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

There are a number of amendments. Let us go back over it again.

I believe amendments Nos. 1 and 4 are needed because some of the other amendments that hinge on them are necessary. In other words, we need to differentiate legally between an inspector and an authorised officer. I still believe there are some functions that should only be carried out by persons with the competent veterinary qualification.

I will wait for Report Stage in the case of the amendment on the qualifications of those who become authorised officers. It is important, and I accept the Minister's good faith in this. We will table the amendment again on Report Stage, when we look forward to getting an amendment to deal with the basic issue we have raised regarding the qualifications of authorised officers. I will not press that amendment today and I look forward to the Minister's addressing that valid issue.

I do not accept what the Minister stated about the decision as to whether an animal should be put down. It is amazing, in the situation he cited, that an authorised officer could be found and got on site, yet one could not get a vet even on the telephone. I can assure the Minister that vets are available on Christmas Day. I cannot envisage a situation in which a vet could not be contacted by an authorised officer, who, presumably, would have mobile phone numbers for many veterinary surgeons. I accept, for the purpose of clarity, that it should be made explicit that such consultation or advice could be given by electronic means without the veterinary surgeon being on site. If the Minister undertakes to consider that issue - I will submit a slightly different amendment on Report Stage - and agrees to provide that there be consultation with a veterinary surgeon but that it may be done by electronic means, by the use of mobile telephones, by e-mail or whatever, and that there need not necessarily be an on-site inspection, I will accept that.

Where the Bill, in section 38, refers to determining whether there is a disease, it states:

(4) 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 is a reasonable position, allowing that there are no specific qualifications laid down for authorised officers and that this is a rather specialised job.

On the amendments that I have proposed to section 42, the Minister has a point. I will not press those amendments.