Clause 10 (Hansard, 20 June 1968)

§ Mr. Mackie
I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 8, line 1, leave out 'subsection (3) of this section' and insert 'the next following subsection'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
It would be convenient if we also discussed Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15, 25 and 26.

§ Mr. Mackie
This Amendment paves the way for a new qualification to Clause 10(1). Amendment No. 13 is a new subsection (2) and is essentially the old subsection (3) applied now only to subsection (1). It qualifies the exemption relating to pharmacists in subsection (1), so that it does not apply to a poultry vaccine or to any other vaccine, plasma or serum for administration to an animal or herd unless:

(a) for a vaccine, it is specially prepared for administration to the animal from which it is derived; or

(b) for plasma or a serum, it is specially prepared for administration to one or more animals in the herd from which it is derived, that is the same qualifications apply as in the case of veterinarians in Clause 9(3).

In the case of either (a) or (b) it must be prepared in accordance with a prescription given by a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner.
1428 9.15 p.m.
Amendment No. 14 paves the way for the next Amendments. Amendment No. 15 revises the old subsection (2) so that it has the effect of preventing a pharmacist from undertaking the preparation of vaccines, plasma or sera at the request of a stockowner or herdsman.
After further consideration of the points raised by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West in Committee, we have come to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate for a pharmacist to undertake the preparation of vaccines, plasma or sera at the request of a stock-owner or herdsman, as would be the case as subsection (2) stands. On the other hand, we think that we must allow a pharmacist acting under subsection (1) to prepare vaccines, plasma or sera in accordance with a prescription by a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner. This, of course, excludes the preparation of poultry vaccines which are all subject to the licensing arrangements. This procedure is in line with the position in Clause 9 under which one veterinarian may call upon another to supply him with these substances, and we see no added complications in his being able to call upon a pharmacist. Indeed, to fail to give this exemption would mean preventing a pharmacist from carrying out operations which his training equips him to do. These Amendments carry out these changes.
1429 I emphasise that the exemptions for both veterinarians and pharmacists refer only to circumstances in which the use of the vaccine, and so on, does not present a disease risk; that is to say, autogenous vaccines used in the same animals from which the material is derived or a plasma or serum used within the same herd from which it is derived.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for these Amendments, which go a long way to satisfying the anxieties which we expressed in Committee. I was, however, a little disturbed when he said that the exemptions would apply only to autogenous vaccines. I am grateful for his accepting that it would be wrong for a stockowner to be able to go to a pharmacist and say that he wants this or that and for the pharmacist to make it up. But I am still apprehensive, following the unhappy attitude of the hon. Gentleman to our last Amendment, about the possibility of a pharmacist being asked by a group practice to manufacture plasma, serum or vaccine on a very large scale. The Amendment still leaves this door open.
However, that is not a point which I wish to pursue at this moment. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for having met three-quarters of the case which we put forward in Committee.