.
Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.
Section 107 agreed to.
SECTION 108.

I move amendment No. 53:

In page 78, subsection (1)(b), line 34, after “public,” to insert the following:

"including the collection and disposal of unwanted animal remedies and/or their containers,".

This amendment is self-explanatory. There is no mechanism for the collection of unwanted receptacles, whether dosing cans or any medication containers. This provision would apply not only to vets but also to any retailers who issue animal remedies. There should be an onus on them to take returns of either partially used remedies or empty containers. Many such receptacles either go into the bin and subsequently landfill or they are burned. This is unacceptable. This is a sensible and straightforward amendment which I ask the Minister to accept.

This is not a matter for this legislation but one which will be considered in the context of implementation of EU Directive 2000/428/EC, Article 162 of which requires that "member states shall ensure the appropriate collection systems are in place for veterinary medicine products which are expired". My Department is examining the implications of this requirement in the context of implementation of the directive.

The Minister has addressed the issue of partially used materials such as doses that are out of date. However, empty containers are not included under the provisions of the directive.

It includes unwanted animal remedies and-or their containers. Is the Deputy also referring to empty containers?

If the remedy is used, it is no longer an animal remedy. Therefore, it would have to be disposed of under the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government regulations. These are complicated issues.

The Minister and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government are bosom buddies at the moment. Can we ensure that between the two Departments——

I will refer the Deputy's concerns to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. We will consider this in the context of our own legislation first.

That is what I am asking. I ask that it would be included.

If it does not fit, I will ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to consider the issue.

It is a problem at present. There is no provision for bottles or containers. Many of them are burnt or dumped in bins, neither of which practice is appropriate. There is provision in regard to human remedies whereby retailers accept used containers. The same provision should apply in regard to animal remedies. Will the Minister clarify this in the context of the forthcoming regulations?

We will look at it on the basis of the other regulations. We are trying to ensure that used remedies are not left lying about. We intend to educate people accordingly, although it may not be easy.

There is not much point educating people if there is nowhere to go with the used remedies.

I accept the point that a facility is not available.

A facility is not available at present.

I have noted that and will consider the issue in the context of this directive.

I am sure the Minister's inspectors on cross-compliance will check such matters.

The first aspect we will check is in regard to illegal animal remedies. After that, we may consider other aspects.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 54:

In page 78, subsection (1), line 37, to delete ", not later than one year after the establishment day,".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 55:

In page 78, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) The power under subsection (1) shall be first exercised not later than 1 year after the establishment day.”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 108, as amended, agreed to.
Section 109 deleted.
Amendment No. 56 not moved.
SECTION 110.

I move amendment No. 57:

In page 79, subsection (1), line 27, after "person" to insert the following:

"or two or more registered persons applying jointly".

The amendment is straightforward and seeks to allow more than one vet to apply jointly for a certificate of suitability for a premises. If each vet is suitably qualified and appropriately registered, he or she should be allowed to make a joint application.

This amendment was tabled in the Seanad where I pointed out that the Bill in general does not make provision for corporate practices. This matter was contemplated at an earlier stage but was left aside so the overall issue of corporate practice by professions generally could be dealt with in a single piece of legislation.

I understand the matter of partnership law as it relates to the professions is likely to be reviewed by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment as part of the forthcoming review of the company law review group. Given this situation and my legal advice, it will not be possible to make provision for joint applications as suggested in the draft amendment. Nonetheless, as I have indicated, it will be possible for veterinary practices to make private contractual arrangements among themselves, enabling a single applicant to make an application, in effect, on behalf of that practice. We can circumvent the situation until the legislation has been dealt with.

That is important because many vets are in joint practices. It is more the rule than the exception. On the basis that vets can get around the legislation and make an application, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 110 agreed to.
Section 111 agreed to.
SECTION 112.

I move amendment No. 58:

In page 80, subsection (2), line 32, after "be" to insert "first".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 59:

In page 80, subsection (2), line 33, after "day" to insert the following:

"and in any event shall not be prescribed any later than the making of Regulations under section 108”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 112, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 113 to 121, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 122.

I move amendment No. 60:

In page 86, lines 13 and 14, to delete subsection (1).

It is the premises of a veterinary practice that is certified for the carrying out of veterinary medicine. The Bill proposes a type of money racket whereby if someone transfers the premises from one name to another, the new owner must go back through the process of licensing, thereby incurring additional charges and fees.

To take a related example, planning permission is specific to a site and the development that takes place on it. In other words, the site and the development attract the planning permission, not the applicant, whoever that may be. If the applicant happens to own the site, he or she will be the only person who can develop it. The same applies to veterinary premises, which are to be licensed under the Bill. While there will be an owner of each premises, if a premises changes hands, it should be possible to transfer the licence associated with that premises to the new owner without having to go through the full licensing process.

In considering that the certificates of suitability could be transferred, I would have to bear in mind that the certificate is granted to a particular person in respect of a particular premises. However, as part of that application process the person concerned takes on specific responsibilities in respect of his or her premises in terms of standards, record-keeping, book-keeping and so on. A person is not just taking on the physical structure of a premises. Other issues are attached.

If it were just a physical issue, the process would be similar to that regarding planning permission. However, because other responsibilities and obligations are taken on, the view is that a new application would be a different matter. However, it is for the council to manage how such applications are to be made and dealt with. I am not being excessively prescriptive. It is up to the council, not the Minister, to decide whether a transfer can take place. I emphasise that the certificate attaches to more than just the physical premises and includes other responsibilities. That is why the individual must be involved.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 122 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

Amendment No. 62 is an alternative to amendment No. 61 and they may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 61:

In page 86, before section 123, to insert the following new section:

"123.—(1) The Council shall make and issue an extract from the register of certificates of suitability in respect of a veterinary premises to which a certificate of suitability relates, to the certificate holder, on the face of which the Council shall certify it to be such an extract.

(2) An extract referred to in subsection (1) shall be displayed by the certificate holder in a prominent place at the veterinary premises to which it relates.

(3) A person who contravenes subsection (2) is guilty of an offence.”.

During the debate on the Bill in the Seanad concerns were expressed about the requirement that an original of the certificate of suitability must be displayed in the premises. At the close of the debate I undertook to consider this matter further. Deputy Upton has tabled amendment No. 62 on this point.

Having consulted the Attorney General's office, I bring forward an amendment to enable the council to issue a certificate extract from the register of certificates of suitability. This extract will fulfil the display requirements. My proposed amendment takes care of the essential concerns of the Deputy. I have never in my life seen anything like the hassle in regard to this matter.

I am still not clear on this point. I presume the extract——

It is a copy.

It is copied.

It is an extract and will reflect the original.

That is fine.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 123 deleted.
Amendment No. 62 not moved.
SECTION 124.

I move amendment No. 63:

In page 86, subsection (1), line 23, to delete "section 109” and substitute “section 106”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 124, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 125.

I move amendment No. 64:

In page 86, subsection (1), line 36, after "Council" to insert "for the purposes of this Act".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 125, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 126.

I move amendment No. 65:

In page 87, lines 12 to 16, to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) and substitute the following:

"(b) in respect of an investigation under paragraph (a), furnish a written report of his or her findings to the Council within 21 days of concluding it,

(c) carry out an inspection of a veterinary premises and furnish a written report under section 118.”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 126, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.

I move amendment No. 66:

In page 87, before section 127, to insert the following new section:

"127.—(1) In order to perform his or her functions under section 126(a) an authorised officer shall apply to a Justice of the District Court to issue a warrant authorising the authorised officer to perform the functions referred to at subsection (2), and the Justice of the District Court may issue the warrant if satisfied by information on oath that it is proper for him or her to do so for the purposes of section 126(a), which warrant authorises a named authorised officer accompanied by such other authorised officers or members of the Garda Síochána as may be necessary, at any time or times within 1 month of the date of issue of the warrant, to enter that premises and perform any of the functions referred to at subsection (2).

(2) An authorised officer may:

(a) enter and inspect premises at or by means of which any activity, including the keeping of records in relation to that activity, in connection with the practice of veterinary medicine is carried on,

(b) at such premises inspect and take copies of any books, records, other documents (including documents stored in non-legible form) or extracts from them, which he or she finds in the course of his or her inspection,

(c) remove any such books, records or documents from such premises and detain them for such period as he or she reasonably considers to be necessary for the purposes of his or her functions under this Act,

(d) carry out, or have carried out, such examinations, tests, inspections and checks as he or she reasonably considers to be necessary for the purposes of his or her functions under this Act of—

(i) the premises,

(ii) any equipment at the premises,

(iii) any animal remedies at the premises,

(iv) any animals at the premises,

(e) require any person at the premises or the owner or person in charge of the premises and any person employed there to give to him or her such assistance and information and to produce to him or her such books, documents, or other records (and in the case of documents or records stored in non-legible form, produce to him or her legible reproductions of them) that are in that person’s power or procurement, as he or she may reasonably require for the purpose of his or her functions under this Act,

(f) take samples of any animal remedy or any article used in the practice of veterinary medicine found at the premises for the purposes of analysis and examination,

(g) secure for later inspection any premises or part of any premises in which an animal is or has been kept or where an animal remedy or an article used in the practice of veterinary medicine is found or ordinarily kept, or records, books or documents are found or ordinarily kept, for such period as may reasonably be necessary for the purposes of his or her functions under this Act, or

(h) take possession of or remove from the premises for examination and analysis any animal found on the premises or any animal remedy or article used in the practice of veterinary medicine and detain them for such period as he or she considers reasonably necessary for the purposes of his or her functions under this Act.

(3) Where, upon reasonable grounds, an authorised officer believes that a person has committed an offence under this Act he or she may require that person to provide him or her with his or her name and the address at which he or she ordinarily resides.

(4) In this section and, where applicable, in section 128

‘premises' means any place, ship or other vessel, aircraft, railway wagon or other vehicle, and includes a container used to transport animal remedies, animals, or equipment used in the practice of veterinary medicine but does not include a State premises within the meaning of section 105;

‘record' includes, in addition to a record in writing—

(a) a disc, tape, sound-track or other device, including an electronic device, in which information, sounds or signals are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other instrument) of being reproduced in legible or audible form,

(b) a film, tape or other device, including an electronic device, in which visual images are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other instrument) of being reproduced in visual form,

(c) a photograph,

and any reference to a copy of a record includes—

(i) in the case of a record to which paragraph (a) applies, a transcript of the sounds or signals embodied in it,

(ii) in the case of a record to which paragraph (b) applies, a still reproduction of the images embodied in it, and

(iii) in the case of a record to which paragraphs (a) and (b) apply, such a transcript together with such a still reproduction;

‘vehicle' means any conveyance in or by which any person or thing, or both, is transported which is designed for use on land, or in water or in the air, or in more than one of those ways, and includes—

(a) part of a vehicle,

(b) an article designed as a vehicle but not capable of functioning as a vehicle,

(c) a container or skip designed or used for carriage on a vehicle or a trailer designed for use or used with a vehicle.”.

Before this is agreed, may I ask one question? I apologise for missing it earlier. My proposed amendments to section 127 made a point about electronically-stored data. Is the Minister happy that any records which are stored electronically in a premises are covered by the legislation?

Yes. My amendment states that records include "in addition to a record in writing, a disc, tape, sound-track or other device, including an electronic device, in which information, sounds or signals are embodied".

Does this include the hard drive of a computer?

Yes. The amendment goes on to specify "to be capable (with or without the aid of some other instrument) of being reproduced in legible or audible form".

When I read the Minister's amendment, the hard drive of a computer was the only item which I thought might not be included. For the Minister's own sake, she could examine the issue before Report Stage to ensure it is covered.

We will double-check with the Attorney General.

Amendment No. 66 states that an authorised officer may "enter and inspect premises at or by means of which any activity, including". What premises does it mean? Are we talking about a farmer's premises or——

We are talking about registered vets and veterinary premises.

Is it specifically stated that it applies to registered veterinary premises?

We have already been over this.

Is the Deputy referring to section 127?

I am referring to section 127, which states "An authorised officer may enter and inspect premises". What premises are we talking about?

Any premises.

Is this not the Minister's amendment?

Yes. Any premises. However, the officer must have a search warrant and cannot simply walk in the door.

Could it be a farmer's premises as well?

The judge would be obliged to determine that.

Why must we have a judge?

This only takes place when it is suspected that veterinary medicine is being carried out. It does not apply to a farmer's premises unless there is a suspicion that veterinary medicine is being practised at that location.

We would go to a judge if the practice of veterinary medicine was being carried out on the farm. The amendment is not intended to enable officers to walk onto a farm but, as Deputy Naughten has noted, that could happen if an illegal veterinary practice was being carried out on the farm. However, one would be obliged to get a warrant from a judge. Before this, a warrant was not required and, in my view, one needs a warrant.

Does that mean the older proposed legislation is stronger than the new?

The old legislation stated that an authorised officer could walk into a registered premises. However, if a premises were not registered, the officer would be obliged to get a search warrant. Under normal circumstances, any concerns which might arise would probably occur outside the premises which are registered. It was felt that this was more bullish and, consequently, everyone should be treated equally.

This amendment is stronger than the old section.

It means that one must go to the court before anyone can walk in the door.

There are additional protections built in over and above what was previously in the legislation. It is an improvement.

There was nothing at all before this.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 127 deleted
Amendments Nos. 67 to 72, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 73:

In page 89, before section 128, to insert the following new section:

"128.—An authorised officer may enter a veterinary premises to which a certificate of suitability applies or in respect of which a certificate of suitability has been applied for with the consent of the occupier of that premises, in order to carry out his or her functions referred to at section 126(c).”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 128 deleted.
SECTION 129.

I move amendment No. 74:

In page 89, subsection (2)(a), line 40, to delete “or 128”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 75:

In page 89, subsection (2)(b), line 43, to delete “or 128”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 129, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 130 to 138, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
SCHEDULE 2.

I move amendment No. 76:

In page 94, paragraph (14)(a), line 20, after “section 16(1)” to insert the following:

"and a statement of such reasons shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas".

This amendment refers to a statement of the reasons pertaining to the removal of a member of the council. It is important that if the situation should arise or if there is any reason to believe that it could arise, that the Minister would be required to state the reason for the removal of a member of the council to the Oireachtas.

This amendment would provide for a different situation for the Minister of Agriculture and Food's direct appointees to the council as opposed to the nominees of other Ministers or bodies. I have concerns about agreeing to this amendment, since removal from the council could arise from a sensitive situation, such as a physical or mental illness and I do not see how the public interest would be served by drawing attention to it. However, I can see how it would be appropriate to advise the Oireachtas in the event that it becomes necessary for the Minister to remove the council owing to its failure to carry out its statutory functions. This eventuality is catered for in section 22.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedules 3 and 4 agreed to.
Title agreed to.

I thank the Minister and her officials for attending today's meeting. I thank the members of the committee for their constructive contributions to the Bill and for facilitating its consideration. I also thank the clerk to the committee, the support staff, the Editor of Debates and the technical staff for their kind assistance.

Top
Share