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

Which they can do. They do not have to be an authorised officer. There is a clear distinction between an authorised officer and a vet, not necessarily in this legislation but in the Veterinary Practice (Amendment) Act, which upgraded the legislation in this area in recent months. There is a clear distinction between what vets and veterinary nurses can and cannot do in terms of treatments, operations and putting animals down. The legislation is very clear. The role of vets is and can be distinguished from that of authorised officers. The only matter that is being dealt with in this legislation is the role of authorised officers and what they can and cannot do. Many authorised officers are also vets and they will have extra legal power to do all manner of other things. That is why I do not believe there is a need to make a distinction in this legislation between the roles of an authorised officer who happens to be a vet and one who is not. The legal determination of the decisions and operations that can be undertaken by a vet, a veterinary nurse or someone in a knackery yard is distinguished in legislation already. The issue we are discussing is whether we should make a distinction in this legislation between authorised officers who are vets and those who are not and give different powers to them. I think that would complicate the matter unnecessarily.

In practically all the cases that I can envisage where an animal needs to be put down, the Deputies are right that a vet will reach the scene as quickly as someone from a knackery yard. We must take into account an extreme situation where, for whatever reason, a vet may not be on site. The compromise, which seems sensible, is that before an animal is put down, one would at least seek the advice of a vet. If one cannot get it, one must go ahead and make a decision. That is something to which I would be open.