Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)

I was supposed to be attending the meeting of the Joint Committee on Health and Children at 11.30 a.m. With no disrespect to the Minister, Acting Chairman or the Dáil, I will have to leave immediately after I have made several points on this legislation. Will the Minister communicate a response to these points in writing afterwards?

I will keep my contribution brief and to the point. Sinn Féin agrees with the broad thrust of the Bill and will support its passage to the next Stage. The Bill represents a sensible way forward for agriculture. Having just come from a meeting with the national leadership of the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, I can confirm that it is content with the Bill's introduction. As such, many of the Bill's measures must be good and I compliment the Minister of State on its introduction. Unusually, only one and a half pages of this 28-page document addresses the Bill's main objective. The remaining pages went through each of the sections.

Is there an opportunity to review the curriculum for the agricultural and animal training programmes so that we might explore more fully what can be done by unregistered practitioners? We should not assume that the current curriculum is in a position to exploit the new opportunities that will open once the Bill is enacted. Does the Minister of State propose some form of licensing rather than registration of unregistered practitioners working continually in the field and using non-prescribed procedures? Will unregistered practitioners need to be covered by indemnity insurance? It is proposed that registered practitioners be covered.

Will the House be supplied with the list of procedures that can be carried out by unregistered practitioners? I have bovine bone setters and the like in mind. Someone from the Department will examine practices elsewhere, including procedures carried out by unregistered practitioners. Could we have access to the list of procedures that the Minister of State intends to designate as non-prescribed procedures?

While it may not be a function of the Bill, the Department may take this opportunity to consider the monetary value associated with procedures carried out in other jurisdictions. If we are gathering data on how procedures are designated between registered and unregistered practitioners elsewhere, we could also collect valuable data, if it is available, to set a standard fee for a veterinary procedure, if that is our intention.

Entering a premises without notice or warrant is a significant new power. Some form of adjudication or redress should be available to farmers or producers who believe a registered practitioner has abused his or her powers. Redress should not be to the High Court, as people could not afford it. A panel or ombudsman should adjudicate on issues.

It is strange that there is no requirement for practitioners working on behalf of the Government or a State agency to have indemnity insurance in respect of their official duties. Some people will read this as meaning it is okay for Government practitioners to tell people what to do, but that the former do not need to do the same. What is the rationale for not requiring registered practitioners on official duties to possess indemnity insurance?

I suggested an ombudsman for people who are aggrieved by certain parts of the inspection process. On a related note, people who apply for registration and believe they have been unjustly treated by the registration authority only have recourse to the High Court. That court is an expensive place to attend and has a long waiting list. If people are aggrieved by a decision of the registration body, perhaps we should consider a different form of redress, be it mediation or adjudication.

Undischarged bankrupts will still be forbidden from registering. There has been a great deal of discussion regarding people who have been bankrupted, many through no fault of their own. Their bankruptcies seem to hang over them like life sentences. Perhaps we should re-examine the proposal in the Bill.

The Bill and the ensuing examination of procedures should be used as an opportunity to gather data that would help the Department to set standards for the fees associated with different veterinary procedures.

Sinn Féin believes this is a good Bill and we will support its passage to the next Stage. I apologise for needing to leave to attend a committee meeting.

See this speech in context