Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)

The Minister of State is making my argument for me. I accept that the reason for the procedure and the provision is not to broaden but to restrict what were, up to now, common agricultural practices carried out by farmers on their farms. Subsequent to the Minister bringing in the regulation, there will automatically be an additional cost to farmers because what the Minister will do is exclude a particular procedure which, up to that point, was carried out by farmers and rule that it will have to be carried out by a veterinary practitioner. That will mean a fee for the call-out of the vet and the cost of carrying out the procedure, whatever it might be. In those circumstances, the Minister for Agriculture and Food should be prepared and willing to come before this House to explain why he or she believes that such a restriction should go ahead. The standard procedure with the 21 day annulment clause is not appropriate in this case because it does not provide for this issue to be debated.

In 2000, the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government accepted an amendment providing for the bringing of procedures and regulations back before the House for debate. Indeed, that is what we did earlier today regarding that Department and the Planning and Development Bill. I cannot see why such a provision cannot be allowed here, especially as it relates to this particular issue. It is critically important that farmers are protected, that the Minister gives detailed reasons he or she is bringing forward these regulations to restrict procedures that would have been standard up to that point, carried out by farmers on farms across the country.

See this speech in context