Debate contribution: Veterinary Medicines
Debate contribution by Mr Tom Buchanan on .
- MLA
- Mr Tom Buchanan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 21 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Veterinary Medicines
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4491818
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for bringing the motion to the House. The recent inquiry by the Windsor Framework Sub-Committee not only shone a light on the crisis facing the supply of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland but demonstrated the significant distance that still has to be travelled if a permanent and durable solution is to be found. Losing access to key veterinary medicines from Great Britain would decimate our agri-food industry and result in dire consequences for animal health and welfare and the control of disease right across Northern Ireland. There has been collective concern in the House today about the future availability of veterinary medicines. We know that many companies store products in GB for onward supply to veterinary practices and wholesalers in Northern Ireland. Current supply chains, which have been built up over many years, would be uprooted if the import requirements levied by the EU were applied to movements from the rest of the United Kingdom. The grace period has been mentioned by many contributors today. While the extension of the grace period to 31 December 2025 is welcome, it is not enough to simply kick the can down the road. Regulation of medicines is complex, and adapting to a new process requires a long lead-in time. Therefore, it is completely understandable that pharmaceutical companies are looking to make decisions now, rather than waiting for the cliff edge. That makes the need to find a permanent and lasting solution even more pressing. Therefore, a pragmatic agreement with the EU that respects Northern Ireland's place in the UK internal market for veterinary medicines and prevents trade diversion and added costs for businesses and customers must be found. That is essential. We must be clear that the current derogation must not be viewed as a staging post to the unacceptable foisting of the full rigours of EU regulation 2019/6 on our rural and business communities. Any conditionality that was explicit or implicit in the latest grace period around agreeing to an action plan towards full implementation of the EU's demands should be severed by the Government. We have had quite a bit of support in the Chamber, and I want to touch on some of those comments. The proposer of the motion mentioned that the UK Government regulations that were introduced in 2021 for human medicines left doctors with no need to do anything different. Therefore, a similar resolution could and should be found for veterinary medicines. I am sure that it would be quite simple to find a similar resolution for veterinary medicines. William Irwin said that the Government must make swift progress on a durable solution. That is what we need : we need a durable solution, and it must be achieved swiftly by the Government. Declan McAleer spoke about small rural farms in Northern Ireland and the mental health issues that are associated with running some small farms. It is vital that, in future, no more pressure is put on small farm holdings when it comes to accessing veterinary medicines. We know about the pressures that are being faced by small farmers. His colleague spoke about the agriculture industry being the social fabric of Northern Ireland and said that it needs to be protected. The agriculture industry is, of course, the social fabric of Northern Ireland. Patsy McGlone said that there was still time for the issues to be resolved. He mentioned, however, two caveats: the danger of a carve-up between the UK and the EU; and the risk to animal and human health. Jonny Buckley said that we should send a united message to London and Brussels that the issue must be resolved. We must send a united message from the House. Mr Allister said that although no medicines had ever caused any problems —
— the EU insisted on blocking them from coming into Northern Ireland.
I commend the amendment to the House.
654 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.05 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.90 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.09 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:33 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.