Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

This issue was the focus of much discussion between my officials and me because I raised the same questions as the Deputy.

Senator Barrett is proposing to remove from the Bill the general exemption from mandatory indemnity insurance which would apply to registered persons acting as an officer of the State, in other words somebody working for the Department to the Government. This exemption was provided for in the Bill in recognition of the fundamentally different role played by vets who carry out official functions when compared with those in private practice. As Senators will be aware, the latter generally treat animals for reward. It was considered appropriate in the interest of protecting clients that there would be an adequate financial provision for any civil claims arising in the event of a misdiagnosis or inadequate or inappropriate treatment by a vet. This is the rationale underpinning the amendment in section 3 which provides that the Veterinary Council may make regulations, with my consent, specifying the circumstances in which indemnity is to be required.

However, official vets are in an entirely different space. Vets working for the State, by definition, carry out official functions underpinned by legislation. They rarely, if ever, treat animals as part of their official duties. Instead, their role relates to applying their expertise in carrying out inspections on farms or in meat plants or, alternatively, providing expert advice within my Department. Thus the scope for incurring liability of the type arising from private practitioners is, to all intents and purposes, non-existent.

Having regard to the very different position of vets working on official duties compared with private vets, it would be illogical and unreasonable to require them to carry personal indemnity for the role since they are not acting on their own behalf but on behalf of the State. Official vets, like any other public servants, are indemnified in respect of the lawful exercise of their functions. Thus, any legal actions arising in respect of their official role will be directed against the State. I emphasise, however, that the exemption only applies to vets while undertaking work on behalf of the State. Therefore, if a vet who works part-time for the State also engages in private practice, he or she would, in principle, be required to have indemnity insurance in respect of his or her private practice. For these reasons I do not propose to accept the amendment. Essentially, we are making a distinction between people who are acting on behalf of the State such as a teacher, for example, and individuals who are using their professional expertise in a personal capacity for financial return. If we asked veterinarians to take out personal indemnity insurance for the work they are carrying out for my Department or the State and the State was obliged to cover that work also, there would be a double payment. It would amount to unnecessary duplication.

We select from a panel of 700 veterinarians for work in meat processing factories, for example, for inspections, quality control and so forth, and they work with the Department's veterinarians in this work. What if I were to require them to take out personal indemnity insurance, as well as having to cover that work on behalf of the State? If one of them made a mistake, for example, there would be a civil case not only against the veterinarian but also potentially against the State. We cannot get away from this. When somebody is acting on behalf of the State, the State is liable. We are making the distinction between the work veterinarians do in an official capacity and the work they do in a private capacity and the pay they receive for that private work. This was the best balance we could strike.

I will not accept the amendment, but I must admit I asked the same question when I read the Bill for the first time. I asked why we were making a distinction between somebody who was doing a public servant's work and somebody who was doing private work, given that they should take personal responsibility either way. However, there is a distinction in terms of the work they do and for whom they are working. When they are doing private work, they are working for themselves as a sole trader, in most cases, or for a practice. In the case of a veterinary practice, it will have to provide indemnity cover. When they are working for the State, it is a very different role and in the vast majority of cases it is entirely different work in terms of it being supervisory or to do with inspections rather than actual animal health.