Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses. As they quite rightly said, they have addressed this matter previously. We have been here before and have gone through in detail all the potential pitfalls of what was on the table. With that in mind, there is no need to go back over all that and rehash old ground.

I would like the representatives to elaborate a little more based on their experiences. They have had experience of the NVPS and how it is working since January. From reading their statement, they are saying in a couple of lines that the co-op market has collapsed somewhat. I ask them to elaborate a little more on how that is affecting their businesses in specific instances. Now that we have the draft Bill, which I assume they have read, what changes could be made within the proposed legislation to overcome that?

I would also like ICOS to elaborate a little more on the role of the responsible person, which it seemed to highlight as a potential solution to some, though possibly not all, of the problems its members are encountering under the present system. From my perspective, and I found this in all our deliberations on this issue, there is a serious misconception out there about the relationship between antimicrobial resistance and antiparasitic resistance. I get it and I see the importance of definitive control in respect of antimicrobial resistance because it can have effects on human health or whatever. However, many people do not even realise the situation when they hear "antiparasitic resistance". They correlate it with antimicrobial resistance and see it as being the same thing and a danger to humans, whereas antiparasitic resistance means the resistance of the parasite.

From reading ICOS's statement and from our previous meetings on this, and as a farmer, I believe that if we are to control that and get to the kernel of the antiparasitic resistance, that is, the resistance of the parasite, it is not just a veterinary opinion that is needed. Rather, you need an overall picture of the farm, including the farming background, the land type and the farming habits. In my opinion, in many cases the responsible person within the co-operative, of whom the farmer will be a regular user and from whom he or she will possibly get fertiliser and all the other products, would have a better knowledge of that farmer's farm, his or her farming practices and the other products he or she uses, whether the fertilisers of whatever. The responsible person would probably be better positioned than the vet when it comes to antiparasitic resistance. I would like to hear Mr. Doyle's opinion on that.

I take on board the role technology is going to play in both aspects of ICOS’s submission, namely, those relating to the fertiliser register and the new medicines regulation. How has the organisation been finding that technological interaction so far, since January? With regard to the fertiliser issue, I agree 100%. The major difficulty here relates to the fact the register is going to contain only the fertilisers purchased, but if someone can get 1 tonne or 2 tonnes across the Border or wherever, that is not going to be recorded. That, in itself, defeats the whole purpose of the exercise, which is to address our nutrient input, improve our water quality and so on. While that issue has been highlighted, what would Mr. Doyle suggest as a solution to that problem? What would he see as a good system of recording what is spread, which would be simple enough, you would imagine, as opposed to what is purchased?