Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

It is unusual to hear the response before we have even made our case. What happens outside this House is of no relevance at committee. A case is being put forward by the movers of the amendments and what the Minister thinks we think is of no relevance. The way Committee Stage always worked when I was a Minister was that the movers of an amendment made a case for that amendment, explained why they proposed the amendment and then, when the Minister knew the reasoning behind the amendment, he or she replied to the case made by the Deputy. Let us now deal with the actual amendments, as put forward.

Amendment No 1 seeks to insert into the Bill a clear distinction between an inspector of the Minister and an authorised officer. The purpose of that is to clarify that there are certain functions that can be carried out by an authorised officer who need not be a vet but that there are other, specified functions where veterinary expertise is needed. I will draw the analogy of a hospital, where nurses are highly trained but where it is recognised that doctors have particular functions that only they can carry out. In proposing this amendment, I believe that there are certain functions that should be reserved for veterinary officers or people acting on veterinary advice and that there are other functions that an authorised officer can carry out without veterinary advice or without a person with a qualification in veterinary medicine being involved in the function. To allow that differentiation throughout the Act, amendment No. 4 must be accepted. We must have a definition of an inspector as being a person with veterinary qualifications. Otherwise it is not possible to follow through in the Act on the rest of its provisions.

We then move to amendments Nos. 40 to 45, inclusive, of which my amendment is No. 41. The question that arises in amendment No 41, which deals with page 23, subsection (2) is very simple. The Bill at present states:

(2) If an authorised officer, a veterinary practitioner acting as such or a person specified in animal health and welfare regulations
is of the opinion that--(a) an animal is fatally injured,
(b) an animal is so severely injured or diseased or in such pain or distress that, for the alleviation of its suffering, it
should be killed,
(c) to prevent further suffering to an animal, it is necessary or expedient, or
(d) an animal is a danger to life or property,he or she may, without having to seek the consent of its owner or the person in control of it, kill the animal or cause the animal to be killed or destroyed in such manner as to inflict as little suffering as possible in the circumstances and may destroy or dispose of the carcass or cause the destruction or disposal of the carcass.

The issue here is not the killing of the animal, because there are many people who have the skills to carry out that function. The issue is who is to decide that the animal is so fatally injured that it has to be killed. The issue is not the killing itself but the decision on the killing. I have no problem with a person from a knackery yard doing the actual killing. The thrust of the proposed amendment is very simple, namely, that if an authorised officer is making such a decision and does not have veterinary skills, he or she should consult with a veterinary officer. There are many ways, in the modern world, of consulting with a veterinary officer, lest the Minister respond that the officer might not have a vet to hand. There are gadgets known as mobile phones and a lot of consultation, even from vet to vet, is done on mobile phones. One veterinary practitioner, for example, rings another, describes symptoms and asks for the other's opinion. Obviously, it is not an on-the-ground opinion as the vet has not seen the animal but he or she can give advice. Advice can be given without the need to be physically present and the amendment would ensure that the decision to put down an animal was made with the involvement of someone with the requisite veterinary skills. It has nothing to do with the act of putting the animal down. The amendment is worthy of consideration.

Amendments Nos. 69, 70, 72, 74 and 75, which are also in the group of amendments we are discussing, are more or less in the same vein. What is being proposed in amendment No. 69 is reasonable. The amendment reads as follows:

In page 34, subsection (3), lines 29 to 32, to delete all words from and including “appoint” in line 29 down to and including “agreement.” in line 32 and substitute the following:
“submit the names of persons he or she considers appropriately qualified to be authorised officers for the purpose of all or any of the functions that the person may exercise under the service agreement to the Minister who may appoint in writing any or all such person to be authorised officers”.

That is a reasonable amendment.

Section 37(3) states: "A person with whom the Minister enters into a service agreement under section 74 may for the purposes of enforcing this Act, appoint in writing, with the consent of the Minister, such persons as he or she considers appropriate to be authorised officers for the purpose of all or any of the functions that the person may exercise under the service agreement". Amendment No. 69 seeks to insert the words "submit the names of persons he or she considers appropriately qualified to be authorised officers for the purpose of all or any of the functions that the person may exercise under the service agreement to the Minister who may appoint in writing any or all such person to be authorised officers." It is a minor amendment.

In amendment No. 70 we are saying the people appointed as authorised officers should have the experience, technical competence and other qualifications required to undertake the functions of an authorised officer. One could say that goes without saying, but there is a significant concern that persons without these qualifications might be appointed as authorised officers. Section 38(4) states:

Where an authorised officer has reasonable grounds for believing that--(a) there is a risk of disease,
(b) a disease or disease agent is or may be present on any land or premises...

That brings us back to the basic premise. Will people without veterinary skills decide these two grounds? We are not arguing about paragraphs (c) and (d) which refer to where an offence is being or has been committed under the Bill, but we are asking how someone who is non-qualified can decide there is a risk of disease. The Bill states a disease or a disease agent may be present on any land or premises. Surely one would need veterinary advice to decide if that was the case. The proposal is that these subsections should be subject to the obtaining of expert advice.

Similarly, in subsection (1), on page 39, line 13, we are saying there is a need to obtain veterinary advice. Section 42(1) states:

Where an authorised officer is of the opinion that--(a) a contravention of this Act, an EU measure or animal 35 health and welfare regulations may have taken place or may be taking place,

It appears there is a reasonable case to be made to try to ensure that, under paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), the person concerned has technical knowledge or will obtain the advice of people with particular expertise.