Tom Fleming (Kerry South, Independent)

The Bill arises from concerns expressed regarding the definition of veterinary practice contained in the Veterinary Practice Act 2005. That Act provides a broad and general definition of the term "practice of veterinary medicine" under section 53. However, this definition has proved to be lacking in certainty and overly ambiguous. It potentially includes certain procedures that traditionally have been carried out by non-vets and thus leaves those practising them open to criminal sanction. The Act sets out penalties of up to €320,000 and prison sentences for repeat offenders.

The amendment legislation allows the Minister to define by regulation the term "practice of veterinary medicine". Procedures that could be interpreted as being confined to vets or veterinary nurses under the existing legislation can now be carried out by non-vets. The attempt is to provide legal certainty in this case.

It seems that concerns are also being expressed by the Competition Authority regarding the definition of veterinary medicine. There is a risk that where a greater number of activities are reserved for the veterinary profession, vets would, in the absence of competition, provide a more costly service than other less qualified service providers. This would be particularly acute for members of the farming community who should have the option of paying people with a lower level of qualification to carry out simple procedures at a lower price.

I must wonder why an Act that is only six years old should need to be amended now. Why could this certainty not have been provided for in the original Act? Could it be that interests wishing to preserve their privileged position had a greater influence on the passage of the legislation? At least two Members of these Houses flagged the possible difficulty around the definition as a risk during the debates on the original legislation, but it seems that their concerns fell on deaf ears. Time must now be taken up in the Houses to correct a previously identified problem.

In preparing the Bill the Minister considered a number of possible resolutions to the problem, including voluntary agreement on codes of practice; the amendment of the 2005 Act to remove the activities concerned, although this could quickly become outdated; and allowing the Minister to make regulations to describe the procedures and define the required qualifications of the people involved in those procedures. The Minister has opted for the third proposal. Regulations will be adopted to define the procedures to be allowed and the qualifications and insurance the practitioner will need. It is important that the statutory instrument used be scrutinised and brought before the committee to ensure as full a discussion as possible and that there will be no need to revisit it time and again.

The regulatory impact assessment has identified the types of procedures that may be excluded from the definition of "practice of veterinary medicine". I ask the Minister, in drafting the statutory instrument, to include emergency treatments that may be required where a veterinarian is not available. It should also include the taking of tuberculosis tests.

It is imperative that regulatory procedures be stringent and robust. We must, however, be careful to ensure they are not over-restrictive and cumbersome for the agriculture industry and impact negatively on the competitive aspect.

The veterinary nursing profession plays a very important role. The 2005 Act recognised this officially. Subsequent to that Act, over 500 nurses have been registered to practice. That five colleges offer approved and accredited courses is most positive.

I welcome the legislative measure that ensures activities and services concerning animals that have traditionally been carried out safely by non-veterinarians or nurses will not be reserved solely for the veterinary profession. The procedures in question include farriery, equine dentistry, microchipping, physiotherapy, bovine hoof trimming and the scanning of cattle and sheep. It is most important that the scanning of cows before calving be in the category of ordinary scanning and not extended to hormone treatment or other practices, which are happening to a minor extent. There is malpractice in isolated cases and we need to ensure it is prohibited completely. Quality assurance to the customer is paramount. Any professional misconduct that would bring the profession into disrepute will have to be addressed in the Bill.

Due to the ever-growing importance of agriculture and the emphasis on the quality of food, animal health care is essential. The veterinarians perform a vital function in assisting their farmer clients in maintaining the health and well-being of their animals and minimising disease risk, which can have a significant impact on farm income. Veterinarians play a vital role in official inspection services on the farm, and in factories at processing level where they verify the health and safety aspects of food in the interest of consumers. It is vital that our international reputation as a provider of excellent food products be maintained to ensure economic prosperity.

I welcome the Bill in general. It is needed to clarify many issues and I hope it will be teased out further on Committee and Remaining Stages.

See this speech in context