Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

It is a wooly issue.

I thank Senator Sean Barrett for tabling amendments Nos. 1 and 2. Amendment No. 1 gives me an opportunity to clarify a number of issues. However, I cannot accept it and wish to explain why. In it the Senator is proposing a significantly different approach to that foreseen in the Bill. The approach I have taken is to set down the principles and policies which a Minister will be obliged to take into account in determining, through ministerial regulations, whether a particular procedure can and should be exempted. In other words, the Bill is enabling legislation which will allow me to consider whether particular procedures comply with these principles and policies and whether such procedures should be exempted. The Senator appears to accept this approach, but he then proposes that an indicative list of procedures to be exempted be specified in primary legislation rather than at a later stage in regulations.

Amendment No. 1 is inconsistent with the entire thrust of the Bill because, in effect, the inclusion of a list of exempted procedures would pre-empt the type of detailed consideration as provided for in the Bill of precisely which procedures can and should be exempted. This is particularly relevant in the context of the comments made by Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill. The Bill also provides that prior to making regulations the Minister will consult stakeholders, particularly the Veterinary Council, on whether certain procedures can or should be exempted. If the Minister considers that a particular procedure could be exempted, further consideration must be given to the limits of the exemption, the skills and competencies that will be required, whether the exempted person must be a member of a professional body, etc. The proposed amendment would pre-empt this consideration and consultation process which I believe to be an essential element of the regulation-making process.

More specifically, the proposal by Senator Sean Barrett to insert an additional criterion - in the form of the new paragraph (f) - in section 54B of the principal Act is unnecessary because the criterion concerned, that is, the ability to carry out a procedure regardless of whether it is related to disease eradication, is provided for in section 54B(1)(a). The key considerations in determining whether a procedure should be exempted are whether the person carrying out the procedure possesses the requisite skills and whether the procedure being carried out by the non-registered person is likely to cause significant risk to animal health or welfare or public health. Whether a procedure relates specifically to disease eradication is irrelevant in the context of defining the governing criteria in primary legislation.

It is not possible technically to accommodate the approach suggested by Senator Sean Barrett within the legislative model proposed in the Bill. Also, the said approach would run the risk of undermining the process itself. However, the essential concerns underlying the Senator's proposal, including having regard to competency issues and concerning all relevant activities, can and will be addressed within the regulation-making process that is already part of the Bill.

The Senator and I are probably trying to achieve the same thing. He wants there to be full consultation with all stakeholders, be it farming organisations, the Veterinary Council or whomever, in order that an accurate and appropriate list might be put in place. This would mean that farmers could do work for which they possess the necessary skills without actually risking the health of animals. I take my responsibility in this matter very seriously. The Bill relates to setting the parameters for how I will make my decision in this regard. We could set down a list now on the basis of what Senator Ó Domhnaill has seen working in sheep flocks in Donegal - I do not belittle it - but we cannot make legislation with that type of approach. This is a serious business concerning animal health, disease control and ensuring there is no interference with human health and food entering the human food chain. We are trying to get the list right and this legislation is about putting a framework around this. If we decide we want to change or amend the list, we should be able to do so without having to revert to primary legislation and going through a series of stages to do so.

For example, de-horning animals is not on the list proposed but we may want to put it on the list. There may be a tail docking issue that is not on the list with which we may want to deal. We may want to put certain restrictions around a certain practice. For example, equine dentistry is a very broad term, and horse owners should be able to carry out some forms themselves. Other and more detailed surgery should clearly be done by a vet. Similarly, there is some complex physiotherapy for animals that requires qualified vets or veterinary nurses but others can be done by animal owners. We can try to cover everything in the list we put together as legislators but we are not experts and we will get it wrong, leading to a need to amend the list through primary legislation. It would probably have to be amended every year. I am trying to put in place a structure that will not only require the Minister to consult widely before changing the regulations and list but also to allow him or her change it, as appropriate, based on the advice of stakeholders and so on.

The approach we are taking is right and we consulted widely before taking it. For farmers and veterinary practitioners and nurses as well as for general animal health and welfare, it is the right approach.