Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)

I thank the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Browne, for his presentation. I acknowledge the important role played by veterinary surgeons in animal welfare and food safety. Their contribution over the years has been critically important to the development of the food industry and its export trade. Everyone accepts the current legislation is outdated and needs reform. It is 74 years since the initial legislation was introduced in this House. It was introduced in 1931 and revised in 1952 and 1960. It is critically important that we provide up-to-date legislation which modernises the existing legislation and that we have effective regulation. The Minister spoke to the House on that issue.

Up to now, the veterinary profession has been self-governing, and with the introduction of additional members to the veterinary council, will continue to be so. Significant shortcomings existed regarding disciplinary aspects and the measures which could be taken under the code of practice. Putting the suggested procedures in place is a positive move so that issues need not go before the courts but can be thoroughly investigated and addressed by the veterinary council.

For the first time, the legislation will define the profession and will regulate for the veterinary nursing profession. That has hitherto been left out in the cold with no formal structure. Veterinary medicine is changing rapidly because of EU regulations and directives on animal health and welfare, advances in science and technology and other medical advances, with education and training. The legislation also makes provision for continual education and training by those already qualified and trained. Such retraining and upskilling, which did not take place to the extent it should have done, is critically important. There is also the context of the broader social and regulatory changes taking place.

The Fine Gael Party is committed to promoting the rights of the consumer, acknowledged in the legislation. In principle, the Bill provides for the type of regulation required for those who consume food and for the farmer who avails of veterinary services, as well as those who avail of the small animal services. As we go through the various sections of the Bill, I will go into more detail on these matters.

The veterinary profession is changing dramatically. Over the past few years, substantially more women have been entering the profession. Most of those women, who enter the profession from the leaving certificate stage, want to focus on small animal veterinary medicine. That will create challenges in terms of a potential shortage of vets in some parts of the country. Deputy McGinley and Senator McHugh have told me that in some parts of Donegal it is almost impossible to secure the services of a vet. The same thing is happening in parts of Connemara and is likely to happen elsewhere in the country as many new vets, on emerging from college, enter the more lucrative area of small animal practice, where one does not suffer the drudgery involved in the long hours associated with large animal practices, especially during lambing and calving season.

I recently raised this issue with the Minister for Agriculture and Food. She said she had no plans to fund the establishment or maintenance of veterinary practices in parts of the country. There is an onus on the Department to ensure accessibility to veterinary surgeons and practices. That issue will become more critical in the context of prescription-only medicines. If there is no accessibility to vets, there will be many more animal welfare problems. The Department must acknowledge that there will be challenges in this area.

The Department of Health and Children has acknowledged a similar problem in recent years and still has difficulties in getting GPs to some parts of the country. The Department has at least acknowledged that this is an issue and has taken certain steps, including the development of health centres in various parts of the country, with assistance and support for GPs who go into certain communities. The Department of Agriculture and Food must take similar steps regarding vets.

I am concerned that the Bill grants to the Minister extensive powers by regulation. Under section 59, the Minister will be able to regulate anyone to practise as a vet, or in any area of veterinary medicine. Under section 55, the Minister can regulate any type of veterinary medicines and define what they are. Under section 53, the Minister can introduce obligatory veterinary certificates for animals or animal products. Accordingly, there is maximum flexibility for the Minister to introduce anything he or she so wishes by regulation. We can debate this on Committee Stage but basically, under the provisions of the legislation as it currently stands, the Minister has the powers to rewrite virtually the entire Bill.

Part 9 of the Bill will impact directly on consumers. It paves the way for the inspection of veterinary premises and the establishment of standards thereon. That will be the front line, particularly for small animals practice but also to some extent for large animal practice. It is on the premises that people have their first contact with the vet or the vet's staff and it will therefore impact on them. I would like to know by whom these inspections will be carried out and by whom the cost of regulation will be carried. This is ambiguous in the legislation. My understanding is that at the end of the day, the consumer will have to foot the bill involved. In theory the veterinary surgeon will pay, but in reality the consumer, the person availing of the services, will foot the bill. Most particularly, farmers will have to foot the bill.

Considering the current agriculture environment, costs will have to be reduced if agriculture is to be financially viable under the new decoupled era. Farmers will not put in the resources to fund veterinary premises in the coming years. We must consider this. I do not want the situation to end up in the same way as child care or food regulations. In principle, it was accepted by all at the time that we needed to regulate child care and to bring in sensible regulations regarding the preparation and sale of food. However, we have gone from one extreme to the other. This is a case of bureaucracy and red tape gone mad. Currently, the best example is the suggestion at EU level that butchers should not be allowed to sell into the catering trade, into restaurants and hotels. This shows how something which started out as a sensible regulation, an effort to put basic standards in place, has gone from one extreme to the other. There are also huge cost implications involved.

We need to ensure a sensible approach is taken to the issue of upgrading premises. Everyone accepts they must be brought up to a certain standard, but it must be kept in mind that the consumer will have to foot the bill. Once the standards are established they should be set in stone and not continually changed every 12 or 18 months, as is the case with child care standards. These change nearly every year and, of course, costs increase dramatically with every change. That forces people out of business. The last thing we want, especially in the case of large animal practices, is veterinarians being forced out of business. There must be some element of competition so costs can be kept at a reasonable level. We must not force operators out of the business, which could happen if we are extremely prescriptive in setting the standards.

State premises are exempt under Part 9 of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on the definition of State premises. My understanding of the definition in the legislation is that it means anything that is under the control of any Minister. That would include Teagasc, for example. Many people in County Leitrim have serious questions about the procedures Teagasc employed last Monday week in the movement of cattle from the farm in Ballinamore. Those questions remain unanswered. Nobody was prepared to give answers as to whether there was compliance with the animal movement rules. It is important that Teagasc and every other State agency and premises are above reproach in these matters. They should be seen not only to meet the standards but to transcend them. That is critical. It is disappointing this issue was ignored by Teagasc in the movement of stock from the Ballinamore farm.

On the subject of competition, an important survey was published in the Irish Farmers Journal in January this year. It surveyed the charges for call-out services among veterinary surgeons. They ranged from €28 to €45 for a call-out. That is a 50% difference between the least and most expensive. The most striking finding of the survey is the variation in charges for TB and brucellosis testing. These are standard tests with standard procedures regardless of whether they are conducted in Donegal or Cork. There should not be a major variation in charges.

The call-out charge ranged from €32 to €57. In addition, there is the charge per head which ranged from €3 to €4 for TB testing, a 33% variation, and from €1.90 to €3.40 for brucellosis testing, an 80% variation in the cost of the test. This must be examined, perhaps by the Veterinary Council. How can there be such a major variation in the charges for TB and brucellosis testing? It is understandable that there can be significant variations in call-out charges according to the difficulty of the procedures conducted but there should not be a significant variation in the cost of TB and brucellosis testing. The Veterinary Council and the Minister should ensure this matter is examined.

Another matter, also relating to costs, which gives rise to concern is the definition of veterinary medicine. Section 53 provides for the exclusion of common practices for the care and husbandry of animal livestock by the farmer or his employee from the definition of a veterinary procedure. However, I am concerned that there could be different interpretations of the definitions at a future date. There was ambiguity, for example, about the scanning of sheep and cattle when this legislation was introduced. What is the situation with regard to dehorning and castrating young cattle?

I agree with the Minister there should be flexibility in regulating this area. If more strict interpretations than we wish are taken of the principles in the legislation, the Minister should be able to bring forward a regulation, with the approval of both Houses, which will ensure the issue is clarified. We will not know the impact of this definition until it is utilised in practice. At that stage we could discover that some practices which were traditionally carried out on farms could be illegal under these provisions. There have been indications that traditional dehorning and castration procedures will be outlawed under animal welfare regulations. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on that. It is important to have clarity on this issue.

The final point I wish to raise about costs relates to section 55 and prescription only medicines. Under section 55 the Minister will have the power to make regulations and lay them before the Dáil. It is imperative that the powers under section 55 be thoroughly debated by the House and a positive approval of the House must be required for regulations on medicines. Prescription only medicines could have huge implications in terms of the re-emergence of a black market in the sale of drugs and the increased use of antibiotics. If farmers must go to a veterinarian every time they require a medicine, they will take the belt and braces approach on the first occasion. They will seek an antibiotic to treat the animal from the start rather than trying something less severe first. Unless we are extremely careful on this issue, it will lead to an increase in the use of antibiotics and increased incidence of antimicrobial resistance.

There could also be implications for animal welfare. If the cost of medicines increases dramatically, farmers will not use them. That is the reality. We have seen the result of a restriction on the sale of antibiotics to veterinarians and pharmacies. Take the example of one medicine, penstrep. It could be purchased for between €3 and €4 per 100 ml. It now costs between €12 and €14 through the veterinarian or between €6 and €8 through the pharmacy. It is clear that imposing a restriction on antibiotics has dramatically increased their cost. Another example is the vaccine PI3 IBR. It is on sale in the US for 91 cents but costs €8.50 per head in this country. This is due to the type of restrictions on the distribution of those medicines to farmers.

We must take a sensible and straightforward approach to this issue. Anything that does not have a withdrawal period should not be prescription only. It is also important that we do not create a structure that results in a monopoly for veterinarians in this area. The EU directive makes clear that qualified persons, not only veterinarians, are entitled to write prescriptions. I accept that with some medicines veterinarians are the most appropriate people to write a prescription. However, this should be limited to a restricted number of medicines and should not apply across the board. There must be a sensible approach to ensure that supply routes and competition in the marketplace are maintained while also ensuring food safety through the controlled use of medicines.

Section 57 deals with non-registered persons. Will they be able to write prescriptions or issue prescription-only medicines? That will happen in practice. The veterinarian will not issue them. When writing prescriptions veterinarians do not necessarily examine the animals. If they did so the costs would go through the roof. We must consider the practicality of implementing these regulations. Take the example of red water treatments. It is critical that those treatments are given to an animal as soon as the animal is diagnosed with a problem. If one cannot contact a veterinarian, how will one access such treatments, for example, on a Saturday evening? It could be supplied through pharmacies because they must have cover on a 24-hour basis. Many vaccines and emergency treatments could be stored and made available through chemists and other merchants. A sensible approach needs to be adopted in this regard so that it is not left to veterinarians.

I refer to the tuberculosis testing programme, which is a source of significant frustration for many farmers. The issue of the lack of lesions on a carcase following a post mortem where an animal is supposed to have gone down with TB causes frustration for farmers. It is illegal to perform a second confirmatory test on an animal but that brings the integrity of the system into question. Veterinarians will argue only a certain percentage of animals will have lesions and, while that may be the case, the integrity of the system must be ensured. A proper reporting mechanism should be put in place for animals that do not have lesions but which have tested positive for TB. Farmers should have the option of the test, even if they have to pay for it, to confirm whether the animal has TB. If a farmer is adamant an animal has not contracted TB and his stock has not mixed with other stock, the legislation should provide for a second test.

Will the Minister examine the use of the gamma interferon confirmatory test? The UK independent scientific group on cattle tuberculosis has examined the test. The group is critical of the tuberculin skin test, which is used in Ireland, saying it is too unreliable to be used as a confirmatory test and that, while it is effective as a surveillance test, it should not be used as an individual test. The group states the gamma interferon test is a good complementary test to ensure all the animals that have contracted TB are detected so that the disease does not recirculate and to ensure only these animals, which are reactors, are taken out of the herd.

TB has been an issue for long enough in Ireland and it has caused significant problems for many farmers. The Government should consider other measures to improve the standard of TB testing to eradicate the disease. The Minister should devise a field trial to compare the gamma interferon and the tuberculin skin tests. The UK is doing this and we should conduct research in this area because it would improve the integrity of TB testing.

I refer to the issue of qualified persons and the ambiguity in the regulations, which the Minster can introduce under the legislation. Section 45, for example, sets off a number of alarm bells regarding the powers to appoint staff to deal with disease eradication and education programmes. While the implementation of education programmes is understandable, veterinary practice must not be undermined. Everyone accepts that if a class A disease is discovered, professionals need to be brought in quickly. However, what is the Department's definition of "disease eradication", as it could be extended to include everything and anything bar the kitchen sink.

Section 57 provides for the Minister to make regulations to permit non-veterinarians to carry out elements of veterinary medicine. This provides a blank canvas to the Minister to rewrite the legislation. Safeguards must be included to ensure appropriate and adequate standards are in place so that the veterinary profession is not undermined.

Veterinary nursing is also an issue. Every submission made to the joint committee and the Minister of State's contribution referred to UCD and, while I have no difficultly with that, no one has mentioned Athlone Institute of Technology. Why is it being ignored? No one at the institute has been consulted about the legislation, even through veterinary nurses are being trained to at least as high a standard as in UCD. The Bill recognises veterinary nursing as a profession for the first time. I hope the profession will develop and diversify over the coming years.

However, I have a number of concerns about the legislation in this area. Only one veterinary nurse will become a member of the Veterinary Council, which will set rules and standards, but they will be put in place before he or she is appointed to the council. Under section 93, it could take two years for the provision to be enacted. While the Minister is providing for a five-year window for veterinary nurses, it will be two years before they have a formal input. They are being given three years, therefore, to ensure their certification meets the required standard. The timescales should be examined.

The issue of lambing, which is close to my heart, is ambiguous under the legislation. Under section 91(3), a veterinary nurse cannot pull a lamb on a neighbour's farm if a ewe is in difficulty. He or she can do so on his or her farm but he or she cannot cross the road and do it for an elderly neighbour. If a veterinary nurse does so, he or she could be struck off the register. If fewer people are entering the veterinary profession, it must be ensured veterinary nurses are protected. Such nurses should not take over the role of veterinarians but if they assist an elderly neighbour, proper standards must be put in place and flexibility provided so that a nurse acting as a good samaritan is not prosecuted or struck off the register.

HETAC is not mentioned in the legislation. UCD and the Veterinary Council have been consulted. Veterinary nurses did not make a presentation to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food, which was disappointing. Will the Minister of State, in his reply, elaborate on his consultations with veterinary nurses? A number of organisations that made presentations to the joint committee stated they were speaking on behalf of veterinary nurses. However, the legislation is focused on UCD to the detriment of the other institutions training people covered by it. I hope a balance is struck on Committee Stage so that due recognition is given to Athlone Institute of Technology. I will debate the issues I have raised in further detail on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context