Joe O'Toole (Independent)

The subsection refers to "the nature of the evidence", rather than the evidence. The person should be given the absolute evidence against him or her. The practitioner should not just be entitled to have somebody there representing him or her or be present at the inquiry, but should also be entitled to question the people giving evidence against him or her and to test the evidence. If not, the practitioner will go to the High Court afterwards and the case will be lost. The Attorney General should examine that point. I am talking about the tenets of natural justice with which I am familiar. In all such situations a High Court judge will ask what is the nature of the domestic hearing or system that was used. Was it fair, judicially sound and did it recognise and respond to the tenets of natural justice? If so, a judge would tend not to go against it. If not, however, the lawyers will say that this evidence was never tested. The Minister should consider that carefully.

I will go through the Bill in more detail on Committee Stage. It is crucially important that the legislation works. I support its objectives, which are first class and nobody should dare to object to them. We have a responsibility to ensure that we win the trust and confidence of the members of the veterinary profession. We must also ensure that whatever legislation we enact will stand up to any test. On five occasions this year we have had to amend legislation that was passed only in the past two years, although not from the Minister's Department. That is because the Bills were not tested at this point. The necessity for amendments arose because lawyers tested the legislation once enacted. The Minister knows what will happen. If I were a vet under investigation who stood to lose everything because I could no longer practise if the decision went against me, I would fight, scramble and use every possible way to defend myself. I would go to a lawyer in the first place. The first thing a lawyer will do is ask whether it complies with the tenets of natural justice, whether it is a safe procedure, whether the person's reputation is being properly defended and represented, and whether the person under investigation is being given due process. The Bill as drafted does not expand on due process. This may be implied and perhaps it would be given. As a basic right they need access to all the evidence and should have an entitlement to question. While I accept this would make it like a court hearing, this is the way the world is and it is no fault of the Minister's.

The Bill is important. I appeal to the Minister to meet representatives of the veterinary profession to get their views on it. The offensive reference to Members of the Oireachtas needs to be removed. The Bill needs to be made safe from testing in the courts by lawyers to ensure it will work.

As I said at the beginning, the work of the veterinary profession is crucial to the health of future generations. The work of veterinary practitioners in fields, farmyards and surgeries is crucially important. They need every possible opportunity. The proposal to expand their educational opportunities is crucial. I notice the throwaway phrase about the mutual recognition of qualifications and I wish the Minister well in this regard. Her predecessors have failed to do this for 25 years. It would be great if it could happen. We often see newspaper reports of a vet in north County Dublin looking after seals or a vet in County Kildare treating a snake. They are involved in many ways and veterinary practice is a broad area, perhaps more extensive than human medicine.

Vets deserve our full support and the greatest recognition for the work they do. I ask the Minister to reach out to them and get their views to ensure that if they make reasonable suggestions we incorporate them as best we can. I wish the Minister well and I will be supporting the Bill.