Debate contribution: Veterinary Medicines
Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .
- MLA
- Mr Robbie Butler
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 21 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Veterinary Medicines
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4491832
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I hope that you will not take those five seconds off my time, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am lucky that it was not my phone. I will just make sure that mine is on silent. Before I begin, I want to recognise something that happened in the Chamber in relation to the motion. We saw a rare moment of genuine cross-party cooperation between the Members for Upper Bann. I know that I am a nice, touchy-feely sort of politician who loves to see a genuine reaching across, but I enjoyed that exchange between Eóin Tennyson and Jonny Buckley. They not only agreed on the matter but smiled at each other. It was a remarkable moment, and I wanted to recognise that.
I will savour it, because I am sure that, over the next couple of years, we will lock horns on many issues. That is the truth: we will lock horns on many issues, but it is really good to have a moment in the Chamber where, during the response from the Minister, we saw great crossovers and a recognition of the pressures that are being faced by veterinary practitioners, medicine providers, farmers and the agri-food industry. There seems to have been a cross-party realisation of the moment that we find ourselves in. We can smile about it and have a bit of fun, but this is a critical issue. To neglect the seriousness of the motion would be to fail to recognise that the very foundations of our agri-food industry could be seriously affected and, possibly, crumble. I am not declaring an interest per se, but I have a huge interest in the issue from a busman's perspective. For many years, I was a butcher in a number of shops in Lisburn. One of the things that I enjoyed about that job, apart from serving the fine customers of Lagan Valley and further afield, was the fact that I knew that the produce that I was working with, whether it was beef, lamb, pork or poultry, was world class and top quality. That does not happen by accident but through decades of hard work by our farm workers and producers, who ensure the integrity of the products that Northern Ireland is famous for. That is why the motion is about slightly more than just what is happening in the political moment. As a number of Members have pointed, up to 51% of our veterinary products in Northern Ireland are at risk. That is a staggering figure, and it poses a significant threat to our agriculture sector, which is the lifeblood of our economy. The Minister has recognised that and, to his credit, given firm commitments. I know that many in the agriculture sector are grateful for that. Veterinary medicines are not merely products that sit on a shelf but essential tools that ensure the health and productivity of our livestock. They support our farmers and safeguard our food supply chain. The absence of adequate access to those medicines jeopardises our competitiveness on a number of levels. Northern Ireland's produce is not like that of anywhere else in the world. Without the necessary veterinary products, our ability to prevent and treat illnesses in animals is severely compromised. That vulnerability can lead to devastating disease outbreaks, causing immense economic losses and undermining the tireless efforts of our farming community. Mr Buchanan mentioned the mental health and welfare of our farmers, and they have been under pressure for many years. The Minister and I spoke about that last week, and I know that it is a priority. That is impacted when there is pressure on veterinary medicines. The Sub-Committee that we are talking about has highlighted the fact that the current situation creates an environment in which Northern Ireland is at a competitive disadvantage compared with other regions. That disparity could result in increased costs and operational challenges for our farmers, who are already working under challenging conditions. The Sub-Committee also emphasised the critical role of veterinary medicines in maintaining high animal welfare standards. That is critical for Northern Ireland's position in regard to its offering. Without those essential products, our farmers are unable to manage and treat diseases effectively. That leads to unnecessary suffering by our animals. We are an animal welfare-facing Assembly, and we are animal welfare-facing people here in Northern Ireland. It is not just an ethical issue but one that affects our global reputation and our marketability. Moreover, its implications extend beyond individual farms and animals. Public health, which a number of Members spoke about, is intrinsically linked to animal health. When we fail to control diseases in animals, we potentially open the door to zoonotic diseases, which can have catastrophic consequences for human health. I was a butcher at the time of CJD and mad cow disease, and I remember the fear that that instilled not just across businesses but in our public. The interconnectedness of animal health, food safety and public health underscores the critical need for reliable access to veterinary medicines.
I thank the Member for his intervention. I agree with that, because it speaks to the very interconnectedness that I referenced. I will go slightly further and perhaps, through the Chair, speak directly to the Minister on this point: we have had a democratic deficit due to the outcomes of Brexit, which has meant that we have not had a voice. The mess that we are in is probably because we have not had that voice, through the Conservative Government, at the EU. This issue offers us a chance, however, and the Minister, to his credit, has said that he will offer solutions. I agree with the Member that it is time-critical and that we need to address it with haste. The Sub-Committee further noted that the current regulatory framework under the Windsor framework does not adequately address the issues. There is a clear need for more tailored and region-specific solutions that recognise the unique challenges faced by Northern Ireland. On that point, I will reminisce again about my days as a butcher and take Members back to another moment that I remember: the first introduction and influx of Brazilian beef. The difference between what the offering is here and what we have accepted from other regions is marked. We really do need to face into protecting the quality product that we have, which is underpinned by access to the best medications that are recognised by both jurisdictions.
The Sub-Committee's inquiry underscores the necessity for proactive measures to ensure the continuous supply of veterinary medicines that mitigate the risk of disease outbreaks and safeguard public health. In light of these concerns, the motion calls on the Minister of Agriculture to give voice and advocacy, and I give credit to Minister Muir in that he is already committed to doing so. That message must be taken to the European Union and, indeed, the Government in London. I hazard that we should not delay to wait on a Labour Government. Whilst that may be the outworking, we do not want to waste any time, and I know that the Minister will not do that. Therefore, it is imperative that we secure a positive resolution to ensure the continuous supply of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland. Our farmers and our agri-industry deserve the tools that they need to maintain the highest standards of animal welfare and public health. Our agri-food industry, a pillar of our economy, must not be hampered by bureaucratic hurdles that can be overcome with clear, proactive negotiation and cooperation. I turn very briefly to Members' comments, and please do not be annoyed if I do not give you a wee shout-out, guys. I credit my party colleague Tom Elliott, who put the motion together. Tom really should have declared his interest as a farmer, so I will do that for him, if that is OK. He set up a good motion today, and it is good to see the cross-party support for it. William Irwin declared his own interest and spoke to the amendment and the need to put meat on the bones. Clarification has been given on the amendment, and we will support it. There was concern that we would put ourselves in a position that would work against the industry, and that has been clarified. Declan McAleer talked about extension of the grace period, potentially, if needed, beyond 2025, but he reiterated that the EU needs to be informed and brought along with that. He talked about food security. Eóin Tennyson, apart from being in agreement with Jonny Buckley, referenced the outworkings of Brexit. He welcomed the motion, which is great, but he highlighted the challenging time frames and spoke of the potential need for an extension to the grace periods. I think that we will all agree that that should be done only if it is required. We really want to get to the point where we get the certainty and our farmers and agri-food industry know exactly what way they will be facing. To be caught in this vacuum is not useful for anybody. Patsy McGlone reiterated the problems that are a result of the failure of the EU and the Conservative Government, and he referenced what we did with human medicines as a potential solution. He also reiterated that there are other viable alternatives. Jonny Buckley spoke about the time bomb and the time constraints, and it was nice to get a little reminder of that. Jim Allister recognised the scale of the matter and the import of the issue —
— and queried the reliance of the DUP on the promised UK legislation. That is a fair point. We then had a fine wrap-up from the Minister. I commend the motion and the amendment to the House.
1,630 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.66 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.29 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.03 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.