Noel Coonan (Fine Gael)

She has introduced two Bills in less than two months and she is correct that this Bill is long and detailed. I welcome the use of the phrase "Veterinary Practice" in the title of the Bill, instead of "Veterinary Surgeons", as used in the titles of previous Bills. This recognises the expanding nature of the profession and those who are employed in this area. I acknowledge the role played by veterinary surgeons in animal welfare and food safety. They have made a magnificent contribution over the years.

The Minister expressed concern about the welfare of animals. Animals are better cared for in this State than humans, as is evidenced from the fact that there is no waiting list for animals that require treatment. It must also be recognised that veterinary surgeons provide a 24-hour service every day of the year, including Christmas Day.

The Bill is intended to update the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1931 and it is long overdue, given that we have had no reforming legislation in this area since 1960. It is also welcome that the Bill is striving to better regulate veterinary practice. There are many reasons we need modernising legislation, including the following: the fact that veterinary medicine is impacted upon increasingly by EU directives on animal health and welfare; modern advances, be they in science or technology; medical advances; education and training; and broader social and regulatory changes. It is vital that the Bill recognises that the veterinary profession has diversified in its structure, particularly because of the significant expansion in veterinary nursing. I welcome the Minister's initiative in this area, to which I will return.

Regulation is also a key element of this legislation, particularly in terms of the changes the Minister has announced in the make-up of the Veterinary Council and its related role in setting standards and imposing sanctions on its members, a reformed structure for dealing with complaints, investigative powers and regulations on the conditions of veterinary practices and premises.

Will the Minister outline the consultation that was undertaken in the drafting of this legislation and its extent in the run-up to its publication? I am informed that veterinary practitioners were not even consulted on it and that they were led to believe the details contained therein would be largely inconsequential. The opposite is the case. There is no doubt this is major legislation and it is very hard to believe that the representative body was not even consulted. By way of comparison, it would be very hard to imagine a scenario in which the unions would not have been be consulted during the break-up of Aer Rianta. Were the direct users, that is, the farming and equine sectors, consulted? Was the Animal and Plant Health Association, the representative body for researchers and developers and manufacturers of veterinary products, consulted? Its help would have been invaluable.

The Bill will allow for the establishment of a new self-regulating council for veterinary practice, the key function of which will be the regulation of the practice of both veterinary medicine and veterinary nursing. The Minister may believe I am rushing but the Bill covers many issues and I want to address as many as possible in the limited time available to me.

The council will also create and, if necessary, update regularly all codes of practice and conduct of the profession. Obviously, this is necessary but I urge the council to ensure it continues to move with the times and reflect the changes occurring in the profession. The council will also be tasked with allowing for information to flow fully and freely between those in the veterinary practice and those who avail of their services. This is a crucial function of the new council as the industry has a duty to interact with its clients and the wider public.

Under section 16 of the Bill, which provides for membership of the Veterinary Council of Ireland, it is proposed that the veterinary presence on the council be reduced to seven from 12, despite the fact that council membership will increase by three members to 17. I fully accept that there is a need for greater representation by outside interests, such as those involved in consumer affairs, and food and health safety. This Bill suggests that the Minister for Education and Science could nominate a representative. So too could the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and the Director of Consumer Affairs. I have no problem with such appointments, by and large. However, I am concerned about the reduction in the number of members who are veterinarians. The reduction may not be in the interest of the public or veterinary practice. The presence of veterinarians on the council is vital given that they are at the coalface of the practice. They have much worthwhile technical knowledge and experience to contribute to the work of the council. The Minister should reconsider this aspect of the legislation and perhaps reach a compromise by increasing their representation on the board.

While the Bill does not exclude the presence of a member or representative of the farming community on the board, neither does it declare that such a person would be present on the board. Will the Minister consider this aspect given that the vast majority of users of veterinary medicine and veterinary services, and the largest financial contributors to the sector, are members of the farming and equine community.

The Bill is a comprehensive document, most of which is broadly welcome. However, section 46 appears to set off alarm bells. This section provides for the limited registration of persons whose services would be required for disease eradication or for education programmes. The Minister stated in a press release that maintenance of the highest standards within the veterinary profession is a matter of great social and economic importance. Obviously everyone would support these sentiments. However, such sentiments are not reflected in the current wording of section 46. This section, in effect, goes some way to undermine veterinary practice. The opt out clause of limited registration appears to permit a less qualified veterinary practitioner to practise. I am not arguing that in certain circumstances there will be a need for personnel who are not necessarily fully qualified veterinary practitioners. However, in terms of disease control and eradication, the involvement of such personnel should only be in emergencies such as the foot and mouth disease outbreak, swine fever or Newcastle disease and various poultry diseases, to name but a few. Matters can be resolved by altering the legislation to allow for participation of those who have limited registration status in cases involving only class A diseases such as those I mentioned.

Section 60 raises similar concerns to those I mentioned. It is ironic that as we try to better regulate veterinary practice, we are almost deregulating it under section 60. It is odd that we try to ensure more strict regulation and performance of duties from veterinary practitioners while under this section we appear to be allowing for back door practitioners. Veterinary practitioners in Ireland must undergo a comprehensive training and education programme, not least in veterinary medicine and pharmacology. There is a real danger that this section could undermine the profession.

The administration of certain pharmaceuticals and anaesthetics in particular is an area particularly open to abuse. As things stand, the administration of anaesthetics are classified as veterinary surgeons only, VSO, animal remedies. This means that, according to the decree of the Irish Medicines Board, veterinary practitioners only can legally give anaesthetics. This legislation would open the way for non-veterinary practitioners to perform this duty, which would run totally contrary to the rules of the Irish Medicines Board. The Minister must address urgently this considerable difficulty. It is difficult to see if this section can remain. I am not convinced either that the provisions in section 60 will protect farmers.

While section 54 sets out for the first time the definition of veterinary medicine, the legal definition used is comprehensive so that it would render illegal common practices currently carried out by farmers and other animal keepers and owners. Section 54 specifically provides that all existing common practices for the care and husbandry of farm livestock by a farmer or his or her employee be excluded from the definition of veterinary procedure. I am concerned that the total prohibition of persons other than veterinary practitioners performing a surgical procedure would criminalise current normal procedures such as dehorning and castration of young cattle. Equally, there is no reason services such as hoof paring and pregnancy scanning should be made unlawful. They should be exempt under section 60 by order of the Minister.

I welcome the statutory recognition given to veterinary nurses in the Bill. It is clear that the contribution of veterinary practice has grown significantly in recent years and it is fitting that it is finally getting its full recognition. There has been significant progress in recent years to formalise this recognition and improve the training and developmental education for veterinary nurses. I encourage their progression in line with development in the wider veterinary profession. However, the formal advancement of veterinary nurses in this legislation comes with a warning to the Minister about one aspect of the new functions assigned to veterinary nurses.

While section 92 sets out two groupings of procedures which can be undertaken by veterinary nurses, paragraph (a) lists the procedures which veterinary nurses can assist or carry out in the presence of a veterinary practitioner, and there does not appear to be a problem with this. Paragraph (b) is more problematic. This lists the procedures a veterinary nurse can carry out independent of any input by a veterinary practitioner, which is not acceptable. The measure goes too far, given that it allows for significant surgical procedures, which should only be carried out following direction by a fully qualified veterinary practitioner. We cannot give free rein to individuals who lack adequate training and qualification to carry out such treatments. An extension of this provides a scenario whereby a veterinary nurse could possibly set up an independent veterinary practice offering numerous surgical and animal health procedures. I hope this is an oversight on the part of the Minister and her departmental colleagues. I do not intend a slight on the important contribution and work done by the veterinary nursing profession, but they are two differently qualified and trained professions and it is vital this distinction is maintained. I am sure the Minister would agree with this, if one were to apply the contrast to human health and the distinction between nurses and doctors.

The Bill appears to be a replica of the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act 1999. As a consequence of the Act, a debate is currently raging in New Zealand as to whether veterinary nurses should be allowed to castrate cats, which they currently do.

The legislation appears to pave the way for a process of inspection of veterinary premises. How does the Minister envisage this will happen? Who will carry out inspections and what will be the likely cost of such regulation? This is very unclear from the wording of the legislation. It appears that consumers, particularly farmers, will have to bear the cost of all these regulations.

By and large, I welcome the Bill. I have serious reservations about a number of the sections and I have had serious discussions on the matter with the Irish Veterinary Council. It expressed concern about a number of the sections to which I referred. I am indicating to the Minister that Fine Gael will table amendments on Committee Stage when we will probably have an opportunity to deal in a broader way with the issues concerned.