Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am glad the Bill has come before the Dáil following the need to bring it forward and given the need to transpose the EU directive. There has been some controversy in the lead-up to this and I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute on it.

Events over the past year or so have really driven home the importance of a thriving and sustainable indigenous agrifood sector. With that in mind, this is an important and laudable Bill. It will have significant effects on the modernisation of our agriculture sector, on meeting our climate ambitions, and crucially, on our farmers and how they will operate. While it is a laudable, necessary and well intentioned Bill with some good measures, there are some issues of concern.

I welcome the introduction of measures to enhance our ability to capture information on fertiliser and its use within the State, as well as the introduction of the national fertiliser database. We often hear about the need for a just transition. I believe this is something all of us in the House strongly campaign for and support; certainly the Labour Party does. There is an argument to be made that in no other industry or profession is the concept of a just transition more important than among our farmers and agricultural workers. We know the significance of our agriculture sector in helping us to mitigate the impact of climate change and helping us to achieve our climate goals. Relative to many other industries, farmers are being asked a lot in transforming the way in which they work, and often with fewer resources at their disposal. That they are supported and incentivised to do so is vital. If the national fertiliser database can help us to keep track of and reward them for their efforts through the eco scheme, it will certainly be a good thing. It will, however, take some time to bed in.

I reiterate some of the concerns we heard from stakeholders regarding the administrative burden that will be placed on fertiliser users. We cannot expect everybody to be technologically literate on what will happen in this area in a relatively short time. The database must be designed in such a way to be easily accessible and user-friendly. We do not want a situation of non-compliance due to a complicated administrative process, or people relying on others to carry out data entry or processing for them. This would cause a range of other issues. The process needs to be simple and not overly burdensome. We want to encourage our farmers to avail of the eco scheme and take the necessary actions for the betterment of our agriculture sector. Those who might not be quite so computer literate on how to do this must be supported and the process for doing this must be made as easy as possible.

Some direct material risks contained in the Bill have not been fully dealt with. The principal risk, which happens in quite a number of areas, is that the measures proposed are not from an all-island perspective.

For all its worth, the national fertiliser database and its inherent purpose are undermined by the fact that there are no mechanisms in the Bill to prevent someone crossing the Border into the North and purchasing fertiliser for use in Ireland that could then go unrecorded. I believe that the vast majority of farmers will comply with what is set out in this Bill, but it would be naive not to assume that a small number would avail of loopholes or simply cross the Border to ensure they will have access to fertiliser.

The same applies to the purchase of veterinary medicines. The absence of an all-island approach to the sale and purchase of veterinary medicines is likely to lead to the emergence of a sort of black market, where people can cross the Border and buy a greater range of range of medicines at a lower cost as a result of the measures we are happily introducing, due to the fact that the same does not apply in the other jurisdiction.

Cost is at the heart of some of the issues in the Bill. Again, we recognise that this is a laudable and well-intentioned Bill. There is no doubt antimicrobial resistance is a serious issue that we must tackle. However, there is no escaping the fact that limiting the ability to prescribe medicines solely to veterinarians will reduce competition and the choice of medicines available and, ultimately, no matter what we say, lead to higher costs for farmers. What will happen in that case is that again, unfortunately, people will cross the Border. It is irresponsible that there is no mechanism to prevent this from happening. The implications of having medicines from a different regulatory regime used on the livestock that produces our food on which we thrive and export is obvious. It poses a serious threat to our food quality standards. Furthermore, by not allowing designated persons in co-op branches and licensed merchants to prescribe medicines, the Bill not only negatively impacts farmers, but the co-ops and merchants themselves. If a veterinarian writes a prescription, he or she will have the first opportunity to dispense the medicine and, therefore, not only will this Bill increase the cost of medicines for farmers, but it will directly impact the business of local co-ops and licensed merchants.

We have heard from groups such as the Irish Co-operative Organisation Society, ICOS, and other relevant stakeholders about problems in this Bill. We have also heard their solutions. It is disappointing that some element of these solutions was not introduced in the Bill. While the rationale behind this Bill is laudable, it is obvious that we must have sight of how fertiliser is being used in this country to help us manage and reach our climate ambitions. We must also combat antimicrobial resistance to ensure the sustainability of our agrifood sector. Unfortunately, however, as I have outlined, in some parts of this Bill we are creating issues that will not be resolved. That is something we must tease out on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context