Amendment No. 1 is in the names of Deputies Kerrane, Carthy and Martin Browne. Is there anyone to move this amendment?
Veterinary Medicinal Products, Medicated Feed and Fertilisers Regulation Bill 2023: Report and Final Stages
Can I move it?
You can if you want to, yes.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 7, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
“(3) Part 3 comes into operation on such day as the Minister may appoint by order, but not prior to reciprocal arrangements being in place to facilitate the operation of such a register on an all-island basis.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 2 arises out of committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 2 to 7, inclusive, are related and will be taken together. We really do need Deputies Kerrane, Carthy and Martin Browne, but I do not know where they are. Does anyone want to address these amendments?
Could we adjourn for a minute?
It is not normal to adjourn.
I know that, but they are not here.
I expect the people who table amendments to be here. That is why we have Whips. They are supposed to arrange for their people to be here.
Cuireadh an Dáil ar fionraí ar 6.43 p.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 6.45 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 6.43 p.m. and resumed at 6.45 p.m.
Amendment No. 2 arises out of committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 2 to 7, inclusive, are related and can be discussed together. Does Deputy Kerrane wish to discuss amendments Nos. 2 to 7?
Apologies, I am coming from the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, which always meets at the same time that we are taking this Bill.
That is most unfortunate.
Yes, it is.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 10, line 5, to delete “prescription and dispensing” and substitute “prescription, dispensing and prescription endorsement”.
This amendment was discussed on Committee Stage. We are bringing it forward again. It is an amendment we were asked to bring forward by the Irish Pharmacy Union, IPU. Pharmacists want to be reflected in the Bill. That is important. I understand the Minister has engaged with the IPU. The amendment relates to administration and record-keeping, which is important. It would allow and reflect the endorsement requirements in the Bill when pharmacists are supplying veterinary prescriptions. It is important and is something that pharmacists want. We should be led by them as professionals in this field.
This is a difficult area. Many suppliers and providers are concerned about their futures. Above all, we need proper, safe medicines and prescriptions to be available for farmers and all people who own or work with animals. The Ceann Comhairle and I know that chemists gave us good cures, not only for ourselves but also for many farm animals. There should be some involvement and pharmacists should be able to use their professional expertise and accumulated experience, which is probably more important when dealing with animal welfare and diseases over the decades.
I will be brief. This is an issue I have spoken about a number of times in the Chamber. My concern is that the responsible persons are not being recognised as the qualified people they are in the proposed changes. In regard to animal welfare, the North operates a different system than that which will operate here in respect of veterinary medicines. Farmers may go to the North and get veterinary medicines on the black market. That gives rise to questions of animal welfare. The responsible person was always the first point of contact for a farmer in an agri-merchant. Following the Bill's passing, that will change. An animal could be left too long because, as we know, there is a shortage of vets. Measures are being put in place to increase the number of vets. The proposed changes will definitely cause problems and create barriers. I have expressed concerns about this on previous occasions.
I thank Deputy Kerrane for the amendment. It is something we discussed on Committee Stage. Having considered it, it is not something I propose to accept on the basis that the national veterinary prescription system, NVPS, allows for veterinary prescriptions to be marked as dispensed on the system. When we discussed this on Committee Stage, my understanding was that stakeholders wanted to ensure there is a robust system that records partial dispensing of prescriptions, including dates and amounts dispensed. I can confirm that this is the case. The NVPS has this functionality built into it and my departmental officials are continuing to engage with pharmacists on the matter. I am confident a technical solution within the NVPS is present to deal with the matter.
How do you partially dispense a prescription? You either dispense it or you do not.
Potentially if there is a repeat-----
Bizarre, I would think.
Sometimes, one does not get one's full prescription. If one gets a prescription for six months, one can collect one or two.
I am just curious.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 10, line 28, to delete “regulations.” and substitute the following:
“regulations;
(i) requirements for a proper assessment of the health status of the animal or group of animals to which the animal belongs by a veterinarian for the purposes of issuing a prescription for specified categories of veterinary medicinal products for non-therapeutic treatment.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 arise from Committee Stage and are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 56, line 14, after “statute” to insert “anonymised”.
I understand these amendments were discussed on Committee Stage. The amendment seeks to ensure that when information is shared with third parties, it is provided on an anonymous basis, so that individual farmers are not identified, similar to other data privacy concerns. It also arises from concerns that have been expressed by the farming organisations about how data would be used under the provisions of this Bill. Maybe the committee has considered this again in the time since, but the farming organisations have raised concerns. We also have to be very careful, with GDPR, when it comes to the sharing of data. It is fair to ask that individual farmers not be identified and that the Minister might consider including this amendment.
I thank Deputy Kerrane for the amendment. I know we discussed it on Committee Stage as well. I do not propose to accept it. We have given the amendment thought, but we are well covered in the legislation as it is. The legislation was sent to the Data Protection Commissioner for consultation, which indicated it welcomed the inclusion of the listed bodies and the reasons for data sharing. My Department has undertaken to put data sharing agreements in place with each body, before any data sharing takes place. Any data sharing agreements which have yet to be finalised will be, in both the national interest and in collaboration with all the relevant stakeholders. We have taken the steps to ensure any data collected under this Bill comply with all GDPR rules and requirements. It is anticipated a number of Departments, agencies and other third parties may require access to data on fertiliser sales and stock levels. The robust data sharing provisions in the legislation will allow for the specific sharing of data with other bodies to achieve environmental and sustainability targets and will be fully in line with GDPR and other data protection legislation.
I will raise a point on data, data sharing and GDPR. This subject is quite interesting. The Ceann Comhairle was at another meeting earlier, at which we had a Minister of State bring in a breach of data.
Please do not go there.
I will not go there, but how can we have confidence when a Minister of State - anyone can make a mistake - inadvertently quoted a colleague of mine, Deputy Michael Collins, of being something he is not? There was also a very close direct connection with the Minister of State's family to the information. It is quite serious. A letter has gone to the Ceann Comhairle.
I have the letter. I have read it and I have read the blacks. I do not think it is a crime to be accused of being an organic farmer.
No, but it is-----
However, there is a valid question as to how somebody would know a person was an organic farmer.
There is another valid question, given that Deputy Michael Collins is not an organic farmer. He was an organic farmer; past tense.
It is not relevant to this debate.
How can we have confidence in data sharing and data correction, when the Minister of State blurts out things like that? Her defence was that she had done it before. That is not a defence.
Let us not go there.
The issue is fully covered.
With regard to the point earlier on, the behaviour was outrageous, as was the allegation by Deputy Mattie McGrath's colleague as to why the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, was here, given she was elected as a Minister of State by this Dáil to carry out her function. A very quick Google search will point the Deputy to where that particular Deputy who made the allegation about organic farming declared it previously at an Oireachtas committee in these very Houses.
Fadó fadó.
I am sure the Deputy will find the information very useful.
The Minister would want to go to Google more often.
Can we leave these matters behind us? Is Deputy Kerrane pressing the amendment?
No, on the basis of what the Minister said. I welcome the engagement with the Data Protection Commissioner.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration and passed.
Everyone is very efficient this evening.