I welcome the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, to the House.
SECTION 1
Veterinary Practice (Amendment) Bill 2011: Committee and Remaining Stages
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
Is it appropriate for me to introduce the Bill at this stage, or are we going through it section by section?
We will go through it section by section. The Minister can speak at the culmination. We must finish at 4.45 p.m. I think there are only three amendments.
That is fine.
The Minister will definitely get time to contribute.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following:
"(f) whether the procedure related to disease eradication can be accomplished by a non-registered person;
(g) that a procedure that can be performed by a non-registered person with the appropriate skills, training and experience that these procedures be performed by a non-registered person. Procedures that should be performed by a non-registered person are inclusive of but not limited to those enumerated below. The enumerated procedures are asfollows:
(i) farriery,
(ii) equine dentistry,
(iii) bovine hoof trimming,
(iv) micro-chipping of companion animals,
(v) scanning of cattle,
(vi) scanning of sheep,
(vii) physiotherapy,
(viii) TB inoculation.".
I welcome the Minister to the House. We had a good debate on this Bill on Second Stage and I have now tabled amendments for Committee Stage. On the last occasion we debated this legislation, the House was united with the Minister on the need to reform the profession, as they all have to be reformed according to the IMF-EU-ECB agreement. We have had wide-ranging problems with the sheltered sector professions.
I supported the Minister on the changes needed. The context was having a quality assurance regime in place to assist the development of the food industry to the degree everybody in the House supported as a major part of growing the economy. As the explanatory memorandum states, we had inadvertently precipitated a shortage of qualified veterinarians. A Competition Authority report indicated that 40% of new vets were from outside the State. That made me question having a restriction on the numbers studying veterinary medicine which requires up to 550 leaving certificate points and giving a monopoly to one institution. We need this expansion to facilitate a development goal that is of great importance to everybody.
The Minister has said he wishes to extend the range of activities traditionally carried out in respect of animals by farmers and other persons with appropriate skills which had been inadvertently reserved for veterinary practitioners or nurses. I assume some of the restrictive practices engaged in by professions had also been advertently provided for in legislation. We recognise the importance of competitiveness to the economy, particularly to the export-led sectors. We were pleased to see indications last week that that policy was starting to work, given that 10,000 more people were at work, albeit having lost almost 300,000 jobs after the collapse of the banking system and the bringing in of the IMF. In that spirit, my amendment seeks to insert subsections based expressly on the Minister's comments on Second Stage about the procedures he wished to remove which, as the explanatory memorandum states, were inadvertently reserved for the veterinary profession. The items listed in my amendment are taken from the Minister's Second Stage speech during which he said:
The procedures in question include farriery, equine dentistry, bovine hoof trimming, micro-chipping of companion animals, scanning of cattle and sheep and physiotherapy ... The legal advice obtained by my Department indicated that in the event of legal disputes arising, there could be doubt about the status of such procedures carried out on animals ... My Department has received advice from the Office of the Attorney General to the effect that this cannot be done in a comprehensive manner without amending the Veterinary Practice Act 2005. Under the amendments I am proposing, my office will be vested with a delegated power to make ministerial regulations, exempting specified procedures from being reserved to registered people.
My amendment is proposed in that spirit. I do not know whether the Government asterisk should be placed beside some of the items the Minister mentioned. I invite him to so do should he so wish to do so.
The final item I included in the list was TB inoculation having spoken to some people involved in the meat business. Obviously, the Minister is the expert . However, I understand that for TB eradication the animal receives an injection in the neck and 24 hours later it is checked to see whether it is a reactor. The people to whom I have spoken believe this should be carried out by a technician.
I have explained the origins of and motivation for my amendment which are the same as those of the Minister.
I thank the Senator for tabling the amendment which I regard as sensible and practical and which would be welcomed in farming circles.
I note the contents of the Department's regulatory impact assessment which accompanies the legislation. Moreover, in his Second Stage speech in this Chamber some weeks ago the Minister mentioned that procedures such as the scanning of cattle and sheep, bovine hoof-trimming, physiotherapy, equine dentistry and microchipping of dogs and pets could be excluded from the necessity of being performed by a registered vet. The difficulty with using a registered vet is that such services can be expensive, particularly when one takes into account that these procedures are minor in comparison with other more complicated and emergency-type procedures that may be required on farms orin the case of pets or companion animals. I support Senator Sean Barrett's sensibleamendment.
I understand the approach taken by the Minister under the legislation is that he will regulate following consultation with the industry. In the amendment Senator Sean Barrett proposes to define this set of procedures within the legislation. I await with interest the Minister's comments in this regard. Other procedures he might consider include the dehorning of cattle, as well as the scanning of sheep, physiotherapy and TB inoculations which are listed in Senator Sean Barrett's amendment. I also seek his views on whether TB testing services could be exempted from needing the assistance of a veterinary practice. He also could give consideration to exempting other minor routine procedures such as the castration of young cattle.
On the other hand, many people close to the agricultural field may be aware of old cures. For example, I have encountered people in the north west with a cure for orf in sheep. While one might call it a prayer-type cure, it is for the treatment of orf in sheep and I have seen at first-hand on our farm how it actually works. Moreover, the veterinary treatment for orf in sheep did not work. I personally have been involved in bringing sheep to someone who has been able to provide a cure and it has actually worked. One should ensure enough space is given to farmers in this regard in order that no offence will be built in if they——
The Senator is broadening the remit of the amendment.
I am merely raising the question. I do not wish to take away from the amendment, which I support. I await the Minister's response.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. Go ginearálta, táimid ag tacú leis an mBille seo. Tá ciall leis agus leis an chur chuige atá molta, ach sílim go bhfuil ciall leis an leasú atá molta ag an Seanadóir Barrett agus ba mhaith liom tacú leis. In general, as previously stated, I support the Bill. However, the amendment tabled by Senator Sean Barrett has some merit. I have mentioned previously the position in Connemara where difficulties are being experienced because of the scarcity of available vets to provide services. It has been found to be difficult to attract vets to live in rural areas to provide some of the basic services mentioned in the Bill. This echoes the sentiments expressed by the Minister on Second Stage. It is important to have clarity on an issue such as this in order that farmers will know precisely where they stand and what they can and cannot do. Moreover, future Ministers who may not have the same grasp of this issue as the current incumbent may not be as open to retaining some of the practices on the list. In general, Sinn Féin supports this practical and commonsense amendment which makes sense. It is good to note specifically these practices in order that farmers and the veterinary industry would know exactly where they stood.
In addition, while Sinn Féin takes on board the issues veterinarians might have about others cutting into their area of expertise and so on, it is accepted generally that the measures outlined are standard that farmers would be comfortable carrying out on a daily basis. Given that in rural areas it can often be difficult, for a number of reasons, to avail of the services of veterinarians, the amendment is eminently practicable and I call on the Minister to take it on board, if possible.
I hope the Minister has a cure for Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill's orf.
We are orphan politicians.
Is Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill just a lost sheep?
Or a stray one.
A stray sheep is even worse.
Some say Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill is a ram.
Lambs to the slaughter.
The Minister to continue, without interruption.
It is a wooly issue.
I thank Senator Sean Barrett for tabling amendments Nos. 1 and 2. Amendment No. 1 gives me an opportunity to clarify a number of issues. However, I cannot accept it and wish to explain why. In it the Senator is proposing a significantly different approach to that foreseen in the Bill. The approach I have taken is to set down the principles and policies which a Minister will be obliged to take into account in determining, through ministerial regulations, whether a particular procedure can and should be exempted. In other words, the Bill is enabling legislation which will allow me to consider whether particular procedures comply with these principles and policies and whether such procedures should be exempted. The Senator appears to accept this approach, but he then proposes that an indicative list of procedures to be exempted be specified in primary legislation rather than at a later stage in regulations.
Amendment No. 1 is inconsistent with the entire thrust of the Bill because, in effect, the inclusion of a list of exempted procedures would pre-empt the type of detailed consideration as provided for in the Bill of precisely which procedures can and should be exempted. This is particularly relevant in the context of the comments made by Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill. The Bill also provides that prior to making regulations the Minister will consult stakeholders, particularly the Veterinary Council, on whether certain procedures can or should be exempted. If the Minister considers that a particular procedure could be exempted, further consideration must be given to the limits of the exemption, the skills and competencies that will be required, whether the exempted person must be a member of a professional body, etc. The proposed amendment would pre-empt this consideration and consultation process which I believe to be an essential element of the regulation-making process.
More specifically, the proposal by Senator Sean Barrett to insert an additional criterion — in the form of the new paragraph (f) — in section 54B of the principal Act is unnecessary because the criterion concerned, that is, the ability to carry out a procedure regardless of whether it is related to disease eradication, is provided for in section 54B(1)(a). The key considerations in determining whether a procedure should be exempted are whether the person carrying out the procedure possesses the requisite skills and whether the procedure being carried out by the non-registered person is likely to cause significant risk to animal health or welfare or public health. Whether a procedure relates specifically to disease eradication is irrelevant in the context of defining the governing criteria in primary legislation.
It is not possible technically to accommodate the approach suggested by Senator Sean Barrett within the legislative model proposed in the Bill. Also, the said approach would run the risk of undermining the process itself. However, the essential concerns underlying the Senator's proposal, including having regard to competency issues and concerning all relevant activities, can and will be addressed within the regulation-making process that is already part of the Bill.
The Senator and I are probably trying to achieve the same thing. He wants there to be full consultation with all stakeholders, be it farming organisations, the Veterinary Council or whomever, in order that an accurate and appropriate list might be put in place. This would mean that farmers could do work for which they possess the necessary skills without actually risking the health of animals. I take my responsibility in this matter very seriously. The Bill relates to setting the parameters for how I will make my decision in this regard. We could set down a list now on the basis of what Senator Ó Domhnaill has seen working in sheep flocks in Donegal — I do not belittle it — but we cannot make legislation with that type of approach. This is a serious business concerning animal health, disease control and ensuring there is no interference with human health and food entering the human food chain. We are trying to get the list right and this legislation is about putting a framework around this. If we decide we want to change or amend the list, we should be able to do so without having to revert to primary legislation and going through a series of stages to do so.
For example, de-horning animals is not on the list proposed but we may want to put it on the list. There may be a tail docking issue that is not on the list with which we may want to deal. We may want to put certain restrictions around a certain practice. For example, equine dentistry is a very broad term, and horse owners should be able to carry out some forms themselves. Other and more detailed surgery should clearly be done by a vet. Similarly, there is some complex physiotherapy for animals that requires qualified vets or veterinary nurses but others can be done by animal owners. We can try to cover everything in the list we put together as legislators but we are not experts and we will get it wrong, leading to a need to amend the list through primary legislation. It would probably have to be amended every year. I am trying to put in place a structure that will not only require the Minister to consult widely before changing the regulations and list but also to allow him or her change it, as appropriate, based on the advice of stakeholders and so on.
The approach we are taking is right and we consulted widely before taking it. For farmers and veterinary practitioners and nurses as well as for general animal health and welfare, it is the right approach.
The list is inclusive of but not limited to those acts which are enumerated; it is not meant to be an exclusive list. I thank colleagues for their support and welcome the Minister's response, as always. Putting in place a process of consultation but not taking on board what Parliament wishes is part of the system which has the country where it is. Parliament was repeatedly bypassed, we went bankrupt and the IMF had to come in to rescue us. With 42 new Senators and 77 new Deputies, we want to help the Minister play a part and in doing so, we make suggestions. It is easier to change a Parliament than it is to change permanent governments, social partners or the senior Civil Service, so it is important that all the people elected to the Oireachtas command some audience with the people who make decisions.
Senator Ó Clochartaigh mentioned that we have a Minister who is most committed, interested, qualified and capable, which I appreciate. That might not always be the case so giving the power to amend the list anonymously and without legislation does not recognise Ireland's current position. It is a country where so much governance has failed and it has had to be rescued. My general point about the Government is that it has been too conservative, as governance rather than the Government was the failure. We need to examine some of the institutions which created our national problems. We may divert resources into having veterinary professionals provide for these matters at significant expense at a time when we are trying to develop an international food business.
I accept the Minister's advice, as well as his credentials, bona fides and interest in this area. He is one of the first Ministers to come before the House at the Leader's request and has done so to discuss his plans for the food industry which have been strongly welcomed by all Senators. However, Members of the Oireachtas also have a role in this regard, which is the reason I have enumerated a number of procedures. Where Members believe something needs be done, we should submit a proposal and give the Minister the benefit of the experience of those elected to the House. Many of our institutions do not work and must be reformed by elected representatives. That is the purpose of the amendment.
The Minister and I are ad idem on so many issues that I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. It is important, nonetheless, for both Houses to recognise that much needs to be done to correct the dreadful position in which the country finds itself having been rescued by the International Monetary Fund last December 12 months.
The Senator and I agree on the broader issue of the need to reform how the Oireachtas and governance operate in this country. I do not need to remind people of some of the mistakes made. There are two roles for Ministers and the Oireachtas. We are legislators and it is up to us to establish a legal framework to allow decisions to be made by the Executive or the Government. The judgment call we must make in this respect is whether it is appropriate to insert in primary legislation a list drawn up by legislators with the technical input of veterinary professionals, farming organisations and so forth, especially given that this list will, undoubtedly, change from year to year, depending on the skill set of farmers and other developments such as new diseases, cures or methods of treating animals, for example, in the areas of dosing and injecting. One must ask, therefore, whether it would be appropriate for Members of the Oireachtas to be restrictive in inserting a precise list in the legislation or even to provide that while the list may not be exhaustive, the procedures included in the list are fixed. I am required in any case to introduce a regulation to add to the list. The whole thrust of the Bill is to put in place a legal framework for the decision making process which allows a Minister, by regulation, to compile a list.
Notwithstanding the fact that the legislation is supported by all parties — not a single amendment was tabled to the Bill in the other House — it has taken six months to reach this point. Furthermore, it must return to the Dáil for final consideration following this debate. If a farming organisation informs me that a new procedure is available and veterinarians have agreed that farmers may perform it, implementing the required change in law could take four, five or six months. This type of unworkable system has resulted in poor governance at times. While I understand what Senator Sean Barrett is trying to do, the purpose of the legislation is create conditions that will allow a Minister to consult appropriately before making a decision on what to include in or exclude from the list.
While we could have a long debate on who is an appropriate person to perform tuberculosis inoculation, the systems in place for tuberculosis are working reasonably well. We have fewer cases of the disease than at any time since the 1950s. For this reason, I am reluctant to tamper with the current systems until we come close to eradicating tuberculosis from herds which I hope will be the case in the not too distant future. While I understand from where Senator Sean Barrett is coming, I hope he will understand the approach I have taken, which is the right one.
I welcome the Minister back to the House. I am pleased to speak on Committee and Remaining Stages of the Veterinary Practice (Amendment) Bill. I thank the Minister for taking the time to address the House on this important Bill and for his recent attendance in the House on Second Stage. I also acknowledge the hard work of staff in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in drafting the Bill and conducting in-depth consultations with the relevant stakeholders.
We must stick to the amendments. There is a particular amendment and we must confine our comments to that. However, on the conclusion of the Bill I will allow people to welcome it and thank the Minister if they wish.
I will be supporting the Government's amendments and the sections of the Bill. I want to refer to Senator Ó Domhnaill's welcome for the power of prayer. We all know there are indeed cures for orf, bleeding and sprains through the power of prayer. I welcome these remarks.
I acknowledge what Senator Barrett has said. It is a sensible resolution to leave it to the Minister to bring in regulations in this area. I accept what the Minister said also. We must be mindful of the fact that we are dealing with animal welfare. As a parliamentarian, in the past I was often critical of Ministers, including some of our own, who brought in regulations after the primary legislation had been passed. One example of that is the septic tank legislation. Although it was passed, we still have not seen the maintenance standard, although we cannot blame the Minister for that.
The Senator had to get that in.
The Senator should not worry. He will get them.
This amendment was important because it raised the issues concerned. Perhaps when those regulations are being prepared at a later date and the Minister is deliberating over representations we make to him, he will take into consideration what has been said.
I thank the Minister for his response.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, to delete lines 33 to 38.
According to the explanatory memorandum, this section deals with the new provision to enable the Veterinary Council of Ireland, with the consent of the Minister, by regulation to make indemnity insurance mandatory for specified types of veterinary practice. The requirement will not, however, apply to practitioners in respect of official duties.
Part of what got the country into the situation it is in is moral hazard. Why were we exempting people from the consequences of unsatisfactory performance of their duties by not having to carry insurance? The State needs to borrow money. Veterinary professionals are educated at substantial expense by the State. We heard from the Higher Education Authority this morning that the veterinary course is the most expensive among all courses. A previous Member of the House, T.K. Whitaker, said that the disease eradication programme was one of the biggest financial scandals in the history of the State, and that was in his time. We have had some other whoppers since. A fine of €100 million was imposed on Ireland for malpractice in the meat trade, which people tell me could not have been imposed were it not for the connivance of the veterinary profession. If we do not hold these people liable and they hold their own insurance, the burden goes to the Minister, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Brian Hayes, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, and society as a whole. The exemption of vets acting in their official capacity from the requirement to carry insurance for indemnity purposes is wrong in the circumstances. Even if we were not in financial difficulty I would still argue that people who are professionally trained to a high standard should bear the consequences of their mistakes.
On 29 and 30 September 2008 I would have said the same to the bankers who were knocking on Government doors. People have to take responsibility for their actions. It is too easy to say that the Exchequer and the national debt will reimburse everybody for ever. It is part of our new acceptance of responsibility in the new Ireland that we take responsibility to buy insurance to cover malpractice for indemnity purposes.
Our reading of the amendment is that the indemnity applies to the veterinarians but not those under the remit of the Department. We question why they are not covered specifically under the indemnity clause. However, we will listen to the Minister's reply before deciding whether to support the amendment. It appears the vets in the open market are being treated differently from those employed under the auspices of the Minister or by contract through the Minister. We seek clarification as to why that is the case.
This issue was the focus of much discussion between my officials and me because I raised the same questions as the Deputy.
Senator Barrett is proposing to remove from the Bill the general exemption from mandatory indemnity insurance which would apply to registered persons acting as an officer of the State, in other words somebody working for the Department to the Government. This exemption was provided for in the Bill in recognition of the fundamentally different role played by vets who carry out official functions when compared with those in private practice. As Senators will be aware, the latter generally treat animals for reward. It was considered appropriate in the interest of protecting clients that there would be an adequate financial provision for any civil claims arising in the event of a misdiagnosis or inadequate or inappropriate treatment by a vet. This is the rationale underpinning the amendment in section 3 which provides that the Veterinary Council may make regulations, with my consent, specifying the circumstances in which indemnity is to be required. However, official vets are in an entirely different space. Vets working for the State, by definition, carry out official functions underpinned by legislation. They rarely, if ever, treat animals as part of their official duties. Instead, their role relates to applying their expertise in carrying out inspections on farms or in meat plants or, alternatively, providing expert advice within my Department. Thus the scope for incurring liability of the type arising from private practitioners is, to all intents and purposes, non-existent.
Having regard to the very different position of vets working on official duties compared with private vets, it would be illogical and unreasonable to require them to carry personal indemnity for the role since they are not acting on their own behalf but on behalf of the State. Official vets, like any other public servants, are indemnified in respect of the lawful exercise of their functions. Thus, any legal actions arising in respect of their official role will be directed against the State. I emphasise, however, that the exemption only applies to vets while undertaking work on behalf of the State. Therefore, if a vet who works part-time for the State also engages in private practice, he or she would, in principle, be required to have indemnity insurance in respect of his or her private practice. For these reasons I do not propose to accept the amendment. Essentially, we are making a distinction between people who are acting on behalf of the State such as a teacher, for example, and individuals who are using their professional expertise in a personal capacity for financial return. If we asked veterinarians to take out personal indemnity insurance for the work they are carrying out for my Department or the State and the State was obliged to cover that work also, there would be a double payment. It would amount to unnecessary duplication.
We select from a panel of 700 veterinarians for work in meat processing factories, for example, for inspections, quality control and so forth, and they work with the Department's veterinarians in this work. What if I were to require them to take out personal indemnity insurance, as well as having to cover that work on behalf of the State? If one of them made a mistake, for example, there would be a civil case not only against the veterinarian but also potentially against the State. We cannot get away from this. When somebody is acting on behalf of the State, the State is liable. We are making the distinction between the work veterinarians do in an official capacity and the work they do in a private capacity and the pay they receive for that private work. This was the best balance we could strike.
I will not accept the amendment, but I must admit I asked the same question when I read the Bill for the first time. I asked why we were making a distinction between somebody who was doing a public servant's work and somebody who was doing private work, given that they should take personal responsibility either way. However, there is a distinction in terms of the work they do and for whom they are working. When they are doing private work, they are working for themselves as a sole trader, in most cases, or for a practice. In the case of a veterinary practice, it will have to provide indemnity cover. When they are working for the State, it is a very different role and in the vast majority of cases it is entirely different work in terms of it being supervisory or to do with inspections rather than actual animal health.
I thank the Minister for asking the same question I asked.
Great minds.
The Minister has said they generally treat animals for reward. The economic distinction in that regard between veterinarians on the public payroll and those in private practice requires examination. Veterinarians who work for the State are doing it for reward, a very handsome reward if one looks at some of the numbers people such as former Senator T. K. Whitaker pointed to previously.
However, they are not paid by the client. That is the difference. They are paid by the State.
Yes, but I am trying to get at their malpractice. I will use my old analogy. If I did something wrong to a student in Trinity College Dublin, the lawyers would undoubtedly say that as an individual lecturer, I was not much of a mark. If they could prove I was acting on behalf of the Provost, that would look a little more promising, while if they could prove I was acting on behalf of the Minister for Education and Skills, they would be in real business. Does the exemption from the need to indemnify for professional malpractice leave the State wide open to the type of case mentioned? It is, perhaps, a far fetched case, but I am sure the lawyers would inquire. They would say it was not worth taking a case against the individual because he or she was not a good mark which I believe is the phrase lawyers use, but we have made the State a huge mark in terms of the entire national debt, whatever else we can borrow, promissory notes and so forth. Does it lead to the State being vulnerable that highly trained professionals who are handsomely rewarded by it and supposed to be of the same or higher professional standard as those in private practice are performing uninsured? I accept the Minister's point, but that is the danger.
I welcome the Minister's clarification about part-timers. It was brought to my attention the need to distinguish between when they were working for the State and when they were working for themselves and ensure we were not carrying any insurance burden for persons who worked half in and half out of the two systems. That is the purpose of the amendment. The Minister and I were asking exactly the same questions. In human medicine, the NTMA estimates that claims outstanding amount to €760 million. Ultimately they are borne by taxpayers who have declining and rather low average incomes. It has been a legal tradition in Ireland to transfer these burdens to the taxpayer, whom I think must have some protection, particularly in the present circumstances. That is the reason I tabled this amendment. I accept the Minister's point, and I will withdraw my amendment.
Professions must bear responsibility for their own standards, whether they work for the State or in private practice.
I agree with the Senator's final point on professional standards. This Bill is all about standards. We have drawn a distinction in terms of who pays for personal indemnity insurance between a veterinary surgeon who is working for the State and we are paying him or her to do that versus a veterinary surgeon in practice, where a client is paying him or her for services. We are seeking to ensure the client is protected in cases of incompetence, malpractice or laziness. My experience of the veterinary surgeons who work in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has been very good. Let me assure Members that if there is evidence of malpractice by a veterinary surgeon working for the State on official duties, we will take action and will be strongly supported by the Veterinary Council in doing that. On the specific issue of legal indemnity, having asked the same questions as the Senators have asked, I think we have taken the correct approach. I therefore cannot accept the amendment. I appreciate that the Senator has offered to withdraw it.
There was one other point arising, which might be of interest. Some people in the meat trade who are very proud of their reputation say that the customer is the best person to police the product. It is a longer term project. Perhaps the veterinary surgeons employed by the State in the meat factories may not be needed in the future in a meat trade that is proud of and defends its reputation.
I agree that inspections were necessary in the past, because some had reputations which were damaging to the country, but that may not always be the case. I accept the Minister's advice.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 9
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 28, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"(o) in section 91—
(i) in subsection (2)(a)—
(I) by substituting for subparagraph (ii) the following:
"(ii) induction, maintenance and termination of general anaesthesia, including performance of endotrachial intubation,",
(II) in subparagraph (iv), by substituting "young;" for "young,", and
(III) by deleting subparagraph (v),
(ii) in subsection (2)(b), by substituting for subparagraph (i) the following:
"(i) administration of medication enterically, intraosseously, or intravenously,",
and
(iii) by substituting for subsection (3) the following:
"(3) In paragraphs (a)(iii) and (b)(iv) of subsection (2), ‘minor’ relates to a procedure or surgery that does not involve entry beneath the skin, mucosa or into the cornea.”.”.
The overall objective of this proposed amendment is to clarify and update the particular aspects of veterinary practice which veterinary nurses are permitted to carry out. The amendment is being proposed at this stage of the legislative process because it arises from a submission received at the end of 2011 from Veterinary Ireland, the representative body for the veterinary profession. I mentioned when introducing the Bill on 21 February that the 2005 Act provided a springboard for development of the veterinary nursing profession, with almost 500 nurses registered to practise. In the field of education and training we have moved on from the time when nurses had to go abroad to be trained to the current position where five colleges in Ireland now offer approved and accredited degree level courses. In addition nurses in practice, when the 2005 Act came into force have undergone a comprehensive upskilling process under transitional arrangements which were provided for in the Act. My amendment recognises the significant improvement in the training of nurses. It also reflects the positive manner in which the veterinary practitioners and nurses have worked together over recent years.
My amendment enjoys the support of all of the stakeholders, including the Veterinary Council and the Irish Veterinary Nursing Association and is, of its nature, expressed in quite technical terms. However, its objective can be summed up in the following three headings, the first of which is to clarify what nurses may do by way of minor surgery. There was general recognition among stakeholders that the existing definition in section 91(3) of the Act could be open to misunderstanding. The revised definition, which is intended to clarify rather than expand or restrict the range of specific functions that nurses may undertake by way of minor surgery, has been arrived at following detailed consultations with all concerned, including the Veterinary Council and the UCD veterinary faculty.
Second, the amendment is designed to afford nurses greater latitude in terms of administering particular forms of medication. At present they can only be administered by a nurse in the presence of a vet. Given the greater degree of confidence that now exists between the two professions and the improved training that I mentioned, I propose that nurses would be enabled to administer the treatments when the overseeing vet is not physically present. This should facilitate a more effective management of clinical situations in future. The third objective is to clarify the terminology in the Act relating to functions that nurses may perform in the context of sedating and anaesthetising animals in preparation for surgery and post-operative.
As I have stated, the proposed amendment reflects careful consideration and wide consultation. It is consistent with the overall thrust of the Bill that practices be permitted to be conducted at the appropriate level of competence. It is also intended to facilitate the further development of the veterinary nursing profession working in collaboration with veterinary practitioner colleagues.
I also propose in section 6 to facilitate a greater range of recognition options for veterinary nurses. Taken in their totality, I hope Senators agree that they are in the interest, not just in the development of the veterinary nursing profession, but also for bringing services to animal owners on a cost-effective basis and with the appropriate degree of quality assurance. In some ways I regret that this change has come so late in the process but I cannot ignore representations from the Veterinary Council, supported by all of the other stakeholders, in an effort to improve the Bill. This is why I have introduced my amendment at this late stage.
I want the Minister to clarify that this is in a case of surgery, relates to a veterinary nurse and does not go against what we said previously about such minor procedures that involve going under the skin, including inoculations, removing ticks and the insertion of microchips. Is it related to that?
Is it only in a case of surgery?
Yes. I will clarify it for the Senator but that is my understanding.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank Senators for their co-operation on this Bill. It is good legislation, and I thank my staff who have worked tirelessly on it and undertaken consultation, in most of which I was not involved. When I was in the House previously, I mentioned that I would bring in an animal health and welfare Bill. As we have decided to initiate that Bill in the Seanad, I am looking forward to hearing comments on it. Animal welfare broadens the focus of my Department outside of the food industry, agriculture and fisheries into the living room of everyone who has a dog, cat or a budgie. As we are doing ambitious things with animal welfare in the Bill that will be of interest to people, I hope Senators consider it appropriate and significant that we have chosen to initiate that Bill in the Seanad.
We are always honoured to have Bills initiated in this House.
Question put and agreed to.