This meeting has been convened to consider Committee Stage of the Veterinary Practice (Amendment) Bill 2011. No apologies have been received. I welcome the Minister, Deputy Coveney, and his officials, Mr. Richard Healy and Mr. Philip Kirwan. I ask that all mobile phones be switched off, as they interfere with the broadcast of this committee.
A list of groupings of amendments has been circulated to all committee members, so we will now proceed with the consideration of the Bill.
Thank you. I am glad to be here today and hopefully we will be able to pass Committee Stage of this Bill. There are not many amendments and those considered come as a result of conversations held between officials from our Department and representatives of the Veterinary Council of Ireland. I know this committee has received a few letters from the council in respect of certain elements of the Bill.
Following Second Stage, I think people understand what we are trying to do in this Bill. It makes sense. It is a practical response to ensuring that certain practices that do not need to be carried out by veterinary practitioners can be done by non-veterinary practitioners, when appropriate. It also deals with the recognition of veterinary nurses as well as vets, where appropriate. It deals with professional misconduct and gives the Veterinary Council of Ireland the powers to deal with that appropriately. This is a straightforward amendment Bill that modernises our legislation in this area. Hopefully we will be able to get through this process quickly but if committee members want to raise concerns or ask questions in any section, we will try to address them as best we can.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, to delete lines 39 to 43.
I am proposing in this section to enable the Veterinary Council of Ireland, with my consent, to introduce regulations to make provision for mandatory indemnity insurance. This proposal is in response to a request from the council. Most people accept nowadays, in the interest of clients and the profession generally, that veterinary practitioners and nurses have an appropriate level of insurance cover in order to be able to meet civil liability claims. The alternative is that a client may not realistically have any recourse to recover what could be a significant financial loss, even where a court has found that the professional concerned has not met his or her obligations.
The formulation in the Bill reflects the formulation that already governs solicitors. Section 59A(4) provides that making a false or misleading declaration in order to gain insurance automatically falls to be considered as coming within the realm of professional misconduct. However, concern has been expressed that this formulation would interfere with the principles of natural justice, and since its removal does not undermine the essential trust of the new section, I propose its deletion. This change to the Bill is contained in amendment No.1.
Removal of section 59A(4) does not preclude the council from initiating professional misconduct proceedings against a registered person, where it is of the view that a false declaration justifies this action. It would be incumbent on the council to comply with the disciplinary procedures enshrined in the Act to establish, in any given case, that making a false claim to gain indemnity insurance in fact represents a case of professional misconduct. We are basically putting the onus on the council to investigate things properly, before making a determination of professional misconduct. We think that the request from the council is appropriate, which is why we are deleting those four lines in this section.
I agree with this and have no issue with it.
Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, paragraph (b), line 16, to delete “with”.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are purely editorial amendments with no significance to the substantive content of the Bill. Amendment No. 4 arises from the coming into effect on 17 October of the Government order changing the title of my office to Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine.
The Veterinary Council of Ireland may have written to the committee about an issue in this section. It is about whether or not State-owned premises should be exempt from authorised officers of the veterinary council having automatic right of entry to undertake an investigation into professional misconduct or whatever. The council has made the case that its authorised officers should be able to enter a State-owned property, without notice or without a warrant, to investigate a veterinary officer or to undertake an investigation on a veterinary practitioner. We have said that the people working in our premises report back to our Department. If we have to put a minor amendment in place on Report Stage to differentiate between State-owned properties and all other properties, then we might do that. At the moment, I am considering whether it is necessary to do so. It may not be necessary to do anything.
A letter was sent by the veterinary council to the Chairman of the committee which mentioned this issue, so it is important we consider it properly. We are considering it and if we need to make amendments in that respect on Report Stage, I want to give notice that this might happen. We can have the debate then, but it is helpful if I raise a flag on the issue now.
Thank you. The issue was discussed at yesterday's meeting.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 14, subsection (1), line 16, to delete "sections are" and substitute "section is".
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 25, lines 46 and 47, to delete "Agriculture, Fisheries and Food" and substitute "Agriculture, Food and the Marine".
Amendments Nos. 5, 8 to 10, inclusive, and 11 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 26, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
"(b) by substituting for section 25(2) the following:
"(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a class A fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to both.",
(c) by substituting for section 27(3) the following:
"(3) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a class A fine.",".
The common thread running through these amendments is that they are designed to align various provisions in the Veterinary Practice Act 2005 with the Fines Act 2010 in regard to penalties imposed at District Court level.
The Fines Act includes provisions for restructuring the maximum levels of penalty that can be imposed by the District Court. Under this Act, such fines are restructured on a scale ranging from class A to class E. In drafting this Bill, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has already provided, in section 9(h)(ii), for alignment of the penalties provided on summary conviction in section 60 of the Veterinary Practice Act with the structure of the Fines Act. These particular penalties relate to offences arising from the practice of veterinary medicine by a non-registered person. The Veterinary Practice Act also contains other provisions, including penalties for the practice of veterinary nursing by a non-registered person, unlawful disclosure of information by staff or members of the council, non-disclosure of relevant interests, failure to appear when summoned by the council’s fitness committee, obstruction, and failure to comply with aspects of mandatory premises accreditation requirements. It is appropriate to align these provisions also with the Fines Act. The practical effect of the changes is that the upper level of fine which a District Court may impose on conviction increases from €3,000, its current level, to €5,000.
To sum up, a new Fines Act was passed last year and we want to ensure that if cases go to court, the provisions in the Veterinary Practice Act are consistent with those in the new Fines Act. That is what we are trying to achieve in these amendments.
It is a common-sense approach, as should be the case.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 27, paragraph (i)(ii), line 10, to delete “and” and substitute the following:
"(iii) in subsection (9), by substituting "4 months, and" for "2 months", and".
I propose to discuss amendments Nos. 6 and 7 together, since they both refer to aspects of the disciplinary procedures applying to veterinary practitioners and nurses. In summary, No. 6 proposes to extend one of the time limits associated with the preliminary stage of investigations, while in No. 7, I am proposing to further amend the definition of professional misconduct.
The common thread running through these two amendments, and indeed the totality of the amendments under section 9(i) and (k), as well as section 4, is to improve the operation of the disciplinary procedures under the Act, taking account of provisions in more recent legislation governing the professions. The amendments also reflect submissions made by the Veterinary Council in light of that body’s practical experience of implementing these provisions over the last five years. While my Department has not been made aware by the council that the existing provisions in the Act governing disciplinary procedures have unduly hindered that body in dealing with the complaints that have come before it to date, the council has put forward the case that the periods allowed under the Act for aspects of the preliminary stage of investigations are, at two months in each case, too short. Hence, I am proposing, in section 9(i)(ii) and in amendment No. 6, to double from two to four months the time limits associated with the preliminary stages of investigations.
More specifically, the stages involved are as follows: first, the time allowed for the preliminary investigation committee to consider a complaint and decide whether, in its view, a full inquiry should proceed; second, the time allowed for the council to make a decision, following from a failure of the PIC to make its preliminary decision, as to whether or not a full inquiry is to proceed - this change arises from the need to allow due process to be followed in all cases by affording those concerned, including those complained against, adequate time to consider the issues raised and provide responses; and third, in amendment No. 6, I am proposing to increase from two to four months the period allowed to the council to consider what to do in specific cases in which the preliminary investigation committee has recommended that a full inquiry should not proceed. I should point out that it is open to the council in such cases to overrule the preliminary inquiry committee and decide that a full inquiry should proceed.
I believe the increase in these time limits is appropriate. While we do not want any undue delay in dealing with complaints, it is also necessary to give sufficient time for complaints to be fully and properly examined and for persons complained against to make submissions.
Amendment No. 7 relates to professional misconduct as a whole and also defines it in the legislation. In section 9(i)(iii), as adapted by amendment No. 7, I am proposing to amend the definition of “professional misconduct” currently set down in section 76(10) of the Act. This amendment responds to concerns expressed by the council, based on advice from its own legal advisers, that the current definition may be too narrow in scope. The council’s particular concern is that the existing definition unduly limits the council in investigating complaints relating to behaviours which, while not directly impinging on professional performance as such, could nonetheless bring the profession into disrepute. Following publication of the Bill, however, the council expressed the view that the amended definition in the Bill is still unduly narrow and does not sufficiently take account of the principles deriving from case law in this area, particularly the High Court judgment in the case of O’Laoire v. the Medical Council. In this High Court judgment, it was found that, in addition to behaviour which is “infamous or disgraceful in a professional respect” or which involves fraud or dishonesty, a medical professional’s conduct could be assessed to determine whether it fell seriously short of the standard of conduct expected amongst medical professionals. Having taken further legal advice, I am proposing to remove the reference to the code of conduct and replace it with a form of words which relates more closely to principles enunciated in the ruling in the O’Laoire v. Medical Council case. This is reflected in amendment No. 7.
In other words, we have taken legal advice about how to give the Veterinary Council the broadest legal base possible to undertake investigations into professional misconduct, and we do not want the definition of "professional misconduct" to be so narrow that it allows people to escape the net in investigations that are taking place. That is the thinking behind it.
Is there any oversight of the operation of this provision? With any professional body, there may be a temptation to use such a provision, for example, as a means of preventing new entrants from joining the profession. What scope is there for oversight of the incidence of investigations?
Deputy Colreavy is absolutely right. If people believe they have been treated unfairly under the process they can appeal the case to the High Court. People will always have recourse to the courts system, which can overturn decisions made by the Veterinary Council of Ireland. There is recourse to the courts for people in the instances to which Deputy Colreavy has referred.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 27, to delete lines 16 to 18 and substitute the following:
"(a) is connected with the practice of veterinary medicine or veterinary nursing and represents a serious falling short of the standard that could reasonably be expected of a registered person,”.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 27, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
"(j) by substituting for section 78(8)(b) the following:
"(b) Subject to subsection (9), a person who contravenes paragraph (a) is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a class A fine.”,”.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 28, paragraph (m)(i), line 5, to delete “and”.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 28, paragraph (m)(ii), line 7, to delete “ “section 55”,” and substitute the following:
" "section 55", and
(iii) by substituting for subsection (6)(a) the following:
"(a) on summary conviction, to a class A fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to both,”,”.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 28, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
"(p) by substituting for section 123(1) the following:
"(1) A person who commits an offence under section 106, 112, 118, 119 or 122 is liable on summary conviction to a class A fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to both.",
(q) by substituting for section 131 the following:
131.—A person who commits an offence under section 128 is liable on summary conviction to a class A fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to both.",".
One other thing may have been raised in the Veterinary Council of Ireland's letter. There is a view in the Veterinary Council of Ireland that it should be allowed to impose fines of up to €5,000 as part of disciplinary procedures. We have a difficulty with this suggestion because at the moment the body which decides on the level of fines and whether fines should be imposed is a judge in a court rather than the Veterinary Council of Ireland. This is an important distinction. The council has recourse to make a claim for its costs. If it wins a case in court it can effectively impose a fine by winning costs associated with such cases. It is a step too far for us to give the council the power to impose fines on its members without a decision by a judge.
This issue has been raised by the council and it is not unreasonable to raise it. We should consider it but my view at this stage is that we should limit the imposition of fines to an independent judge in a court. The role of the Veterinary Council of Ireland should relate to investigating cases and bringing them to court with a view to imposing fines. I was keen to raise the issue with Members because it was raised by the Veterinary Council of Ireland.
I thank the Minister and his officials for attending.
