Veterinary Medicinal Products, Medicated Feed and Fertilisers Regulation Bill 2023: Committee Stage
No apologies have been received.
Members now have the option of being physically present in the committee room or joining the meeting via Microsoft Teams. Members may not participate in the meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts. It is important to know, however, that in order to participate in the meeting, committee members must be physically present in the committee room.
Members have to turn off their mobile phones.
I ask members to note that the meeting will suspend from 6.50 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. to allow them to attend the unveiling by the Ceann Comhairle of a bust of John Hume in the coffee dock at 7 o'clock.
This meeting has been convened to consider Committee Stage of the Veterinary Medicinal Products, Medicated Feed and Fertilisers Regulation Bill 2023. I welcome the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Charlie McConalogue, and his officials, Ms Louise Byrne, deputy chief inspector, Dr. June Fanning, deputy chief veterinary officer, Dr. Sheila Nolan, principal officer, Mr. Conor O'Mahony, principal officer, Mr. Ted Massey, senior inspector, and Ms Melanie Hall, higher executive officer.
We now proceed to consideration of the Bill. Minister, would you like to make your opening statement?
Yes. I will run through a few points. I thank you, a Chathaoirligh, and the membership for making the time available today to step this Bill forward on Committee Stage. It is important legislation and will help future-proof large parts of the industry and ensure we have robust measures in place that will benefit both farmers and businesses for the years to come.
The Bill seeks to modernise the area of veterinary medicines and medicated feed. As Deputies will be aware, at EU level last year we saw the implementation of two new regulations in this area. The Bill reinforces those regulations in Irish legislation. It shows our commitment to the key objectives of the regulations, that is, addressing antimicrobial and antiparasitic resistance and protecting the supply of veterinary medicines and medicated feeds while supporting Irish farmers and businesses through what is a unique period of change. I am worried about the growing antimicrobial and parasitic resistance at farm level and I know that all of us are worried about it. It is also something farmers, vets, politicians and everyone else in the sector need to be very conscious of.
I am conscious of the views members expressed during the Second Stage debate on the Bill and the views expressed by stakeholders throughout the lengthy consultations on the Bill. One of the main areas of focus on the part of members during the Second Stage reading was on providing for an appropriate mechanism for the prescribing of certain veterinary medicinal products to ensure maximum availability of outlets for farmers through the existing retailers of veterinary medicinal products in the face of what is a change in route of supply of antiparasitic veterinary medicinal products and to ensure there is competition. This is a complex matter, and I have given it a huge amount of consideration and may return to it on Report Stage.
I have had two ultimate aims from the very start of this process: first, to reduce the growing and worrying level of antiparasitic resistance on farms and, second, to ensure that farmers in all parts of the country continue to have access to these crucial medicines and that there is strong competition in the marketplace. I continue to work hard to achieve that ambition and am determined that we will deliver on it.
As for the veterinary medicines and medicated feed part of the Bill, I am bringing forward amendments which seek to bring additional clarity to certain sections of the Bill as well as some amendments which are technical in nature.
The second area the Bill deals with is the introduction of regulations in respect of the establishment of a fertiliser register.
Part 3 of the Bill contains eight sections. The proposed legislation will amend the Fertilisers, Feeding Stuffs and Mineral Mixtures Act 1955. It will also establish a national fertiliser database, which will provide for accurate tracking of fertiliser sales along the supply chain.
With regard to the matters raised during the Second Stage debate on the fertiliser aspect of the Bill, I will make the following points. The issue of North-South trade was raised by many Deputies. Trade in fertilisers will continue between the North and the South, and farmers are free to purchase fertiliser from outside the State, as they have done heretofore. The only additional requirement will be that such transactions are imports and that farmers buying from the North, for example, will have to register as fertiliser economic operators and submit information on those imports to the national fertiliser database. The Department will conduct risk-based controls to verify compliance with the regulatory requirements set down-----
A vote has been called in the Dáil.
We will suspend the meeting.
Sitting suspended at 5.37 p.m. and resumed at 5.50 p.m.
I shall continue from where I left off. I was talking about the fact that references were made in the debate on Second Stage on the additional administrative burden that might be placed on merchants and farmers regarding the fertiliser register. I have been acutely aware of this issue at all stages of the development of the project. I believe that the system, as it has been designed and developed, will be as simple and easy as it is possible to do. Most, if not all farmers, will only need to register once on my Department's online portal agfood.ie. So agfood.ie will operate the system. Farmers need only interact with the system once a year after that to declare any stocks of fertiliser on their farm.
The submission of fertiliser sales data to the national fertiliser database will, in the main, be done by co-ops and merchants. The two options of an automated option and a manual option have been provided. This will allow businesses to choose the best option for them in light of the number of fertiliser transactions that they conduct.
On Second Stage, concerns were raised about data protection. My Department has taken steps to ensure that the data collected under this Bill complies with all aspects of the general data protection regulation, GDPR, rules and other data protection requirements. The robust data sharing provisions in the legislation will allow the specific sharing of data with other bodies to achieve environmental and sustainability targets. The provisions will be fully in line with GDPR and other data protection legislation.
Recognising the significant volume of fertiliser sales, I am committed to an administratively simple system for both fertiliser economic operators and professional fertiliser end users, which supports compliance and the accurate recording of fertiliser transactions in a national fertiliser database. Following the roll-out of the national fertiliser database, my Department will ensure appropriate risk-based controls along the supply chain to verify compliance with the regulatory requirements and the accuracy of information being uploaded to the database.
In conclusion, I again thank the Cathaoirleach for the opportunity to debate this Bill. I look forward to the committee members supporting this important legislation and discussing the amendments.
I thank the Minister and we will proceed with the consideration of the Bill.
SECTION 1
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 7, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“(4) Part 3 comes into operation on such day or days as the Minister may appoint by order or orders either generally or, in relation to the amendments to the Fertilisers Feeding Stuffs and Mineral Mixtures Act 1955 effected by that Part, with reference to any particular purpose or provision and different days may be so appointed for different purposes or different provisions.”.
My amendment is necessary as it provides greater flexibility and control in the timing of submissions to be uploaded on to the national fertiliser database by economic operators and end users. Furthermore, the amendment provides flexibility, if needed, to allow the sequencing of registration requirements for registration as a professional end user and fertiliser economic operators. My amendment is straightforward and practical.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 7, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“(4) 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.”.
Deputy Browne and I submitted our amendment to recognise that the concerns raised with us by a number of stakeholders in respect of this aspect of the regulation are not being fully addressed. There will be a North-South dimension as a result of the operation of this order, particularly in respect of the Border region.
The Minister says in his opening statement that: "The only additional requirement will be that such transactions are imports and that farmers buying from the North, for example, will have to register as fertiliser economic operators and submit information on those imports to the national fertiliser database." That is a substantial additional requirement and will have a negative impact on all-Ireland trade. The provision is absolutely illogical. I have talked to many people in the sector and nobody disputed that the provision will create a loophole that will undermine the very basis of the legislation in that it will just take one or two bad operators in this State to purchase north of the Border and either maliciously or by mistake import or transfer unregistered fertiliser from the North into the South. I have asked at different points for the Minister to engage with his Department's counterpart in the North to address these concerns but I have not seen evidence of that as yet.
To my mind, we are in a position post Brexit where increasingly partitionist issues arise within the outworking. We have been dealing with farmers in my own constituency in respect of the lime scheme whereby the practitioners, who have purchased lime all of their lives, are barred from the scheme simply because they happen to be north of the Border and are not licensed by the Department in the South, and now here we have another situation. It is ironic at a time when so much effort has gone into working at a European level to ensure that there will be no hardening of the Border in our country that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is putting in place what is effectively hardening of the Border in terms of the ability of farmers to operate North-South and vice versa. Therefore, Deputy Martin Browne and I tabled our amendment to emphasise the importance of the need for the Minister to make efforts to address those issues, particularly in respect of the fertiliser database prior to the introduction of the new arrangements. I hope that the Minister will be amenable to ensuring that will happen because if we implement this order as it currently stands then there will be a further divergence North and South, which would be very damaging.
I do not agree with the Deputy. We have given consideration to this matter and discussed it on Second Stage. There are no obstacles. The requirements in terms of somebody buying fertiliser north of the Border is the same as somebody buying fertiliser south of the Border. It is just that a person must record and keep a record of whatever fertiliser is on his or her farm, and ensure that the fertiliser is included on the database. Whether a person buys fertiliser in the North or the South, the situation is the same. There is a legal obligation on the person who buys fertiliser to record the purchase and ensure there is an accurate update of the database. What do the Deputies seek to achieve with their amendment? What do they believe should happen?
I would like to see a national database that is all-Ireland in nature and for the Minister to make an effort to reach that goal but he has not made an effort so far. It is entirely disingenuous for him to claim that the conditions will be the same for, say, a farmer located halfway between Clones in County Monaghan and Rosslea in County Fermanagh who decides to purchase fertiliser from his or her operator in Clones or the one in Rosslea. The conditions will not be the same, which has been acknowledged by the Minister. He acknowledged in his briefing paper that if this farmer decided to purchase fertiliser in Rosslea then he or she will have to register as a fertiliser economic operator. That farmer does not have to do that if he or she decides to purchase fertiliser south of the Border even though his or her merchant in Rosslea is at a closer location. To me, such a situation creates a North-South divergence that is unhelpful in the current circumstances.
The obligation is the same. A farmer must keep an accurate record of the fertiliser on his or her farm so he or she must ensure that it is registered and on the record. What will happen, where somebody purchases fertiliser in the Republic, is that the information will be uploaded primarily by the retailer from whom the farmer purchases the fertiliser. Obviously my Department has no legal remit in the Six Counties so we cannot put a legal obligation on the sellers in the North to upload the information on behalf of the farmer and the farmer must register, and upload, the information himself or herself. Is the Deputy saying that we should do nothing until there is a national database? I am not sure what he is proposing.
I am saying that the Minister should make the effort. I do not know why he is being so facetious about this matter.
The Minister comes from Inishowen so he should know better than anybody in this House-----
-----the implications of this. I ask the Minister to please allow me to finish. He should know how important this matter is. He should know the efforts we have put in collectively and unanimously across this House to ensure that we do not allow actions, taken at Westminster, create difficulties in terms of cross-Border trade and with a particular eye to those in the agrifood sector.
I would like the Minister to answer my question about the lime scheme. It is a disgraceful situation that he has overseen.
I urge members to stick to discussing the Bill.
Here we are again. This happens continuously. It happened in respect of the grass-fed beef protected geographical indication, PGI. It took the European Commission to force the Minister to move to ensuring the scheme is based on an all-Ireland basis because he said it was not possible to do so in the first instance. Here are we again in respect of an issue that has been raised with the Minister, not necessarily primarily by me but by farmers and merchants who have pointed out an anomaly that will be exploited by some and have a detrimental impact on North-South trade. I have asked what efforts he has made to put reciprocal arrangements in place.
He has made none. That is the answer to that question. Instead of acknowledging that, the Minister is being facetious on this. Does he recognise there will be some actors that will use the new scenario to bypass the very purpose of this order in the first place and that some will purchase in the North and will not be registered anywhere? What will that mean for the credibility of the database?
There is nothing facetious. I am simply looking to establish what it is the Deputy is saying. We have been engaging with officials in the North. As recently as last week, we had an engagement. It would ultimately be desirable for the North to have a fertiliser register as well. Obviously, however, we can only bring in one for the Republic. We continue to engage.
With regard to the PGI, we will not go there-----
I do not agree with what the Deputy said.
We will stick to the Bill.
The situation is that there is a legal obligation on everybody, no matter where they purchase their fertiliser. When the legislation is enacted, there will be a legal obligation on everybody to accurately record the fertiliser they have, whether they buy it in the North or in the South. If people do not have an accurate record of the fertiliser they have bought, that will be an offence, whether they bought in the North or in the South. Let us say that somebody is not registering what they bought in the North. That will be an offence in the same way as if it was not properly registered in the South.
But the obligation, if they purchase it in the South, is on the retailer. The burden will be on the farmer if they purchase it in the North. If the Minister does not see how that distorts North-South trade, then-----
Yes, they would have to update the record themselves. That is the only way it could be done.
I consider that to be unfair.
What is the Deputy suggesting should happen?
Does the Minister want to me to say this a third time?
He saying there should be engagement. There has been engagement. Is he saying we should do nothing?
What is the outworking of the engagement?
I will put it this way. No matter how much engagement there is, until there is a government in the North, it will not be possible to have a fertiliser register there. Is the Deputy saying we should not do a fertiliser at all until there is one in Northern Ireland? That does not make sense.
I want to see all-Ireland arrangements-----
-----so we can address the concerns that have been there. The Minister has not pointed to any discernible action that has been taken. I pointed to other scenarios because the Minister has a record on all of this. He still has not mentioned or addressed the issue of lime-----
No, we are not going there.
-----I would have thought he would have taken the opportunity to announce the reversal of that-----
-----position, but he has not.
No, Deputy Carthy. We are not going down the route of discussing lime.
No, we are not going down the lime route.
What is the Deputy suggesting? Is he suggesting we do not do a database at all until there is one in the North?
I am suggesting we do not do a database until it can be operational on an all-Ireland basis, recognising the consequences for farmers in the Minister's constituency, as well as mine. They are the people I am here to represent, by the way.
When might that possibly be?
Deputy McConalogue is the Minister. It is up to him to address this.
I am a Minister in the Republic.
It has been outlined and pointed out to the Minister that there is an issue here and he has not done anything discernible to address it, as far as I am concerned.
Does the Deputy think I can introduce legislation in Northern Ireland? We have engaged. Our officials have engaged with officials in Northern Ireland. There is no government in Northern Ireland at the moment. They have engaged.
Has the Minister engaged?
Our officials have engaged.
Who has the Minister met on this issue?
Who does the Deputy suggest I meet at the moment?
He can meet the secretary general in the department in the North.
Why has the Minister not done that?
I know better than anybody there-----
There is no Minister in Northern Ireland.
-----is no executive in Northern Ireland-----
-----and the reasons for that.
Deputy Carthy is to let the Minister finish and then he can come back in.
What Deputy Carthy seems to be suggesting is that we do not do any fertiliser register at all until such time as there is one in Northern Ireland. I do not agree with that. Part of the reason we need the register is that we have made commitments relating to the nitrates regulation and the application of the derogation. We have made commitments to bring in a fertiliser register as part of that. That will need to be renewed in 2025. I will shortly engage with the Commission to seek additional flexibility in the mid-term review. Part of what we have signed up to is to introduce a fertiliser database so we can accurately know what fertilisers are on farms in the country. If we do not do that, that will put the derogation in real difficulty.
We just recently launched the new CAP programme. One of the eco-schemes in the new programme is based on fertiliser as well and it is based on us having a fertiliser register. I have no idea how long it will take before there is a national register in in the North but it will be very useful for us in the South. It will be important for the flexibility of the nitrates derogation and to run the eco-schemes. I simply do not agree with the Deputy that we should close our book down here and do not move on this until such time as the North moves. That is not practical, unfortunately.
In terms of its structure, the obligation is the same. Fertiliser can be purchased in the North or the South. There are no barriers to buying in the North or the South. That remains the same. The obligation relates to recording. If a farmer buys it in a co-op in Carndonagh or in Monaghan, the co-op or the merchant will load it onto the database. If a farmer buys it across the Border, the farmer will have to load it onto the database.
I am quite frankly taken aback that the Minister does not see what the outworking of that will be. He mentioned this in respect of the review of the nitrates derogation. That is a review that nobody other than the Minister and his officials were even aware of when the nitrates action plan was signed off on. We have seen and heard over the past number of weeks about the difficulties this has created. The very fact that the Minister has now indicated that he will seek flexibility in that regard suggests that he has now belatedly recognised that there are difficulties in the wording that was agreed on that front.
We are saying to the Minister in good faith that this creating issues in cross-Border trade and they need to be addressed. I genuinely did not think this was going to be a point of serious debate because what we were looking for was a serious commitment from the Minister that he would make all efforts he could to have the matters addressed before the order came into place. He has not done that and, therefore, I will press the amendment.
We are; we have engaged. What the Deputy is asking is that we will not do anything until such time as there is a cross-Border database.
I told the Minister what we are asking for and what we were expecting and he has not done any of that.
The is asking that we do not have any database until such time as there is an all-island one. God knows when that will be.
I would have hoped and expected-----
-----that as a Minister from Donegal-----
-----what we would have been saying here-----
We are out of time now. Come on.
Our record on Committee Stage of legislation is that when the Minister shows a genuine effort to show he is serious about resolving an issue, we have accepted that in good faith. He has not in respect of this shown any.good faith in this regard and, therefore, for the third time, I will press the amendment.
What the Deputy is asking here is that we do not do it until such time as - God knows when - there is one in the North. That will create all sorts of problems in the management of fertiliser, the management of the nitrates derogation, getting flexibility at a European level, being able to run the eco-schemes, and getting up and operational. The fertiliser database will be straightforward and practical. I do not believe it will interrupt cross-Border trade at al. The legal obligation is to ensure there is an accurate record of what fertiliser is on the farm.
The Deputy was dancing around a bit in terms of what his ask actually was. He indicated that maybe I should be engaging more. However, to be clear, his ask is that is that we do not do a database until there is an all-island one. I cannot say when that would be. I do not believe that is reasonable, practical or in the interests of farmers.
The Minister has now made the same speech four times. In part of that speech, he has said he does not believe it will disrupt cross-Border trade. That in itself suggests that he is delusional on this point. For the final time, I will the press the amendment.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Browne, Martin.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Collins, Michael.
- Fitzmaurice, Michael.
Níl
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Leddin, Brian.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- Ring, Michael.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to
SECTION 3
Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 9,10, 12 to 20, inclusive, 22 to 24, inclusive, 26, 27, 29, 30 and 33 to 37, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 8, line 3, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”
Amendment No. 3 proposes to replace "Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform" with the new title for the Minister that has changed since the legislation was first published, that is the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. That is self explanatory. The references to the Department throughout the Bill also need to be changed which is the reason for amendment No. 24.
Amendment No. 4 proposes to insert a definition of "companion animal".
Amendment No. 9 is a technical amendment to ensure the exact content of the data that vets or third party software parties must provide to the national veterinary prescription system can be specified. Transmission to the database refers to the fact that most vets will use their own software to send data in a readable format to the NVPS rather than the vets interacting directly with the system.
Six amendments propose to clarify which persons are permitted to sell certain categories of veterinary medicinal products at retail.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 33 are proposed to permit responsible persons to operate from a pharmacy and sell certain categories of veterinary medicines at retail.
Amendment No. 34 is proposed to ensure it is a responsible person and licensed retailer who must sell medicines retail.
Amendment No. 35 is proposed to permit anyone in a veterinary practice to sell companion animal medicines.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 propose to change the symbols that appear on veterinary medicines back to those we currently use in order that no cost implications for changing packaging will be imposed on the manufacturing industry
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are proposed to ensure the activity of dividing or changing the outer packaging of veterinary medicinal products for retail is only carried out at the time the items are sold at retail. If it were to be carried out in advance, it would be considered to be a manufacturing activity and not one that can be done by retailers. In addition, these amendments propose to permit retailers, when dividing packets of certain veterinary medicines, to either label the packet they supply or to provide a copy of a data sheet.
This change reflects what happens in retailers currently, and is a practical solution to address the requirement to provide sufficient information to the end user of a veterinary medicinal product.
Amendment No. 14 clarifies that retailers do routinely supply veterinarians with veterinary medicine products. That is considered a wholesale activity.
Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17, 20, 22 and 23 make a number of amendments that are technical, typographic and administrative corrections, which provide clarity as to the intent of the text and contain no new substantive text.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 will ensure that we can import human medicinal products and not just limited to veterinary medical products. This is permitted by the national veterinary prescription system, NVPS, regulation.
Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 make two slight amendments to the wording of the original text to make it clear.
Amendment No. 29 makes a slight change to the previous text. Its purpose is to require importers to provide the means of imported fertiliser into the State, for example, by road or vessel. The amendment also requires importers to advise the Department of where the product is being imported from. This may be different from the country of origin of the fertiliser depending on the supply chain.
Amendment No. 30 corrects an error in the original text whereby the requirement to submit the quantity of fertiliser to be transferred, that is, sold by a retailer or wholesaler, was omitted.
That short synopsis deals with all those amendments, which are relatively straightforward.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 8, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
“ “companion animal” in relation to a companion animal medicine, means—
(a) a dog or cat,
(b) a rabbit, small rodent, cage bird or homing pigeon kept for domestic purposes, or
(c) a terrarium animal or an aquarium fish;”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6
Amendments Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, and 11 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 9, line 33, to delete “prescription and dispensing” and substitute “prescription, dispensing and prescription endorsement”.
Amendment No. 5 will expand on the phrase “prescription and dispensing” and substitute “prescription, dispensing and prescription endorsement”. The Minister will know that prescription endorsement is an important aspect that straddles prescription and dispensation. In the stakeholder engagement, pharmacists highlighted the need to ensure that this is an area that is covered by primary legislation in order that the Minister can be empowered to make regulation in this regard. This is to ensure that in the case of partial or repeat prescriptions, dispensation amounts and dates are fully recorded for future reference.
Amendment No. 6 would make the following change: "In page 10, line 10, after "feed" to insert", including the timeframe in which the recording of a prescription within the NVPS must occur'." The Minister will know that one of the key concerns of stakeholders is that in the event that veterinarians may not be able to upload any prescription in the field, perhaps because of poor mobile service or another reason, there could be a time lag as to when they would be able to access products, which could lead to farmers having the sense that they must purchase immediately from the veterinarian. Obviously, we all hope the implementation of the NVPS on lead prescriptions will go smoothly. It is important that the Minister can be able to revisit this and potentially introduce mandatory timelines if he feels that is necessary further down the line.
Amendment No. 7 gets to the crux of the issue we have been discussing for some time and suggests the insertion of the following subsection:
(i) providing for the prescribing of anti-parasitic veterinary medicinal products and vaccines by veterinary practitioners whereby a veterinary practitioner does not have a client-patient-practice-relationship with the person to whom the prescription is issued.
The Minister will know that every stakeholder in every sector we have discussed this with feels the regulation is unworkable. They told us that. We outlined in our own report how we felt this could be addressed. The Minister told us that it was not possible to move to that position. As a result, amendment No. 7 represents a compromise. The amendment would address the issue that has been raised by licensed merchants and others. It would achieve this by allowing a veterinarian to issue a prescription for these products when not on a farm. Effectively, a person could go into his or her local merchant as normal, and the veterinarian working at the local merchant could be contacted and issued a prescription to be dispensed by the responsible person. Obviously, this is a point of discussion on which we have deliberated as a committee. I know the Minister has been engaged in several conversations in that vein. To us, this is the pivotal aspect of this piece of legislation and these deliberations. If we can get this issue right and get this amendment accepted then many of the concerns that have been raised with us can be addressed. Does the Cathaoirleach also want me to discuss amendment No. 8?
Yes. We are discussing amendments Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive.
Amendment No. 8 would make the following change: "In page 10, line 38, after “persons” to insert “, following notification to the prescription holder”." We recognise that he Minister has gone some way to addressing the farmers in respect of data processing. They tell us that concerns remain, however.
The power invested in the Minister under section 7 is quite broad. The section outlines the persons with whom information held on the national database may be shared and, in some cases, why that information will be shared with them. The questions that naturally arise in this regard relate to what type of data will be shared. Will it be on individual farmers, as requested by those referenced? Will they be aggravated data? The approach outlined here strikes me as very blunt. The "as needed" style actually goes against the spirit of the GDPR. Data is rightfully gathered for purposes. We must be clear that it is only used for that purpose. At the very least, farmers are entitled to know with whom their information is being shared. This should be fairly straightforward in an electronic system. If a farmer's information is transferred to another authority, he or she would simply receive a notification that it has occurred and, ideally, he or she would be told why that was the case.
A particular area of concern might be around the clause related to Bord Bia and quality assurance, for example. The language used is "for the purpose of quality assurance inspections and processes." People need to receive an undertaking that Bord Bia will engage with farmers directly and seek permission to utilise their data in this way if that is being sought. The Chair will recall that during the Second Stage debate, I queried whether a data protection impact assessment had been carried out. I would welcome if the Minister could confirm that has been done.
I call Deputy Fitzmaurice.
I will speak in support of amendment No. 7. Every one of us present put a report together. The Department is well aware of a middle ground that is achievable, as is the Veterinary Council of Ireland.
I hope there is no stalling going on, because this is fundamental for farmers and for access for farmers. The Minister is also concerned about access. He said it earlier. We put a report together, and I think this is a fair way of trying to resolve the issue. To be quite frank, I hope the Minister accepts this.
I thank Deputies Carthy and Fitzmaurice. All the amendments are of interest, but the one that is of most interest and the one on which we have had most discussion so far is amendment No. 7, which relates to the capacity to prescribe other than by farm visit. That is a matter in respect of which I have had significant engagement with all stakeholders from the outset. What this legislation is designed to do overall is address issues in regard to antiparasitic and antimicrobial resistance. That is an objective we all support. That is important, but what is equally important is that in making the changes, putting additional checks in place and dealing with the need for a prescription, we do not see an impact on the availability of products and the routes of supply for farmers that have existed up to now. We must find a mechanism to allow licensed merchants and pharmacists who have been part of the supply chain for farmers and from whom they have purchased up to now to remain in the market. We must ensure that competition and the various avenues of supply continue and that we do not impact on them. I have been very committed to that from the outset. My objective in introducing this legislation is to ensure that those avenues for farmers to be able to purchase where they have purchased before remain.
That is my absolute commitment and mission here, and it has been from the start. It has been the subject of many meetings that I have had. I have had engagements with Members in the Oireachtas committee. I have engaged with the Chairman in particular and other committee members as well on this. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that those avenues remain open in terms of the outcome and implementation of this legislation. If necessary, I am considering bringing forward an amendment on Report Stage to address that. I am still in the process of engaging with stakeholders. I am having engagements with the Veterinary Council of Ireland on achieving that outcome as well. That work is ongoing. If necessary, I will bring forward an amendment on Report Stage to ensure that outcome. I have been committed from the outset to ensuring that while we address the issues of resistance to antiparasitics and antimicrobials, we do not impact on the competition that is available and the prices that farmers pay. This is in order that there will not be a reduction in the number of outlets from which these products can be purchased. We must change the way we prescribe them and the culture around how we use them. We must ensure that the massive issues relating to resistance that have developed are addressed and improve the situation, because it is a slippery slope to a lot of these products becoming ineffectual. The latter would have an impact not just on animal health but also on the effectiveness of medicines relating to human health. It is an important part of the business model of many businesses and we must recognise that. We want to maintain that. I am continuing the work in this regard and I intend to have it concluded by Report Stage. I am indicating here today that I will potentially bring forward an amendment on Report Stage in order to deal with the matter.
While I am clear on the matter Deputy Carthy is seeking to address, namely, the one we have just been discussing, I am of the view that the amendment would not achieve its purpose in this regard. The amendment I will bring forward, if necessary, would be more precise and it would achieve the purpose required. For example, Deputy Carthy's amendment does not provide any enablement power for the Minister to propose an appropriate alternative. It does not provide for the Minister to bring in a regulation. It highlights the issue but does not provide the Minister with the capacity to bring forward an alternative. The amendment provides a prohibition in respect of a description, which is the "client-patient-practice-relationship", but does not define what that is. I understand the intent behind the amendment. I am putting down a marker here today that this may be a matter in respect of which I will bring forward an amendment on Report Stage. Regardless, my absolute objective, as it has been from the start, which has been the subject of extensive work and engagement, is to make sure that in the outcome we do not have an adverse impact. We want to ensure there will continue to be competition in the market so that farmers will have the same capacity to have a choice of suppliers and we also recognise the important role that these products play in a lot of local rural business models as well.
I will touch on the other amendments.
Will we have a discussion on that one first?
Then we will go to the others. That is going to be the most contentious.
All Deputies are aware from when we compiled the report that this is the real sticky issue. Whatever is going on in the Veterinary Council, Deputy McConalogue is the Minister. That is the bottom line. He is the one who can call it. We do not want a watery answer. We do not want words and phrases like "may", "hopefully" and "we will look at it". We want clarification on this. We want the Minister to tell us straight out that he is going to facilitate this on Report Stage. If he does that, everyone will be reasonable. We cannot have a watery sort of a thing whereby the word "might" is used or it is stated that we will talk about this and than and then look at the matter for Report Stage. We understand the need for the Minister to specify that he can introduce regulations but, to be honest about it, we need definite clarification. This is a big sticking issue in the whole aspect of this Bill. Regardless of the Veterinary Council or who is whispering in his ear trying to turn him a different way, would he please do this for farmers? This is the one thing I will ask of him. We are not going to be unreasonable regarding the Bill. In fairness, we have all put a great deal of work into it. We have made our views known throughout the process. It is a frightening and very dangerous way to say we will look at this on Report Stage and we will talk to the Veterinary Council of Ireland. We do not know whether we are coming or going. In fairness to all the Government Deputies, they would support what I am saying in terms of what we have talked about and put together. There is no point in us even submitting reports if nothing is going to be taken on board.
This was an issue and a concern even prior to my being elected to the House. There have been countless discussions at European level and throughout this House. A very real problem has arisen. We have heard evidence in this committee from a number of very important businesses right across rural communities. In some cases they are the economic drivers of those local communities. They have said the businesses are under threat from what I consider to be an unforeseen outworking of the directive. Therefore, we need to come up with a solution. I accept the bona fides of the Minister when he says he is going to try to find a solution, but I difficulty with what he says because this has been going on for so long. There is essentially one more stage whereby members will have an input into the Bill and after that it will be signed off. It is a big request for trust on the part of the Minister. If nothing else, we can push this to a vote tonight. We could then at least state for the record for all time that this is where people stood on the matter. If I thought that this was genuinely going to be resolved on Report Stage, I would not do that because I recognise that the people who have done most work on this are the Cathaoirleach and some of his colleagues.
I will be upfront in saying that this amendment is as reflective of what they have been saying and what they have been doing behind the scenes and in working with stakeholders to try to find a solution to this. The problem is that, on Report Stage, we can resubmit this amendment but we might never get to it because the Minister could guillotine it. Next thing, there is a final vote and the horses have bolted. I hear what the Minister is saying in respect of deficiencies in the amendment. I have consulted with a number of the stakeholders on this. They have told me that this is the type of language they require in order to address that. If the language can be improved we want to hear that feedback. Essentially, the Minister is asking us to withdraw an amendment that has been endorsed by the people who have said this issue will directly affect them and their communities. In its place there is a potential amendment that the Minister may bring forward which he assures us will be better than this one, with whatever caveats are put in place. To cut to the chase, if the Minister can assure us that this issue will be addressed on Report Stage and if he can promise us that he will not guillotine any debate prior to us discussing this issue, if concerns still arise so that at least we can have a final vote on the on the matter, I will withdraw amendment No. 7. I will do so on the basis that we are working together to solve a problem which we all recognise is not an easy one to solve. We know the Attorney General's advice and that of others has created complications. We know there is a European dimension to this and we know the overarching objective of this legislation. The objective is to reduce the prevalence of antimicrobial, antibiotic and antiparasitic resistance that creates huge challenges for humans as well as animal health into the future.
Considering all of that, I ask the Minister to give an assurance that this issue will be addressed, preferably by an amendment of this nature and that no other sector or stakeholders will be allowed to have to have a de facto veto on that, as Deputy FItzmaurice has said. Furthermore, there should be an opportunity to discuss the amendment, be that the Minister's or this amendment being resubmitted, on Report Stage in the Dáil, prior to any guillotine being applied. In that case, we will withdraw amendment No. 7, Cathaoirleach.
I think the Minister is strong and committed and I respect what the two previous speakers have said. We put a lot of work into this. If this committee stands for anything, it stands for trust. We all worked together on this to try to get a compromise that would work for everybody. I think the Minister has been fairly strong. I trust him and I feel he has given us the reassurance we need. I understand that he and his officials have a job to do but we also have a job to do. Our job is to represent our constituents in rural Ireland. I will be voting with the Government but I do not want to be put into a situation where I will have to vote for something I do not believe in. I do not believe this is right and I know the Attorney General has given advice on the matter. However, Attorneys General have got it wrong before. We went to the High Court and the Supreme Court and lost cases because of decisions made by Attorneys General. They come and go, as do politicians. Businesses come and go as well but they need to survive. They have never gone through a more difficult time and this is a big part of their business. I am trusting the Minister and he has my support. I think he has given us the reassurances we need. I will be supporting it, either way. I do not want to be put in a similar position as happened with a previous committee where we worked together to compile a very strong report. I think the Opposition members tonight have been very fair and I would hope that the Minister can really reassure us but I take him at his word and I am supporting him.
I have been adamant from the outset that I am determined to achieve an outcome which, while addressing the resistance issues, will ensure the system is robust and changes the approach which has led to increasing resistance in recent years. Alongside that, we need to ensure that we do not impact on the supply options and the choices available to farmers in their local areas. We also need to ensure that we recognise the importance of this current supply in many firms' business models.
This has been a challenging process to work on as the members are aware because they have worked their way through it. It has been considered on Committee Stage so the members know it is not straightforward. I have had extensive engagement with stakeholders and that work is continuing. Allow me to make it clear that, if necessary, I will be bringing forward an amendment on Report Stage to address this. Either way, I am committed to ensuring that the outcome is one which ensures the choice and supply options remain so that while we improve and address the resistance issues, the supply chains, choice and competition remain in the systems as well.
The guillotine will not be applied.
I have never applied the guillotine for any agriculture Bills. I know it has happened for some Bills but certainly not for agriculture. I do not recall any instance.
The Forestry (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2020. We got as far as amendment No. 1 on it.
The Deputy has a better memory than me.
There has only been one other so in 50% of cases the guillotine has been applied.
This is important and it is something the members have given a lot of time to. I will work with the Whip to ensure there is enough time provided in the Oireachtas on Report Stage to fully discuss it. I am committed to ensuring what we introduce does not impact on the choice available to farmers or have an effect on important businesses in local communities.
On the basis of what the Minister has said, an element of trust is needed. I am getting it in the ear both ways on this but it is out of respect for the Chair and the members of this committee in recognition of their efforts to have this matter resolved that I do not want them to be forced to vote in a way that runs contrary to that. I hope the Minister's officials are hearing this as well, that we are working on the basis that we find a solution to this issue in line with what amendment No. 7 says. Whatever language and whatever formula is used to find that is fine with me but we need to have this issue resolved. I will withdraw the amendment.
We will get to that in a minute, Deputy. As the Minister mentioned, some of us have been doing a lot of work with him and his officials and the stakeholders. The Minister has given commitments here that he will bring an amendment forward on Report Stage, if necessary. Most important, he has said we will get the opportunity on Report Stage to debate it and that no guillotine will apply. This committee has compiled a report and this issue was the focal point of the report, where we made recommendations to the Minister. I know the Minister has taken the recommendations on board and he has clearly stated that he is committed to finding a solution that will allow merchants and co-ops to operate their businesses with as little hindrance as possible from this legislation. I welcome the Minister's comments and I hope on Report Stage we get the solution we all want. We want resistance in the animal herd to be reduced but we also want a Bill that will allow competition for these products to be unhindered. No one will have a monopoly on the sale of products and the availability of products we have at the moment will continue. We are all very much in favour of achieving the aspirations of the Bill. Reducing resistance for both animal and human health is essential. We have had a good discussion and I appreciate the work the Minister is doing to achieve the solution we all want.
I acknowledge the work done by the Cathaoirleach and the members on this issue. He is not here today, but I give a particular mention to Senator Paul Daly who has done very strong work on this as well.
My officials have been working hard on this and have put a lot of time and effort into it. We will continue to work to ensure the desired outcome is achieved. We will revisit it on Report Stage if necessary and ensure there is time to consider the issue fully.
That was amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 5, also in the names of Deputies Carthy and Martin Browne, proposes to delete the reference in section 6 to "prescription and dispensing" and substitute "prescription, dispensing and prescription endorsement". I thank the Deputies for the amendment but I do not propose to accept it on the basis that the national veterinary prescription system allows for veterinary prescriptions to be marked as dispensed on the system. It is not my intention to require additional endorsing to be completed outside of the system. However, if there is a legal requirement for pharmacists to do so, then the NVPS will allow for physical copies to be obtained and endorsed, as required, for that purpose.
Amendment No. 6 proposes to insert, on page 10, after the word "feed", "including the timeframe in which the recording of a prescription with the NVPS must occur". This would prohibit vets from being able to carry out treatment in an emergency situation. For that reason, the amendment is not appropriate and I do not propose to accept it. This is a matter the veterinary prescription system can address administratively. It is important to consider that in many cases a veterinary practitioner will be treating an animal in an emergency situation. I would not want to put an unnecessary burden on veterinary practitioners at the time of treating animals. Therefore, it is more appropriate that such matters be considered administratively within the context of the design and use of the NVPS, rather than in legislation.
We have already had substantive discussion on amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 8 proposes that in page 10, line 38, after "persons", to insert ", following notification to the prescription holder". This amendment is not necessary as much of the information sharing will involve gross data. Where information relating to prescription holders is for the performance of regulatory and statutory functions of the listed bodies, I cannot interfere with their functions. Any such notifications may prejudice the work of those regulatory and statutory bodies. For these reasons, I do not propose to accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 11 proposes to insert the following in section 12:
The Minister may make further regulations specifying the categories of veterinary medicinal products designated "prescription only" under paragraph 1 or "prescription only exempt" under paragraph 2 of Part 1 of the Schedule, taking due regard to the required training and expertise of the dispenser as well as the complexity of medicine to be administered or dispensed.
While I understand the intention of the amendment, I do not consider it appropriate or necessary. The designation of who may retail different categories of veterinary medicines is always given utmost consideration and is a serious matter that takes account of many criteria. This is already comprehensively covered. For that reason, I do not intend to accept the amendment.
On a point of clarification, I have not spoken to amendment No. 11 as I did not know it was included in this group.
The Deputy may speak to it now.
This amendment seeks to take account of concerns raised with us by pharmacists regarding what they consider to be a fundamental issue in respect of their prescribing of veterinary medicines. We agreed as a committee that there is a need for a particular solution for pharmacists, given the code of conduct of the Veterinary Council of Ireland prohibits them from having professional relationships. In other words, they cannot have a vet on hand to write prescriptions. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the Minister, in the first instance, to make additional product prescriptions exempt for pharmacists. A contradiction arises here in that the advice being given to people is to seek advice from their pharmacists rather than going straight to their GPs, whereas farmers are being sent first to their vets for a prescription and then to pharmacists to dispense veterinary medicinal products, including vaccines. Pharmacists are well and adequately qualified to manage such prescribing. I am disappointed the Minister will not accept this amendment and is not proposing to bring forward any other proposal to address this anomaly, which has been highlighted to us by an important sector.
Is amendment No. 5 being pressed?
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 10, line 10, after "feed" to insert ", including the timeframe in which the recording of a prescription within the NVPS must occur".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 10, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
"(i) providing for the prescribing of anti-parasitic veterinary medicinal products and vaccines by veterinary practitioners whereby a veterinary practitioner does not have a client-patient-practice-relationship with the person to whom the prescription is issued."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 10, line 38, after "persons" to insert ", following notification to the prescription holder".
I asked whether a data impact assessment has been carried out in respect of this aspect of the legislation.
That impact assessment is with the team, which is awaiting this legislation. We have engaged on it with the data protection officer, DPO, who has indicated satisfaction with it. The assessment will be completed before the NVPS goes live.
To clarify, has the impact assessment not yet been completed?
It requires the legislation to be passed for the full assessment to be done.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 11, to delete lines 35 and 36 and substitute the following:
"(a) specifying the information to be recorded on and the manner, method or form of recording information on or transmitting it to, the national database,".
This is a technical amendment to ensure the exact format of the data third-party software companies need to provide to the NVPS can be specified. Transmission to the database refers to the fact most vets will use their own software, which is then sent in readable format to the NVPS, as opposed to vets interacting directly with the NVPS.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Does the Minister want the meeting to be suspended at this point?
Sections 8 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 11
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 14, line 16, after “pharmacist” to insert “or a retail responsible person”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 12
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 14, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:
“(3) The Minister may make further regulations specifying the categories of veterinary medicinal products designated “prescription only” under paragraph 1 or “prescription only exempt” under paragraph 2 of Part 1 of the Schedule, taking due regard to the required training and expertise of the dispenser as well as the complexity of medicine to be administered or dispensed.”.
I will press amendment No. 11 to a vote. If the Minister has somewhere else to go, I can hold off.
We can come back to it in the morning.
Does the Minister wish to suspend the meeting?
If the amendment will go to a vote, I do.
Can we not deal with the rest of the parts now? The Minister has not given any indication that, on Report Stage, he will consider revisiting the issue that has been raised with regard to pharmacists.
I can reflect on it further, but it is not something I am of a mind to do. We can come back to it on Report Stage.
Will the Minister agree to engage with the pharmacists again, before Report Stage?
We have already engaged with them. We have considered and have a clear view on it, but we can come back to it tomorrow morning.
Is this listed for tomorrow morning?
A decision has to be made now.
I will have a problem. We have made commitments, which we will honour.
I was just going to say that.
There was nothing listed for this tomorrow.
We finish it here, tonight. We will not be here tomorrow. I have commitments, which I will honour.
If the Chairman wishes to keep going, we will keep going.
As there is a vote in the Dáil, we will suspend the meeting.
Sitting suspended at 7.02 p.m. and resumed at 7.52 p.m.
The Deputy is pressing the amendment. We will ring the bells.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Browne, Martin.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Collins, Michael.
- Fitzmaurice, Michael.
Níl
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Leddin, Brian.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- Ring, Michael.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 12 agreed to.
Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 15, line 29, to delete “the dividing” and substitute “at the time of sale, the dividing”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 16
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 16, lines 5 to 18, to delete all words from and including “(1) A” in line 5 down to and including line 18 and substitute the following:
“(1) A person who retails a veterinary medicinal product that has been divided and is not in its original outer packaging shall—
(a) provide a copy of the original data sheet in respect of the product supplied by the manufacturer with the product, or
(b) label the product or ensure that it is labelled when retailed, with at least the following information:
(i) the proprietary name of the product,
(ii) the words “for animal treatment only”,
(iii) the species to be treated,
(iv) the manner of administration,
(v) the dosage and duration of treatment,
(vi) the name of the person to whom the product is retailed,
(vii) the name and business address of the retailer,
(viii) precautions regarding administration of the product and any withdrawal period,
(ix) if applicable, special import licence information, and
(x) any other information specified in regulations made by the Minister necessary to safeguard public and animal health and the environment.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 18, to delete line 18 and substitute the following:
“(c) not retail the product except to an end user of the product or a veterinarian in small quantities, in accordance with Article 99 of the VMP Regulation,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 20
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 19, line 40, to delete “or” and substitute “of”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 21 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 24
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 23, line 16, to delete “at a distance.” and substitute the following:
“at a distance, unless the product is purchased in accordance with procedures as laid out by the competent authority concerned as permitted by Article 106(3) of the VMP Regulation.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 23, line 20, after “of” to insert “the”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 25
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 24, line 17, to delete “veterinary”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 24, line 22, to delete “veterinary”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 24, to delete lines 24 to 26 and substitute the following:
“(b) for the purposes of Article 112, 113 or 114 of the VMP Regulation, that has not been granted a marketing authorisation by the competent authority or the European Commission,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 26 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 31
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 27, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
“(c) the import of a medicinal product to be supplied to an educational facility or other institution concerned with education or training for the purposes of such education or training, or”.
My amendment is necessary to enable us to provide educational facilities and centres of excellence to access niche medicines for educational or training purposes.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 32 and 33 agreed to.
SECTION 34
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 29, line 32, after “manner” to insert “and contain such information”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 34, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 35 to 46, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 47
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 40, line 27, to delete “that a particular such licence,” and substitute “such a licence”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 47, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 48 to 50, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 51
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 42, line 39, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 51, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 52 to 54, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 55
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 45, after line 38, to insert the following:
“(5) The Minister may by order specify an amount not exceeding €1,000 in place of the amount specified in subsection (1)(b) and different amounts may be specified in respect of different offences.
(6) Every order made by the Minister under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the order is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House sits after the order is laid before it, the order shall be annulled accordingly, but without 4 [SECTION 55] prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under it.”.
My amendment is necessary to provide for the ability to vary the amounts of a fixed-payment notice under order. The provision is in line with the provision provided for in the agricultural and food supply recently before this committee.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 55, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 56 and 57 agreed to.
SECTION 58
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 47, to delete line 8 and substitute the following: “(a) by substituting for the definition of “fertiliser” the following:”
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 47, to delete line 19 and substitute the following: “(b) by substituting for the definition of “the Minister” the following:”
Amendment agreed to.
Section 58, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 59 and 60 agreed to.
SECTION 61
Amendment No. 28 is in the names of Deputies Michael Collins, Danny Healy-Rae, Michael Healy-Rae, Mattie McGrath, Carol Nolan and Richard O'Donoghue.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 52, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
“Fertiliser Price Transparency and Fairness
7E. (1) The Minister shall make regulations within 60 days of this Act coming into effect to enforce, monitor and review price transparency of all agricultural fertiliser products being sold to farmers, to ensure price stability, equity, and fairness in all parts of the country, so that all farmers including those in rural areas can be assured of products sold at a fair price.”.
Many of my constituents have contacted me about the varying price of fertilisers and how they are being hit pretty hard in terms of the prices charged by the co-ops. I know that the weather has been rough and people may not have been able to spread fertiliser in recent times so farmers are very anxious to do so but were struck by the difference in price. For example, one supplier in County Kildare charged €600 but the co-ops in County Cork charged €800, which left farmers feeling very angry and they asked me to table a motion to that effect. The supplier in County Kildare said that it cost €640 per tonne or urea but that the price included delivery to west Cork. Therefore, this issue needs to be raised and we need some regulation on the pricing of fertiliser.
I understand the point made by the Deputy but I do not believe that the amendment would achieve that purpose. As he knows, we have introduced very comprehensive legislation on the food supply chain. I do not believe amendment No. 28 is fit for purpose regarding the issue raised.
I realise that the fertiliser market is challenging. It is an open market so anyone can import fertiliser from anywhere, including Northern Ireland. There is lots of opportunity for many businesses to import.
I understand the recent price challenge. As members will know, I introduced the fodder scheme last year and provided up to €1,000 per farm family to support them with additional costs. The scheme will operate again this year and I forward paid a significant part of that at the end of last year. We are starting to see international prices come down. We need to see that happen and reflected in our domestic market as well and I concur with the fact that we need to see that. Finally, I reiterate that the amendment is not appropriate to achieve that purpose.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Browne, Martin.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Collins, Michael.
- Fitzmaurice, Michael.
Níl
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Leddin, Brian.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- Ring, Michael.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 53, to delete lines 7 and 8 and substitute the following:
“materials only;(xii) the date, means and country of import of the product; and(xiii) the date of manufacture or transfer of product,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 53, to delete lines 16 and 17 and substitute the following:
“(iv) the date and quantity of the fertiliser product acquired, transferred or returned.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 55, line 24, after “statute” to insert “anonymised”.
Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are related and propose to ensure that when information is being shared with third parties, such as meat or food processors, it is provided on an anonymous basis so that individual farmers are not identified.
These amendments arise from concerns expressed by many of the farming organisations about how data would be used under the provisions of the Bill. As Deputy Carthy said, references to anonymity were removed and we propose that the word "anonymised" be reinstated given the concerns expressed to us by the farming organisations.
I thank Deputies Carthy and Browne for raising this issue. I do not propose to accept the amendment on the basis that I have taken steps to ensure that the data collected under the Bill comply with all aspects of GDPR rules and requirements. It is anticipated that 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 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 do not propose to accept amendment No. 32 either on the basis that I have taken steps to ensure the data collected comply with GDPR.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 55, line 28, after “Minister,” to insert “anonymised”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 61, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 62 to 64, inclusive, agreed to.
SCHEDULE
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 63, line 23, after “a” where it firstly occurs to insert “pharmacy or”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 63, line 29, before “from” to insert “by a retail responsible person".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 63, to delete line 33 and substitute the following:
“(b) from a veterinary premises to which a certificate of suitability granted under section 109 of the Act of 2005 applies,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 64, to delete line 5 and substitute “POM”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 64, to delete line 7 and substitute “POM(E)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
I reiterate that Sinn Féin's support for the further passage of this Bill is dependent on the Minister realising his commitments in respect of our amendment No. 7. That issue needs to be addressed if the Bill is to be assured of the support of the Dáil.
In fairness to Deputy Cahill, Senator Paul Daly and the Deputies present, they have done a great deal of work inside and outside the committee on amendment No. 7. The Deputies will be placed in an awkward position in the Dáil. In my view, the Cathaoirleach needs to crack the whip on whoever is trying to block the proposal to make sure it is facilitated. This is not ideal but it is a middle ground that could be workable for all parties involved. The committee has worked well with the Cathaoirleach and been fair. We do not want to see a situation in the Dáil where we would put his colleagues under pressure.
Does the Minister wish to make a comment?
I have been clear from the outset. Working with the committee, the Cathaoirleach and colleagues in my own party, I am determined to bring in legislation that addresses the resistance issues and is robust but does not reduce the choice or competition available in local areas, particularly for farmers, and recognises the importance of supplying these products to a number of local businesses. I have been clear about that objective from the outset. We all know the challenges there have been working through the legislation. We looked at different ways to address this matter and much progress has been made. That work is ongoing. It is my full commitment to reach a workable and good outcome on Report Stage that achieves that objective, which has been consistent from the start. I may well return with an amendment on Report Stage, if necessary, to achieve that.
Everybody has worked in good faith. My team has put a great deal of work into this and has also worked in good faith throughout the process. I thank members for their engagement today and the efficient work they have done to bring this Bill through Committee Stage. I look forward to continuing to work before Report Stage on the commitments I have given and to expediting the legislation through both Houses.
