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

I am trying to be non-party political on the legislation. That was the approach in the Seanad, where I took on board amendments, and I intend to take on board amendments on Committee Stage where appropriate. I have no problem with spending as long as it takes to go through the Bill, section by section, and listening to what Members have to say. In an effort to be helpful I will say that I do not think I was, in my opening statement, proposing compromises without listening to what Deputies had to say.

On the issue of a separate definition of what vets do versus what authorised officers do, clearly there is a different function for vets in a whole range of ways in terms of veterinary legislation and so on. In regard to much of the work that needs to be done either by vets, as authorised officers, or other authorised officers who are not vets but who will have to call in vets to carry out detailed work because they are not qualified to do it, a clear distinction will be made. We are trying to decide who will be given the limited powers of authorised officers in respect of inspections and the issuing of welfare notices, which is similar to handing a yellow card to a person. It means that one is making a welfare mistake in terms of the animals for which one is responsible. One can accept a fine and a welfare notice to change that practice and avoid going to court or, if one is concerned that one is being treated unfairly, one can still go to court and not pay the appropriate fine. The concern of some farming organisations is that non-veterinary personnel will go onto a farm and fine a farmer without the same level of evidence or proof that would be required in court. The whole point is that we are trying to keep people out of court, where appropriate, for relatively minor welfare offences that can be corrected quickly. This is a warning system that does not have the same burden of proof as a court. That is a good thing for farmers and for other people who keep animals. If a farm inspector takes a case, he or she must go to court in respect of imposing fines and so on. I would like to keep people out of court as much as possible and have a practical discussion about welfare notices. In the event of a complex case there will be a need for a fully qualified vet, because a person who is not a qualified vet would have to rely on the knowledge of a vet to make a complex welfare notice. I am not suggesting that vets are not in a separate category to other authorised officers; clearly, they are, in respect of their qualifications. If we want to outline in law the difference between the powers of authorised officers, be they vets or otherwise, we are getting into more complex requirements to respond to a case. If a person reports a serious welfare case to the Department I would rather be able to send out an authorised officer, whether a vet or a non-vet, to investigate the matter. If it is a complex case a vet would be called in to do that work. We want to have the flexibility to use authorised officers in a way that is as efficient as possible.

This is not a cost-saving measure. Vets may be concerned that under the legislation a number of vets who are authorised officers will be replaced by cheaper substitutes. That is not the intention. My preference is that as many authorised officers as possible will be veterinary practitioners. There are a large number of agricultural inspectors in the Department, who are inspecting in any event. Large numbers of people will have to be found to respond to welfare calls, such as domestic pet cases. I would like to see veterinary nurses involved. If someone has to knock on a person's door, say there is a report that a dog has been screeching in pain for the past two or three nights and ask for an explanation of what is going on, the credibility of a veterinary nurse is sufficient. If the case is complex, the veterinary nurse will call in a qualified vet to examine the issue. The idea that we could not have authorised officers who are not fully qualified vets limits our options in respect of these choices.

There is a distinction in the Bill between farm animals and other animals because, in dealing with compensation cases, farm animals are part of a commercial operation.

I am seeking the flexibility for a Minister to appoint appropriate people as authorised officers. What I said before Deputies had an opportunity to make the case for their individual amendments was that I am open to improving the wording to reassure people that in appointing a person as a veterinary officer we would have to have regard to the level of experience and qualifications. That is not unreasonable.

I want to deal with the issue of cost savings. This legislation has been in preparation for a number of years. To the credit of the previous Government, it happened under its watch initially. We have tried to improve it.

Deputy Ó Cuív asked who decides when an animal should be put down or destroyed. Essentially, there are two issues. We need to ensure that anybody who is putting an animal down because it is in pain as a result of an accident knows what he or she is doing. We do not want an amateur trying to put a large animal down and causing much more distress for the animal and for everybody present. That is totally unacceptable. There may be instances in which an animal is injured - it may have broken a leg in a slatted shed or fallen through a transportation box - and it is difficult to get a vet on site quickly, but there are experienced personnel present, perhaps the farmer or a person from a knackery yard or slaughterhouse. There can be extreme animal welfare cases in which an animal needs to be put down quickly for its own good. We need to ensure that a competent person can do that. Obviously, we would like that person to be a vet, but it is not always possible to get a vet there quickly. It does not have to be a farmer; it could be anybody else. When an animal is in significant pain and distress an authorised officer can make a judgment call as to whether the animal should be put down, and that can be done by a person who is competent to do so.

In the vast majority of circumstances, this will involve input from a veterinary practitioner, either by telephone or on site. I am trying to provide for authorised officers to make decisions in extreme situations, such as road traffic accidents, if it is not possible to get a vet on the other end of the telephone. I am talking about circumstances in which there is a matter of minutes to make a decision, and an authorised officer will have the power to make that decision. If we decide that such a decision can only be made with the input of a vet, there are instances - although they would be rare because, as the Deputy says, one can get a vet on the telephone most of the time - for which we need to ensure flexibility in legislation whereby somebody is not breaking the law if he or she decides that an animal should be put down quickly because of whatever set of circumstances arise, whether animals are being transported, are in the field or anywhere else. If one cannot get a vet on Christmas Day, Easter Sunday or whenever, an authorised officer can make that decision. We had this discussion in the Seanad as well. My view is that an authorised officer should have the power to make that judgment call, although, under the guidelines for authorised officers and in their training, we should make it clear that they should seek the advice of a vet when appropriate.

On the legal point Deputy McNamara raised, we are looking into property rights. If a farmer owns a bull worth a couple of hundred thousand euros and it has suffered a fracture, contracted a disease or whatever, there is a valid question over whether we want somebody to come in and make a decision to put that animal down, which would have significant commercial consequences for the farmer. We must also ensure that animal welfare legislation is consistent. I have agreed with my officials to take legal advice on the appropriate response from a property rights point of view and inform Deputy McNamara.

Ultimately, this brings us back to the amendments on which Deputy Ó Cuív spoke. He spoke about whether there should be a requirement to get a veterinary opinion before that decision is taken. In the vast majority of cases, the answer is yes, but in certain extreme cases I certainly would not like to see an animal suffering unnecessarily. It is a matter of getting that balance right. I will consider the suggestions. On amendments Nos. 40 to 42, inclusive, on which Deputy Ó Cuív spoke, inserting a requirement to obtain veterinary input into that decision introduces a limitation that could result in animals suffering unnecessarily, and that is my concern.

I think I have answered most of the questions on the amendments. If members want to reply on any of them, I will happily try to deal with them.