Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the work done by the Cathaoirleach and the members on this issue. He is not here today, but I give a particular mention to Senator Paul Daly who has done very strong work on this as well.

My officials have been working hard on this and have put a lot of time and effort into it. We will continue to work to ensure the desired outcome is achieved. We will revisit it on Report Stage if necessary and ensure there is time to consider the issue fully.

That was amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 5, also in the names of Deputies Carthy and Martin Browne, proposes to delete the reference in section 6 to "prescription and dispensing" and substitute "prescription, dispensing and prescription endorsement". I thank the Deputies for the amendment but I do not propose to accept it on the basis that the national veterinary prescription system allows for veterinary prescriptions to be marked as dispensed on the system. It is not my intention to require additional endorsing to be completed outside of the system. However, if there is a legal requirement for pharmacists to do so, then the NVPS will allow for physical copies to be obtained and endorsed, as required, for that purpose.

Amendment No. 6 proposes to insert, on page 10, after the word "feed", "including the timeframe in which the recording of a prescription with the NVPS must occur". This would prohibit vets from being able to carry out treatment in an emergency situation. For that reason, the amendment is not appropriate and I do not propose to accept it. This is a matter the veterinary prescription system can address administratively. It is important to consider that in many cases a veterinary practitioner will be treating an animal in an emergency situation. I would not want to put an unnecessary burden on veterinary practitioners at the time of treating animals. Therefore, it is more appropriate that such matters be considered administratively within the context of the design and use of the NVPS, rather than in legislation.

We have already had substantive discussion on amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 8 proposes that in page 10, line 38, after "persons", to insert ", following notification to the prescription holder". This amendment is not necessary as much of the information sharing will involve gross data. Where information relating to prescription holders is for the performance of regulatory and statutory functions of the listed bodies, I cannot interfere with their functions. Any such notifications may prejudice the work of those regulatory and statutory bodies. For these reasons, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 11 proposes to insert the following in section 12:

The Minister may make further regulations specifying the categories of veterinary medicinal products designated "prescription only" under paragraph 1or "prescription only exempt" under paragraph 2of Part 1of the Schedule, taking due regard to the required training and expertise of the dispenser as well as the complexity of medicine to be administered or dispensed.

While I understand the intention of the amendment, I do not consider it appropriate or necessary. The designation of who may retail different categories of veterinary medicines is always given utmost consideration and is a serious matter that takes account of many criteria. This is already comprehensively covered. For that reason, I do not intend to accept the amendment.