Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will read a general speaking note on all the amendments first. There is a general thrust that has some validity and I wish to propose a compromise that members might consider favourably.

The operation of the Animal Health and Welfare Bill will provide a central role for the veterinary profession. The Bill consolidates a wide variety of legislation. Establishing different classes and hierarchies of authorised officers and inspectors with different powers and different responsibilities runs counter to the aim of reducing bureaucracy. Authorised officers under the Animal Health and Welfare Bill have a wide range of functions and different classes of duties may be assigned to different officers by management. This will be done as appropriate depending on the task in question and is best dealt with on an administrative basis rather than creating rigid legal structures. Resources are finite and in some instances it may be more appropriate to use an officer other than a vet.

Under section 23 the Bill does envisage a situation where an authorised officer may put down a badly injured animal where a vet is not available. A number of points should be made in that regard. It reflects the existing legal situation where an authorised officer can kill if he or she comes across an animal and it is appropriate to put it down. The Veterinary Practices Act allows a non-vet to kill an animal. The previous subsection will apply and specifies that anyone killing must be competent to do so, that is, someone from a knackery yard, for example. A number of members insisted that to save farmers costs knackery personnel should be allowed to kill an animal. Therefore it is inconsistent to deprive an authorised officer of the same power. The provisions of section 23 reflect the current law where a fatally injured animal may be put down. Similarly, the Veterinary Practices Act allows a non-vet to kill an animal in an emergency situation. Furthermore, veterinary expertise is not required to kill an animal but competence is. A variety of persons are permitted to kill animals, for example slaughterhouse operatives and knackery staff. However, section 23(1) of the Animal Health and Welfare Bill will apply, requiring that anyone who kills an animal be competent to do so.

In any event, the concerns expressed relate to an unusual case. A significant number of authorised officers who are Department staff are qualified vets and those who are not will, in the normal course of events and where it can quickly be done, seek veterinary advice. They are unlikely to use this power lightly because they must satisfy themselves, and potentially the courts, that the animal falls under one of the headings 23(2)(a) to (d). However, it may need to be used urgently such that veterinary advice cannot be reached, for example in dealing with rabid animals. The allowance to perform this act is currently and will remain available to persons without veterinary training. Therefore, it would be an oversight not to allow an authorised officer to do so.

Deputy McNamara outlined a specific concern which I will deal with in due course. What Deputies are trying to do is to create a separate category for vets and for other authorised officers, including inspectors. I understand the reason. I presume they want to do that because there is a concern that the two people who can appoint authorised officers, namely, a county manager or a Minister, may appoint people who do not have the appropriate qualifications to carry out inspections on farms or in other places where there may be animals. Given the concern that has been expressed by veterinary practitioners, farming organisations and members, I suggest that Deputies might consider that we would do two things to improve the Bill in terms of the appointment of authorised officers. Currently, county managers can only appoint authorised officers from within their local authority. A county manager cannot, for example, go to an animal welfare organisation with the intention of appointing an authorised officer from the organisation. That is not allowed in the legislation, although a Minister could do that. There are instances where we should consider doing that. We will talk about them later. If a county manager is to appoint a new authorised officer that is not a veterinary practitioner he or she must seek approval from the Minister to do so. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine must sanction the appointment of an authorised officer that is not a vet in order that we would try to get over the concern that county managers may, for whatever reason, appoint someone that is not suitable for reasons of their level of knowledge to carry out inspections.

The second point we must address in the legislation in order to put an onus on the Minister to ensure that the right type of person is appointed as an authorised officer is to insert a provision on Report Stage, if members consider it a good idea, to the effect that a Minister must have regard to the expertise and qualification of the person before he or she is appointed as an authorised officer. The notion that every authorised officer must be a vet does not make sense when one looks at the practicalities of the current situation. For example, many of the agricultural inspectors in the Department are not qualified vets but they are people who have been trained in agricultural colleges and who carry out many other inspections on farms in terms of control and compliance. They understand farming very well. It makes sense for those people to also be authorised officers in respect of this legislation. If they have a serious animal welfare concern they can call a vet to come and deal with the matter should a complication arise. The notion that all inspections by authorised officers would have to be undertaken by vets would have a huge resource implication. For example, if we had an outbreak of foot and mouth disease or any other disease that requires me to authorise a large number of authorised officers to respond to it in a comprehensive way, we would not be able to solely rely on vets for such a service. In addition, there is a limited role outside of farming for a Minister to consider authorising someone who clearly has qualifications and experience and who may have been working with an animal welfare organisation to act as an authorised officer, for the keeping of domestic animals, for example.

We should be using the pool of resources that is already there to try to add to the existing pool of authorised officers that I have at my disposal. However, there is a distinction to be made when it comes to agriculture because a different level of knowledge is required, in terms of understanding farm practices and so forth. As I said in the Seanad and on Second Stage in the Dáil, it is my intention to ensure that there is no change in terms of the types of inspectors who are going on to farms at the moment. However, we must insert that into the legislation. Deputy McNamara raised this issue with me yesterday and there must be some recognition in the legislation and in the wording so that a Minister at any stage in the future will be obliged to have regard for experience and qualification when appointing authorised officers. That may not go far enough for some Deputies in terms of the concerns they have tried to address with these amendments but I am trying to capture the spirit of them by inserting an extra level of checking on county managers if they propose that people other than vets are appointed as authorised officers. Such a proposal would have to be given departmental or ministerial approval. Furthermore, when a Minister or a county manager is appointing an authorised officer he or she must have regard to experience and qualifications. I would like feedback from Deputies as to whether they regard this as helpful.