Sean Barrett (Independent)

I welcome the Minister to the House. He said this Bill was uncontentious in the other House and I am sure, as the Minister will have gathered, it has already reached that status here, which is good to see.

I note the explanatory memorandum refers to some items of conduct, which had been inadvertently reserved for veterinary practitioners or veterinary nurses. That is an important factor because, as the Minister said, professions have tended to be regulated in their own interests rather than those of society at large. As the introduction to the explanatory memorandum states, that was sometimes done inadvertently.

Farmers regard veterinary costs as an extremely expensive part of farming and Senator Mooney also mentioned the high cost of veterinary medicines. We had to import a substantial number of veterinary surgeons from outside the State, which leads one to conclude that the veterinary school itself was an obstacle to the development of Irish agriculture due to limiting the number of people who could study there, although that is a goal we all share.

I recall the judgment of Mr. Justice Roderick Murphy in the taxi deregulation case - that people do have a right to enter a profession or trade for which they have the skills and training, and the public has a right to the services of such persons. As the Minister said, it is important for us to look at all of these sheltered section professions, which is part of the IMF agreement. In this regard, the Minister is looking at vets today.

The House recently agreed to deregulate the general medical service lists, while I gather the Minister for Justice and Equality will introduce legislation dealing with lawyers. The ratio of shop price to turnover for pharmacists in the Republic of Ireland far exceeded what it was in Northern Ireland. We still have to get to grips with the professional standards in accountancy, which is a major background to the financial collapse of Irish banks in 2008. No legislation on accountancy, similar to the Bill before us, has come before the House. We must ask whether the accounts of Irish banks were a true and accurate account of their finances. Might there in fact be a right of action by the taxpayer against those accountancy firms? To take an agricultural metaphor, did we buy a pig in a poke when we took over some of those banks on the basis of accounts which may not stand up to much scrutiny? This is the background. A former Member of this House, Dr. T.K. Whitaker, referred to the disease eradication programmes as the greatest financial scandal in the history of the State. Granted, that was in an earlier time. However, we must watch what happens. In the standard economic literature of Milton Friedman and Simon Kuznets on the American medical profession, they said back in the mid-1940s that if one allows the American medical association to determine who can become a doctor or what foreign doctors could be licensed to practise in the United States, one would end up with an extremely expensive health service. The only question among economists is whether they were right or wehther they were right. We need to represent the public interest, as the Minister is doing, and the consumer interest, when we regulate the professions. Of course, we want the highest standards but there is a tradition of restrictive practices in professions, especially limiting the number of entrants. I was glad the Minister for Health, when he was in this Chamber last week, cast doubts on the HPAT test which seemed to be designed to stop women from studying medicine. I gather their share of places has been reduced since that test was introduced and the Minister regards that as a restrictive practice and entirely unnecessary. I note that the veterinary profession has had an increase, as Senator Mooney told us, of up to 74%.

I will now deal with the section 2(3) which states "Before making regulations under this section the Minister shall consult with the Council." Would it be a good idea if the Minister took representations from the customers and the farming organisations? If they have views on that section, should they be formally consulted so that one gets both points of view? I know there are user representatives on the Veterinary Council, but they are usually from producer bodies. The farm bodies are not very reticent about coming forward and expressing views and the Minister might invite them to participate under section 2.

The issue of indemnity insurance struck me as strange. The veterinary surgeon in private practice must have this insurance but the requirement does not apply to practitioners in respect of official duties. Again, to the outsider, why not? Does it not matter to us if somebody makes a mistake in a disease eradication programme or in treating a Garda horse, or a horse from the Army equitation school, that this is not covered by insurance? Should this not also be covered?

We have a National Treasury Management Agency report which states on page 21 that there are €786 million in medical malpractice claims outstanding against the State, so why is the State not engaging in the protection that is afforded to us as private consumers of veterinary services? I put that proposition to the Minister for what it is worth. I support the extended functions of veterinary nurses and other measures.

Section 8 deals with the mutual recognition directive, which is based on Directive 20, 2005/36/EC. Would the consumer have been better off if we had implemented the directive earlier? It is now seven years since it issued and that is part of the benefit of being in the European Union.

Section 9(d) deals with appropriately qualified veterinary surgeons. I ask whether the number of points required to study veterinary medicine was too high in the first instance. Many of those who wanted to train as veterinary surgeons went to study in Hungary. High points courses in university indicate a number of factors, one of which is that the earning levels of those in the profession were too high and it is not based on the intellectual requirement needed to study veterinary medicine. I wish to comment further on section 9, the requirement for a number of elected veterinary practitioners and the single veterinary nurse to deal with issues. We should require some kind of a list system of those who are eligible or who finished down the way in the election. What we should try to avoid in that and in the next section, is that the Veterinary Council or indeed any other body is not trying to pick a jury after a case has started. It should be obvious that if Mr. A cannot attend, one goes down to Mr. K, Mr. L. or Mr. M.