Debate contribution: Veterinary Medicines

Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on 21 May 2024.

MLA

Mr Eóin Tennyson

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

21 May 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Veterinary Medicines

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4491541

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Much water has passed under the bridge since the EU referendum in 2016. Indeed, the story of much of the past eight years has been about trying to find the means by which Northern Ireland can live with the outworkings of Brexit. In navigating the myriad of challenges thrown up by leaving the EU, the fact remains that Northern Ireland will need special arrangements to manage our unique circumstances. That truth is inescapable whether we are talking about the backstop, the protocol, the Windsor framework or this latest iteration. That is why Alliance has consistently sought flexibilities and solutions that are specific to Northern Ireland, that are consistent with international law, that protect the Good Friday Agreement and that maintain our dual market access. Today is not about rehashing or relitigating the arguments of the referendum; it is about charting a course towards a bespoke and mutually agreed solution on veterinary medicines. I welcome the Ulster Unionist Party's motion, which gives us an opportunity to debate that aim. The starting point for the debate is to acknowledge that there is an issue. Recent reports suggest that a significant proportion of veterinary medicines used in Northern Ireland may no longer be available when the grace period expires in December 2025. In reality, we know that the deadline is much sooner, as many pharmaceutical companies plan for production, regulatory changes and logistics at least 18 months in advance. Failure to adequately address the issue has the potential to cause difficulty for animal health, agriculture and our wider economy, owing to additional cost, a reduction in competition and increased bureaucracy. Crucially, however, solutions exist. It may well be the case, as others have said, that a further extension to the grace period is required to allow meaningful engagement between the UK Government and the European Union on the options available to us. The aspiration must, of course, be a comprehensive UK-EU veterinary medicines agreement. In the absence of that, enhanced collaboration between the UK and EU on the regulation and supply of veterinary medicines could offer some interim relief. That could be overseen by a UK-EU technical group. Mutual recognition agreements already in place between EU countries and countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Switzerland aim to promote greater harmonisation of regulation, and they provide learnings that could be instructive to us in solving our issues. The motion calls on the AERA Minister to bring forward a proposed solution. There is a missed opportunity in that, because we know broadly what the solution is, and we, as an Assembly, need to call on the UK Government to pursue that solution on a mutual basis with the EU. I am, however, grateful for the constructive role that the AERA Minister has played in his engagement with the veterinary medicines working group. Reaching that solution will require efforts to build trust and confidence that would be aided further by enhanced efforts towards wider UK-EU alignment. That is why, as far back as January 2021, Alliance was the first party to call for a comprehensive sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) veterinary agreement. Hopefully, we will see further progress in that direction under a new UK Government. We know that, where the UK and EU engage in good faith, uphold the rule of law and collaborate, solutions and flexibilities are forthcoming. If the past eight years have taught us anything, it is that the folly of threatening unilateral action or pursuing an insular and isolationist approach will only leave us worse off and delay progress. To embark on such a course would cause not only further challenges to our economy but issues with our access to the single market. That is why we have a slight concern about the DUP amendment. Whilst there is much in it that we can agree with, it appears to hint at unilateral action, which is not a solution and would only compound the challenges that we face.

I welcome that clarification from the Member. It is helpful. I welcome his constructive tone as well. It is unusual for the Member and me to engage in constructive debate in the Chamber, so that makes a change. His point also begs this question: had the UK Government engaged in good faith rather than entertaining the fantasies of the UK Internal Market Bill and other retrograde actions, would we be in a better place on these issues today? I hope that we can learn the lessons of the past eight years, with their circular arguments around Brexit, and unite on the crux of the motion, which is the urgent need for a legal, sustainable and mutually agreed solution on veterinary medicines.

778 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:32 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification