Dáil debates

Wednesday, 29 June 2005

Veterinary Practice Bill 2004 [Seanad]: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.

 

5:00 pm

Photo of Denis NaughtenDenis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)

I dispute the Minister of State's interpretation and he is trying to use that argument to muddy the waters. I do not believe that is the situation. Section 57 makes it an offence for a registered person to employ an unregistered person to carry out practices that should normally be done by someone who is registered. The reality is that prescription-only veterinary medicines are being issued by the staff of veterinary practitioners. If at some future date intramammaries and other medicines were to be made prescription-only, the reality is the vet would not be around to issue them. A member of his or her staff would do it. Whether it is in this legislation or in the regulations that are coming forward later in the year, if the issuing of particular medicines is limited to a vet, then it should only be the vet who issues them and not his or her staff. Some of the vets are looking for the powers to issue medicines but do not want to deal with the practicalities involved in the day-to-day issuing of them. That is the reason for the amendment. I accept what the Minister of State is saying. I ask him to ensure that this anomaly is addressed when the animal remedies regulations are being dealt with because it is imperative that the system is not abused. I hope that the list available to vets is extremely limited and reduced from what it is at present. On the issue being discussed, if a vet is required, then it should only be a vet.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.