James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)

I welcome the Bill, which I see as a pro-farming initiative designed to allow the farming community, many of whom have been carrying out certain procedures over many years, to do so now without fear of prosecution. This is not to say I would in any way seek to interfere with the right to work and the payment of appropriate fees to veterinary surgeons. However, what all of us who work with animals know only too well is that there are times when it is necessary to intercede to save livestock, although this contingency is allowed for under section 55 of the 2005 Act, or to carry out routine procedures which do not need the intervention of a professional vet or veterinary nurse, which is also allowed for under the 2005 Act but only as long as the treatment is not tied to the usual care provided by a vet.

Regulations, bureaucracy and red tape have been the ruination of many farmers. What we are talking about in this sector is regulation gone mad. What I want to see, and the Bill will go some way to ensuring it, is common sense and experience being allowed to direct a farmer's actions without fear of legal action. We have seen regulations introduced by EU directives which should never have made it onto paper, let alone to enforcement. I have milked cows by hand and taken the milk directly without any harm and I am still here today, but dare I engage in such a natural action now, the full force of directives one to 1,000 would descend upon me.

Rules and regulations affect the sale of vegetables and other farm produce, with the end result being an increased cost to the consumer and sometimes a diminished market. Many of these products are washed or treated with products which destroy the taste and quality. I would prefer to buy potatoes with earth on them, rather than the washed varieties, although of course I would wash them before I would eat them. It is time we returned to sanity and common sense.

This common sense dictates it is not necessary to call out a vet for simple procedures which farmers and farm workers, including me, have carried out for decades. While the number of food animals has decreased to a marked degree in recent years, regulations have multiplied, requiring an increased need for veterinary services. One could argue this has increased the quality of the subsequent products, but at what cost? To some extent, I would dispute the notion of increased quality. I know from first-hand experience as a farmer that it has been extremely expensive and frustrating to be compelled to call out a vet when I could easily carry out most day to day procedures myself as I have done previously.

We must also bear in mind that the work specification for many vets has changed dramatically. For example, the demand for services for pets has risen considerably over the years. How much of this is driven by world-wide over-attention to the perceived needs of these pets, as opposed to necessary care, is open to question. With celebrities making pet ownership a fashion statement and the "pampered poodle" image extending far beyond that breed, vets experience such demand in this sector that they work extremely long hours to meet requirements. For many owners, frequent visits to the vet are perceived as essential for their pet's welfare, which is not to say that many of these visits are not urgent and necessary.

We must also be conscious of the very real threat of shortages of Irish-trained vets in the profession. There was a huge influx of foreign-trained vets between 2001 and 2007. During this time, almost 40% of new vets registered in the country came from outside the State. The Competition Authority has recommended that this situation be carefully monitored to ensure there is no shortage in the profession. However, according to the CAO, this year has seen an increase in demand for veterinary qualifications, with points for veterinary medicine rising to 565 from 560 and veterinary nursing increasing from 435 to 450.

I congratulate the Minister on taking the necessary steps to remove the adverse impact the 2005 Act has had on farmers. In recognising that it was never intended that the 2005 Act would unnecessarily restrict the ability of skilled persons to care for their animals, he will remove an unnecessary restriction on farmers. While I am aware that it is intended to adopt detailed regulations after the Bill has been enacted, I implore the Minister, Deputy Coveney, not to remove the benefit of the intended legislation by the imposition of red tape and bureaucracy. There is not much benefit in having the supposed freedom to care for one's own animals if it means consulting a list of rules and regulations at every turn.

I am delighted to welcome any cost-cutting initiative for Irish farmers and in that regard I draw the Minister's attention to the cost of animal medicines in Ireland. While veterinary fees may be near the top of farmers' expenses, medication is also a major expenditure. The situation is extremely inequitable when compared to the cost of animal medicines in the North and in the United Kingdom. Allied with the cost of medication, Caesarean sections are far more expensive in this country than in other European countries, with little competition between veterinary practices.

It is good to see legislation that is intended as a cost-cutting measure, which will work to the advantage of farmers. I hope the results of the legislation will be not only peace of mind but considerable financial benefit for farmers. Measures brought in by the previous Administration have not been in the interests of farmers or vets, or indeed local communities. There was much uproar prior to the enactment of the 2005 Act. We all had visits from the IFA and other farming organisations which were protesting at the proposed legislation.

The closure of Longford's district veterinary office last year, which was undertaken as a saving to the Exchequer, led to a considerable loss of employment in the county. The beneficiary in this move was Drumshanbo, which became home to integrated services. Westmeath was affected also due to the closure of the agricultural office in Mullingar, which was relocated to Tullamore. With farming very much an economic backbone of Longford's economy, the new arrangements were far less efficient for farmers and were very much an erosion of people-centred rural life. Apart from the job losses, herd owners faced considerable inconvenience and time loss due to extra travel involved.

Farmers in the midlands and throughout the country have faced one blow after another in recent years. Whether it was a new directive from the EU involving considerable expense to implement, withheld or delayed grant aid, stealth taxes or planning restrictions, the farming sector has seen it all. However, since the current Minister took office things have begun to improve. The recent efficient 100% payments under the disadvantaged areas scheme give hope of a new era in farming. Following on the previous staggered payments, that was very much welcomed by farmers. I am happy that this Bill is another step in assisting rather than obstructing the farming industry on which so much of our economic recovery depends.

See this speech in context