SENATE SPEECHES
horizontal rule

Veterinary Practice Bill 2004: Report and Final Stages
20 April 2005

Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 2:

In page 11, line 6, to delete "practitioner" and substitute "surgeon".

I welcome the Minister to the House. On Committee Stage, I explained that vets themselves would like the traditional name of "veterinary surgeon" to be maintained. They feel that, in the eyes of the public, "practitioner" means someone who is involved in the practice of veterinary medicine. While that is what most of them will do, a substantial number of vets are involved in academic veterinary medicine or various sectors in the food industry. These people will be covered by the Act but the feeling of my colleagues in veterinary medicine is that the public would not see them as veterinary practitioners and that is why they would prefer the traditional name of veterinary surgeon.

...

Dr. Henry: The Minister gave a very good explanation for the wording of the Bill as drafted. However, she would expect university Senators to defend professional qualifications. I believe Senator Quinn's amendment is worth accepting. The wording in the section as it stands is very loose. While I am sure the council would do its best when considering qualifications, it must be given guidelines, which is not the case with the words used. The person merely "satisfies the Council that he or she has the requisite knowledge and skill for the purposes of subsection (2),". This is not very objective and I would like the Minister to accept the amendment.

...

Dr. Henry: The Minister has learned much from her predecessor, Deputy Joe Walsh. Every now and then he would throw the House a bone, a little amendment such as this. We would all be grateful and then assist in passing whatever legislation he introduced.

We know what happens to originals if they are too easily accessed. Signposts are now taken home as souvenirs, never mind a nice little document denoting a registered veterinary premises. I hope the Minister can see her way to throwing in little bones, as have former Ministers.

...

Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 41:

In page 87, line 9, to delete "veterinary".

I explained this issue at great length on Committee Stage. Why is it only a veterinary premises which can be entered if the authorised officer believes something is wrong? It could be as relevant for the authorised officer to be able to enter a premises which is not a veterinary one. I realise this extends the provision. If an authorised officer believes a registered veterinary practitioner is acting in an unprofessional manner, he or she should not have to wait until the veterinary practitioner is found on a veterinary premises. I realise most of these activities will probably take place on a veterinary premises but it would be better if we did not confine it to such premises. It restricts matters to an extent that might make it impossible for the practitioner to be discovered engaging in misdemeanours as he or she could engage in such activities elsewhere.

...

Dr. Henry: I second the amendment. I would like some equality to apply in the searching of premises. When I spoke about this issue on Committee Stage, I said the Veterinary Council would not want people to have illegal drugs, such as angel dust and so on, on their premises. However, I have a considerable amount of sympathy for veterinarians in respect of various drugs they may have on their premises. Immediately after I spoke about what reputable people they were, I noted two veterinarians were had up somewhere for bringing in some drugs which could, in fact, be useful.

Veterinarians face a very difficult situation, particularly in regard to equine drugs. The horse is considered part of the food chain despite the fact thoroughbred horses are most unlikely to end up in the food chain, although perhaps the Minister knows horses which perhaps should end up in the food chain as result of running too slowly. This is a considerable problem because there are drugs which are very satisfactory for horses, for example, butazolidin which is probably the most successful anti-inflammatory drug for inflammatory ailments in horses. However, it is not allowed because there is a small risk of aplastic anaemia in humans. It is not really a practical proposition to suggest that humans will get aplastic anaemia from whatever amount of horse meat they may eat where the horse has been given butazolidin. Veterinarians' hands are severely tied.

I understand an EU group has come together in London to consider veterinary medicines. However, I do not know what progress it is making. Ireland is particularly disadvantaged because the market is smaller. For a company to sell some of these drugs in this country would involve considerable expense and it would not be in its interests to bother doing so. We have what are described in medicine as "orphan drugs" which could be very useful for some animals, particularly expensive race horses and so on.

We have seen people run into trouble as a result of using human drugs because perhaps there were no similar drugs in the veterinary line which could be used and it has caused much grief and distress. Such veterinary drugs would perhaps be available and licensed in America given the considerable number of animals there on which they could be used. I have a fair amount of sympathy for veterinarians in respect of this issue. I do not believe the Minister can do much to persuade the pharmaceutical companies making veterinary medicines to apply for licences for drugs for which there will be little demand.

Veterinarians are being singled out here and people can go into their premises without warrants. Of course, they must act within the law but it is hard on them in respect of the treatment of some animals. Everybody should be searched in the same manner rather than veterinarians being singled out. If any of these drugs were kept on other premises, the authorised officer would need to get a search warrant before entering the premises but he or she would not have to do so in respect of the registered veterinary officer.

...

Dr. Henry: I thank the Minister and her officials for this very good Bill which has come before the House. I thank her too for her courtesy and the good humour with which she deals with all of us. It is important legislation and I hope she can encourage the Minister for Health and Children to bring forward a medical practice Bill as soon as possible and, perhaps, a few hints from her Department would be useful in regard to the setting up of registers.

Visit the Irish Government Website for the full text of this speech: Click Here

bullet Speech Menu
bullet Top