Carol Nolan warns failure to seek derogation risks 3,000 jobs

I'd just like to thank you both for your very comprehensive presentations there and it is of huge concern to rural TDs like myself, I'm from Lee Shoffley, and many rural TDs, you know, it's about job retention in our rural communities as well and I understand that there will be significant job losses should this derogation not be sought. It's also very concerning that it will lead to the creation of a cartel and a monopoly but more concerning is the fact that it's another financial burden that farmers just do not need. farmers who are struggling to already make a living do not need another financial burden. So I'm very concerned about the whole situation and I believe that in addition to political will we need common sense here. It's not rocket science and I think that what needs to be done here is the derogation needs to be sought and that will put the issue to bed hopefully and enable 3,000 jobs to be protected. But I have a number of questions. Do you believe that your right to earn a living as pharmacists or responsible persons will be adversely impacted upon should the department not get the derogation? My next question is, is the UK operating a similar system? What type of a system are they operating and could that be used by a model as a model here or as a template? My final question relates to Scandinavia. I understand that Denmark and Sweden have separated prescribing and dispensing and I'm just wondering in terms of solutions, could that be a possible solution here? Because I understand that it is working very effectively in those Scandinavian countries and that should we hit an obstacle and we shouldn't because after all the derogation is there to be sought and that should be the end of it. Thank you very much, Terence O'Shea on behalf of the Independent Licensed Merchants Association. First of all, I'm a licensed merchant in that I operate two licensed merchant premises. Both are registered with the Department of Agriculture and I'm also a responsible person. So, I've been 38 years in the industry and I think when I set out, first of all, I never thought I'd appear before a joint Oireachtas committee in the hope of saving my business that I've worked hard to establish over a number of years. So, I think it was basically on the Carol Nolan question and I think it was to do with the earn a living from my profession as a responsible person and would I be affected? And honestly, the answer is yes. Yes, I would. And yes, I would. And yes, licensed merchants would be. We've no doubt that job losses and the potential for business closures will be a consequence if the DEFM fails to avail of the derogation as provided for in Article 1054. We also believe that there's a responsibility in elected representatives, appointed ministers and public servants to promote enterprise and employment. We also believe that any regulation, directive or legislation that fails to promote these objectives should be enacted. And I'd also like to go on and say that if the DEFM proceed to introduce the legislation, it will result in job losses and business closures. Many merchants like myself are dependent on antiparasitic medicines as our primary source of income and we will be forced to close. Others who offer a wider range of essential foreign products will exit the industry, resulting in large scale job losses. We believe multi site merchants will find some locations unviable and they will close. And the important thing in all of this is the chief veterinary officer, Dr. Martin Blake, in his letter to Europe, he has made it quite clear that he sees issues arising in regard to competitiveness in the marketplace. If some of the if some of the if some of the existing outlets are forced to close. And I think it's probably important that I draw the attention of the committee to EU Directive 2109633 on anti-competitive and unfair trading practices in the agricultural and food supply chain. This directive will prohibit unfair trading practices being imposed on one trading partner by another. This was adopted on the 17th of April 2019, is legally binding on all EU states. And I think the emphasis here is that as of now and as late as yesterday, I had a licensed merchant in touch with me who said his turnover over the past six weeks was affected to the tune of 32,000 euros. Because a number of his farmer clients were unable to secure prescriptions from a veterinary practice that had moved into the area that were involved in the sale of veterinary medicines themselves. And they were making it quite clear to the farmer they had the product on the shelf. They were providing the prescription and that's where the farmer should be purchasing his products. And we think the retention of veterinary prescriptions, which a farmer client is legally entitled to, for a sole economic reason, will be in breach of this new Directive 2109633. And the question I'd ask is, can we introduce legislation which will encourage this malpractice? And I would describe what's happening at the moment with the retention prescriptions as a malpractice. It currently exists. People who are doing it are already in breach of the Animal Remedies Act 2007. We're proposing to introduce new legislation which will encourage this and that in turn will clearly be contrary to the provisions of EU Directive 2109633. So that's a case for a person. I'm sorry. I'll let you know that. I should have to add more guidance for everyone. I shall just say, can we talk to you next time? You know, we don't know if you're going to do it all this time. I'll just be right back. Do it all the time. I'll just wash with you next time. I'll just take a minute on the back. So if you are going to let it all go down a bit, I'll just give a minute on the table. And we'll just give a minute on that. And we'll give you applause for the resistance. And we'll just give you a bit more. And we'll just put it all up. Since we're going down a little bit, I'll just get a little bit. Do it all the way we'll try and do that again.