Paul Daly (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

From what I heard this evening, if one is on the outside looking in and not as well versed as we are on this subject after our series of meetings over two years then it would seem that a 12-month prescription is a lifeline for merchants, pharmacists and co-operatives. In reality, and for clarity, all that we can put into legislation or regulation is that a prescription can be "up to 12 months" because it is the veterinarian himself who will decide. Am I right to say it is the vet who decides the duration of a prescription?

Let us say a vet tests my cattle in March and I ask him on the day to give me a prescription for antiparasitic treatment that will last until this time next year. Let us say he turns around to me and says that it would not be ethically professional for him to prescribe something that a farmer might use next harvest. Considering that I do not know whether there will be a drought or a wet summer or what the climatic conditions will be like between now and then and vets says to me that it would not be ethically professional for a vet to do so and will not give an annual prescription, is he or she in the right to do so and the Minister of State, his officials or me would have a foot to stand on to tell him that he had to give me an annual prescription?

What has been said here is that we are putting up a camouflage of an annual prescription as a lifeline for the merchants, pharmacists and the co-operatives but we are handing even more power to the vet who will decide whether he will and he or she will be covered by professional ethics by saying he or she will not. Power is, therefore, being handed over.

When we started this conversation I was the first to speak and I mentioned anti-competitiveness and availability. Handing vets more power will not solve the anti-competitive issue. Deputy Fitzmaurice mentioned you would feel ashamed to look a vet in the eye and say you will go somewhere else to buy them. You are now looking the vet in the eye yet he refuses to give the prescription and he will be within his right to refuse. I want this matter clarified before we finish.

I wish to mention an issue that has not been mentioned The French prescribing system and its issues have been mentioned. In our previous deliberations - and I do not have my notes with me so I cannot give an exact quote - it emerged that Scandinavian countries have discovered that decoupling led to the best results in their antiparasitic plan. Why has Ireland not examined decoupled prescribing and dispensing? We should let vets be vets and suppliers be suppliers. The Government has not even addressed the idea of separating prescribing and dispensing.

I have a fond memories of a previous meeting where we discovered that Scandinavian countries have statistical proof that shows they have the best results in handling antiparasitic resistance and in those countries vets are vets and suppliers are suppliers. We have not even discussed the option. If the merchants, co-operatives and the pharmacists stand to lose if we get this right, why do we not go down that road and maybe the vets will lose a small bit? In Ireland we have a one-way street in this area.