Michael Fitzmaurice warns SI risks losing small livestock suppliers
Michael Fitzmaurice spoke about a statutory instrument (SI) affecting veterinary medicines supply, warning it risks eroding access for farmers and small merchants. He criticised the department's lack of engagement with "responsible persons", highlighted prescription and therapeutic-use problems tied to faecal sampling, and raised concerns about market concentration by co-ops.
He said the department did not engage with the local "responsible person" in co-ops or small suppliers and questioned whether any system was put in place to upgrade or work with those individuals. He emphasised uncertainty over the future role of the responsible person under the SI and pressed for clarity on whether they had been contacted.
He flagged a key problem in the way the SI and prescribing protocol are written - a faecal sample can convert routine dosing into a therapeutic use and, by doing so, make a prescription contravene the SI. That prescription-and-therapeutic-use issue was identified as one of the major stumbling blocks that must be resolved.
He warned of a risk that co-ops could dominate the market, pushing farmers into buying a full range of inputs exclusively from them, while small merchants and pharmacies provide important alternative services. He argued a "happy medium" is needed so farmers retain access to vets, co-ops, small operators and pharmacies across rural areas.
He relayed the assessment from the group he represented, the ILMA, which covers about 350 small merchants across the counties. That assessment counted 38 merchants they believed would remain in business if the department made the amendments they sought; the speakers also warned of losing eight out of nine members and estimated a potential outcome of only five to ten survivors out of 350 under current proposals.
He said he would raise the issues with the department and called for amendments to the SI and prescribing protocol so the market can balance itself and farmers retain access to medicines and local supply services. The emphasis was on practical fixes to maintain rural veterinary services and protect small suppliers.
Department engagement and the 'responsible person'
He said the department did not engage with the local "responsible person" in co-ops or small suppliers and questioned whether any system was put in place to upgrade or work with those individuals. He emphasised uncertainty over the future role of the responsible person under the SI and pressed for clarity on whether they had been contacted.
Prescribing rules and faecal samples
He flagged a key problem in the way the SI and prescribing protocol are written - a faecal sample can convert routine dosing into a therapeutic use and, by doing so, make a prescription contravene the SI. That prescription-and-therapeutic-use issue was identified as one of the major stumbling blocks that must be resolved.
Co-ops versus small merchants
He warned of a risk that co-ops could dominate the market, pushing farmers into buying a full range of inputs exclusively from them, while small merchants and pharmacies provide important alternative services. He argued a "happy medium" is needed so farmers retain access to vets, co-ops, small operators and pharmacies across rural areas.
Impact on small merchants and ILMA figures
He relayed the assessment from the group he represented, the ILMA, which covers about 350 small merchants across the counties. That assessment counted 38 merchants they believed would remain in business if the department made the amendments they sought; the speakers also warned of losing eight out of nine members and estimated a potential outcome of only five to ten survivors out of 350 under current proposals.
Next steps and calls for amendment
He said he would raise the issues with the department and called for amendments to the SI and prescribing protocol so the market can balance itself and farmers retain access to medicines and local supply services. The emphasis was on practical fixes to maintain rural veterinary services and protect small suppliers.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Other speeches
Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →
George Lawlor
George Lawlor: Accuses Israel of 'Ethnic Cleansing' in Gaza
Sharon Keogan
Sharon Keogan urges end to prohibition on gender debate
Danny Healy-Rae
Danny Healy-Rae Defends Local Vet Service Amid SI Concerns
Martin Daly
Martin Daly on 'mental disorder' definition - urges clinical clarity
Victor Boyhan
Victor Boyhan on Institutional Abuse: Thanks, Memory, Progress
Martin Daly
Martin Daly calls for clarity on involuntary admission criteria
Transcript
Thanks for coming in. I'll hit you with just a few quick ones. The responsible person, was there any, did the department bring those people in or make any effort to try and talk to them or work with them? From my knowledge, no. I suppose the question though, Deputy, I suppose, is there, have you more detail behind that? Because they do meet with the responsible persons because they're the ultimately, I suppose, governed... In relation to this, as I have to say, the responsible person in the local place where we get the medicines or in a co-op or whatever, is that person, has that person been contacted by the department or was any system put together to try and work with them to upgrade them or do anything like that, which they could have the qualification to be the responsible person with more letters after their name, we'll put it that way. Deputy, I'll come in on that one. I suppose it's just not that simple of an answer. In the grand scheme of things, the answer is no. If you look through the detail within the SI, I suppose many of us are unsure of the role of the responsible person going forward. We have all of these responsible persons within our businesses, but ultimately, it's a vet that's going to do the prescribing and the terms and conditions are required to comply with the proper assessment protocol. Before now, I'm not talking about now, but when this was starting off, was there any engagement to try and see could it be resolving? At that point, there was no engagement with responsible persons. That's all I want to know. I think that a happy medium needs to be brought to this for the simple reason we need vids. Farmers need vids around the country. And in fairness, I know in my own parts of the country, we get a good service in most places too. We need the co-ops, we need the small operators like, don't you want to call them Tully or places like that, that sell the dust and stuff, and the pharmacies do it. And we need to strike a happy medium between all of them. But there's a problem, and I will talk to the department after a while, but there's a problem arising that if I had cattle, at the beginning of the year, if I wanted to go in for, say, fluke and worms dose that you give every year, it's not therapeutic. But if you do a faecal sample, am I right in saying that then you have to have the prescription with it, that the vids from a fair can it give? Is that fair to say? Is that the big problem? Yeah, that is one of the problems with the way the SI is written, because now it becomes a therapeutic use. If you do a faecal sample... It becomes a therapeutic use, and now you've contravened the SI if you write the prescription. Right. So that's one of the major stumbling blocks that need sorting, would you agree with that? Yeah. Is there a balance then, and I'll put it to you, Ray, because you're on the co-op side of it. But co-ops have a tendency, and there would be a fear in this as well from farmers, and I'll be clear on this because I have to call it straight, that co-ops want you to buy, if you're a dairy man and they want you to buy the milk, or the fertilizer, and they want you to buy the meal, and they want you to buy everything. And was there a danger that if co-ops got too much control as well, that they would have everyone schooled into the one corner of buying everything off them, and they could go nowhere else? How do you balance that? Tell me. That's perfectly balanced. No, but how do you balance it? Because at the moment, if you look at it, you can buy a calf now, you have to buy the milk replacer, you have to buy the meal off them, you have to do everything right up along until that calf goes to wherever is the deal of where they're going. How do you balance that? They are a totally different outfit compared with the small merchant down the country that you run in and you get your dust and stuff off, or a pharmacy. How do you balance that? Well, I would contend my colleagues in this particular argument in the alliance are the balance to that. They are independent people, actively competing with the co-ops and keeping the co-ops honest. So I have no issue whatsoever with the particular proposition put forward. It's balanced by the marketplace. And that's, again, one of our contentions for this SI to be amended, is to allow the market to balance itself, not to keep it 75% skewed towards one operator. So I have no issue with that, Deputy, at all. Terence, you reckon that there could be 500 to 600, is it outfits or individuals or what last, if this goes the route it's going at the moment? So the group that I represent the ILMA, we would basically, we'd be articulating the difficulties and the views of about 350 small merchants throughout all of the 26 counties, myself included. And our view on it is, and we have done a fairly substantial, we'll say, assessment of the different, you know, did everybody buy into it? No, they didn't. But the feedback that we were getting was, we could actually count 38 merchants that we genuinely believed would remain in business if the officials in the department were to make what we considered would be the appropriate amendments both to the SI and the prescribing protocol. So in that alone, we're losing eight out of every nine members we have. If the amendments are not... With the new legislation? Yes. Even if it was changed? Even if it was changed, we will lose eight out of nine. Sorry, and our belief is, if the amendments are made, we estimate that we will probably end up with about somewhere between five and ten out of 350. Thanks.