Mary Henry (Independent)

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 87, line 9, to delete "veterinary".

I explained this issue at great length on Committee Stage. Why is it only a veterinary premises which can be entered if the authorised officer believes something is wrong? It could be as relevant for the authorised officer to be able to enter a premises which is not a veterinary one. I realise this extends the provision. If an authorised officer believes a registered veterinary practitioner is acting in an unprofessional manner, he or she should not have to wait until the veterinary practitioner is found on a veterinary premises. I realise most of these activities will probably take place on a veterinary premises but it would be better if we did not confine it to such premises. It restricts matters to an extent that might make it impossible for the practitioner to be discovered engaging in misdemeanours as he or she could engage in such activities elsewhere.