asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he will state with regard to the dismissal of a veterinary surgeon (name supplied) from the tuberculosis and the brucellosis schemes from 31st July, 1967 to 1st December, 1967, why documents and submissions in the case remained unacknowledged and untraced for four months and were only acknowledged when the veterinary surgeon in question was reinstated and after several letters had been sent by him to the Department demanding acknowledgment, in view of the fact that all important letters were delivered by hand to the Department.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dismissal of Veterinary Surgeon.
7.
The correspondence referred to, which consisted of three documents, seems to have been handed in to the Department about 27th November. This was at the height of the foot and mouth disease crisis, when all available staff resources were concentrated on the highly important duty of strengthening our defences against this disease. As a result of these abnormal circumstances, the correspondence could not, unfortunately, be traced for some time but at the request of my Department, the veterinary surgeon furnished copies of two of the documents to the Department on 21st December and these were, of course, acknowledged.
8.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (a) why a veterinary surgeon (name supplied) was dismissed from the tuberculosis and brucellosis schemes from 31st July to 1st December 1967; (b) whether any inquiry was held by his Department into this case; (c) whether the veterinary surgeon was informed of it beforehand, and, if not, why; (d) whether he was afforded an opportunity of stating his position; (e) whether he, being an assistant, was asked for a written explanation as to why irregularities occurred; and (f) whether the principal veterinary surgeon received a similar inquiry; what were the findings of the inquiry; if he was similarly penalised, and, if not, why.
I understand that the two veterinary practitioners in question are to appear before a disciplinary committee of the Veterinary Council and it would not be appropriate to offer detailed comments on the Deputy's question at the present time.
I may add, however, that Ministers for Agriculture have at all times retained and exercised the specific right to review the performance of practitioners who are paid fees under my Department's schemes and to take appropriate action where necessary. In all such cases action has been taken only after careful and exhaustive examinaton of all the facts. Such action does not, of course, interfere with a veterinary surgeon's right to practise his profession, as this is a matter for the Veterinary Council.