William Irwin
Newry and Armagh · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We have worked closely together, and I hold you in high esteem. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Minister for agreeing to look into the matter. I was at the funeral on Sunday, and the family are devastated by their loss. The lady was going to get her hair done and was killed on that main road.”
“I thank my party colleagues and Members from all sides of the House who have wished me well on the occasion of my retirement. It has been an absolute privilege to represent Newry and Armagh since 2007. I think that most people will recognise that I represented everyone irrespective of their class or creed.”
“The Minister may be aware that the Bramley apple industry in County Armagh is worth in the region of £20 million to the local economy. For growers, cold stores are vital to the protection and keeping of the apples. Most of those cold stores are now 30, 40 or 50 years old. Growers need help to replace and renew those stores.”
“I thank the deputy First Minister for her response and for her efforts on the matter. The deputy First Minister will be aware that a large number of vaccines are used by the intensive farming sectors. Does she agree that it would be a serious issue if those medicines were not available?”
“I thank the Minister for his responses so far. We are aware of the reports that thousands of tons of raw sewage has been pumped into Belfast lough. Does the Minister agree that that is totally unacceptable and that something needs to be done as soon as possible?”
“That having been said, securing PGI status for the Armagh Bramley in 2012 was hard worked for and very welcome. That has been a valued and unique selling point, not only for the Bramley variety in the Armagh area but for apples generally in all their varieties, as well as apple-based products.”
The complete record
Every one of 984 lines we hold for William Irwin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 20.
“I thank the Minister for his answer. We are almost at the end of the Assembly term, but will he assure me that he will look at that as soon as possible?”
“I, of course, represent the views of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. The Committee has not considered the amendments and has taken no position on them, but, as Chair of the Committee, I am content that the amendments do not affect the policy changes that we wanted and gained at Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />Of course, my fellow Committee members can represent the views of their parties. As far as my party is concerned, amendment Nos 1 to 6 are technical, and we have no issue with them. Again, on amendment No 7, on the time frame for commencement, we have no real issue either. We support the amendments.”
“I thank the Minister for her responses. When does she hope to open the first tranche of the farm business improvement scheme to applications?”
“<BR /> <BR />I therefore indicate Committee support for clauses 6 and 19. Likewise, the Committee is opposing clauses 1 to 5 and 7 to 18 standing part of the Bill. The Committee had sight of the three technical amendments to clause 6, but that happened after the Committee Stage was completed. The Committee therefore took no position on the amendments.”
“<BR /> <BR />In connection with the Bill's general provisions at clauses 16 to 19, the Department clarified the point that, as only clause 6 was to be progressed, there is no need for clause 16, as none of the terms defined in it relate to clause 6. There is also no need for clause 17, as the Department could not envisage any consequential amendments being required to clause 6 or related to clause 6. The Department said that clause 18 is not needed, as the Act as a whole will commence on Royal Assent. Finally, regarding the short title at clause 19, the reduced Bill, with only that clause and clause 6 remaining, meant that the name of the Act could be changed, but there was no strong case to do so either way. The Committee therefore indicated that it was content to keep the short title as it is.”
“<BR /> <BR />During oral evidence, the Department informed the Committee that there was little or no discretion available to implement EU fisheries rules and that clause 6 would bring Northern Ireland into line with England, Scotland and Wales. The Committee questioned the Department on the potential for gold-plating. Departmental officials indicated that clause 6 would reduce any risk of gold-plating and allow EU rules to be applied as they arrived. There was nothing else that the Department could do without bringing separate subordinate legislation. Before it would do that, there would be consultation and new regulations. The Committee and the Assembly would have a chance to have a say on those regulations.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee communicated its decision to focus only on clause 6 to those stakeholders who had responded to the initial consultation requesting written evidence on clause 6. It received two written responses, one from the Northern Ireland Fish Producers' Organisation and one from the Northern Ireland Marine Task Force. Neither indicated concerns with clause 6. <BR /> <BR />The Committee took oral evidence from the Department and the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation on 12 January 2016. The Irish Federation of Sea Anglers was invited to provide oral evidence but had to cancel due to unforeseen circumstances. It provided a short written submission instead.”
“That Committee met on Thursday 7 January 2016 and decided that it would be unfair to inland fisheries stakeholders to attempt to rush its scrutiny of the relevant clauses. The Committee and the Minister, as per a joint agreement, therefore tabled notice of intent that all clauses except 6 and 19 not stand part of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Clause 6, "Enforcement of EU rules", amends section 30(1) of the Fisheries Act 1981 so that it applies to enforceable EU restrictions and obligations. The clause makes it an offence to catch fish in contravention of any such restriction or to fail to comply with any such obligation. It provides that those restrictions and obligations are directly applicable and enforceable against all relevant fishing boats and persons in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Clause 19 is the short title.”
“In her reply, the Minister proposed, with the consent of the Committee, to take forward at Consideration Stage only those clauses that the Committee was content that it had time to consider thoroughly. The Minister indicated that if only the provision in clause 6 was considered, she would be grateful to the Committee for having assisted in removing the threat of infraction. At its meeting on 14 December 2015, the Committee agreed that it would consider only clause 6 and clause 19, which is the short title. It arranged its work programme for the Bill accordingly. <BR /> <BR />The Committee wrote to the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure to inform it of that decision and to confirm whether it still wished to undertake scrutiny of the clauses relating to inland fisheries.”
“However, it was a serious concern that, despite numerous briefings from fisheries officials, it was never made clear to the Committee that a pilot case had been opened against Northern Ireland. In fact, other than a vague line from officials in an evidence session earlier in 2015, the Committee was never formally informed of any problems with the EU Commission or the threat of infraction. <BR /> <BR />In Committee, members explored whether it was possible to resolve the urgent matter of clause 6 by means of subordinate legislation or in other ways. The Committee agreed to write to the Minister to ask her to consider her options for dealing with this matter.”
“The letter indicated that there had been an inspection by EU auditors in January 2015 of procedures to enforce the EU fisheries control system. As a result, EU inspectors reported that there was no legislative provision to apply the EU fisheries control regulation directly as soon as it came into operation. <BR /> <BR />To address the concerns of the European auditors, the Department explained that a Fisheries Bill was being developed that would directly apply most EU fisheries regulations as soon as they came into operation. The EU Commission was informed that the Bill, subject to various approvals, might be passed by April 2016. <BR /> <BR />That correspondence with the Minister allowed the Committee to identify what was urgent in the Bill.”
“That clause concerns an amendment to section 30 of the Fisheries Act 1981 to allow the direct application of enforceable EU obligations as well as enforceable EU restrictions.”
“The Committee concluded that the clauses could also be included in any Fisheries Bill introduced in the new mandate. <BR /> <BR />The Committee recognised that some time had elapsed since the initial consultation on the policy provisions of the Bill in 2014. Members were aware that introducing the Bill in the new mandate would also allow the opportunity for the new Department to ensure that the fishing industry and other relevant stakeholders would have ample and proper consultation on the provisions of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Committee wrote to the Minister expressing those concerns and asking for an urgent reply. The Minister, in her response, indicated that the most urgent provision in the Bill was in clause 6.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee was also concerned at the urgency with which the Bill was being introduced. It wished to understand why the Minister was seeking to introduce it, given the high risk that it would fall due to lack of time. We were mindful that the Bill could be introduced in the next mandate; indeed, it would make more sense to do so as all the provisions, including those relating to inland fisheries, would fall to a single Committee, namely the new Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Additionally, the Minister omitted certain clauses on aquaculture when she introduced the Bill. We were all aware that they would prove difficult, so this was an attempt to allow the Bill a quicker and smoother passage.”
“The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development therefore requested that that Committee consider and report on those clauses as per Standing Order 64A. However, in order to consider and incorporate the findings of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure into its report, the Committee would have needed to report in a much shorter time frame, probably in and around 20 working days. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was aware that some issues in the Bill would be difficult to deal with. It was felt that time might be needed to bottom out those issues and get a solution that satisfied all. The Committee therefore had concerns that rushing the scrutiny of the Bill would result in poorer legislation. Ultimately, that would not be in the interest of the fishing industry or the communities that rely on it.”
“However, in this instance, had the Committee taken 30 days, it would not have produced a report until 22 February 2016. Given the current provision in the Assembly for the passage of legislation, such a timescale would not have allowed the Bill to complete its legislative stages before the Easter recess and the subsequent dissolution for Assembly elections. Therefore, the Bill would be likely to fall. To allow the Bill a reasonable chance to complete its passage to Final Stage before the Easter recess, the Committee would need to have completed its scrutiny and report by 15 February 2016, in less than 25 working days. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also took it into account that a section of the Bill dealt with issues around inland fisheries. Those matters currently fall under the remit of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure.”
“The Fisheries Bill amends the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, the Fisheries Act 1981 and the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966. It has two distinct remits, namely inland fisheries and sea fisheries. Four clauses are specific to inland fisheries. <BR /> <BR />The main concern of the Committee was that the Bill was introduced to the Assembly so late in the parliamentary cycle, on 7 December 2015. Easter recess will begin on 19 March 2016, and the current mandate is due to end on 29 March 2016. The Standing Orders of the Northern Ireland Assembly allow the Committee 30 working days from the date of referral to consider and take evidence on the provisions of the Bill. Before the end of the 30 days, the Committee may table a motion to extend that period to a date specified in the motion.”
“I will take a few moments to describe the Bill and the work that the Committee did on it. I will then describe the Committee's approach and why we took the step of placing notice of intent to oppose all of the clauses, except 6 and 19, standing part of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Fisheries Bill was referred to the Committee on completion of its Second Stage on 11 January 2016. The Bill, as introduced, contains 19 clauses. The stated purpose is to make provisions regarding the regulation of sea and inland fisheries. It includes powers to allow fisheries offences to be dealt with through fixed administrative penalties and to align sea fisheries enforcement powers with those already in place in England, Scotland and Wales.”
“Mr Milne, in particular, wanted to recognise the good intentions behind them, but he believed that there was some duplication with existing provisions. He also noted that some of these amendments had potential resource implications that had not been allowed for. He made specific mention of amendment No 9, stating that it took DARD in the direction of having to sit in judgement on other Departments, which could ultimately create an expectation that DARD would stand over and make other Departments behave in certain ways. <BR /> <BR />I hope that I have provided a fair representation of all the views expressed today. That concludes my remarks, and I look forward to the outcome of Consideration Stage.”
“These matters were brought to the Committee's attention during Committee Stage, and the Committee decided not to move forward with amendments. Mrs Dobson put forward a clear rationale for why she and Mr Swann believe that these amendments are necessary. In summary, she stated that they will strengthen the Bill and ensure that it carries weight and that DARD must take some responsibility for how public authorities carry out their duties. She also noted that it is essential that those involved in rural proofing are trained so that they are informed of the impact that decisions may have on rural communities. <BR /> <BR />Mr Milne and Mr McAleer put across their party's position on why they do not support these amendments.”
“<BR /> <BR />A further amendment would place a duty on the Department to make an assessment of how each public authority considers rural needs. Mrs Dobson also spoke clearly about the need to cooperate and quoted many examples of public bodies not doing so. She said that this lack of cooperation was not in the interests of rural communities.”
“Mr McMullan referred to the new role of councils in community planning and how rural proofing would fit with that role. Mrs Dobson also spoke to this set of amendments, noting that all public bodies listed in amendment No 13 provide key public services, and, as such, they needed to be included in the Bill. Mr Milne and Mr McMullan also spoke in favour of adding these additional bodies, and Mr McCarthy indicated that he was content with the list. <BR /> <BR />Other Members spoke ably about the amendments in the names of Mrs Dobson and Mr Swann. Those amendments cover a new provision on training staff to identify and meet rural needs. They also cover the inclusion of information required to demonstrate that public authorities have fulfilled their duty to consider rural needs in their annual report.”
“Mr McCarthy also supported the amendment, believing that it will ultimately serve to improve the outcome of the Bill. Finally, Declan McAleer made an important point, highlighting the fact that the amendments reflect the call made by many of the grass-roots organisations that gave evidence to the Committee that the duty be strengthened. <BR /> <BR />The second substantive set of amendments — amendment Nos 2, 3, 4 and 13 — deal with adding specified public bodies to the Bill. There has been good discussion on this issue in the Chamber, including by Mr Allister, who wanted to know why the NIEA had not been included in the list of additional bodies to be added. Mr McAleer noted that the list of bodies in amendment No 13 was suggested by stakeholders, with particular reference to SOLACE.”
“Those included Oliver McMullan, who talked about the ineffectiveness of rural proofing to date and the importance of putting the practice on a legislative footing. Strengthening the duty to "due regard" is an important step in ensuring an improved quality of life for those living in rural areas. Mr McGlone echoed those sentiments, noting the weaknesses of the current rural-proofing process and the need to ensure that the new statutory duty will prove productive. Mr Seán Rogers also commented on the importance of rural proofing but added that he would like mitigation for adverse impacts to be included in the Bill. Mrs Dobson spoke about the need to strengthen the Bill in this way, as it is important to ensure that rural proofing is no longer simply a tick-box exercise.”
“That objective is to impose a duty on certain public authorities to consider rural needs, and that is the crux of the two fundamental matters that Members have debated and on which we are about to vote: the nature of the duty to consider rural needs and the authorities that should be covered by it. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 1 and 14, which is consequential, will, if voted through the Assembly, change the nature of the duty on public authorities from that by which they "consider" rural needs to that by which they "have due regard to" rural needs. That amendment would impose a higher duty on public authorities <BR /> <BR />Many Members spoke in support of the amendments that would strengthen the duty from "consider" to "due regard".”
“I thank Members and the Minister for their contributions, which have been wide-ranging and covered all aspects of the Bill. It has been interesting and informative to sit here today and listen to the views and opinions. <BR /> <BR />In light of the manner in which Members presented their position on the amendments and the detail covered in the debate, I will try to be relatively brief. I will try to cover broadly the topics discussed and make particular reference to the amendments. <BR /> <BR />There are 14 amendments, and the Bill has seven clauses. The Bill is relatively short and has a somewhat modest objective.”
“That is certainly not the case. I have been a rural person all my life. We are absolutely not anti-rural. The situation is this: when we look at amendment No 6 in the names of Jo-Anne Dobson and Robin Swann, we believe that it could be very expensive and it is not necessary. We also feel that amendment No 9, which is in the name of the same two Members, creates a considerable duty that could be very costly. That is the position of my party on those issues and we will be voting against those amendments. I look forward to hearing from my fellow MLAs on the Bill.”
“I thank the Member for his comments. As a party, we looked at that in detail and feel that it creates an issue for us. That is the decision we have made. The Member may have another opinion, but that is the opinion of my party. <BR /> <BR />We also have concerns about amendment No 6, in the names of Jo-Anne Dobson and Robin Swann. It could create a very heavy financial commitment so we have concerns about that and will not be agreeing to it.”
“A further amendment was proposed to require the Department to publish the annual monitoring report. The Committee indicated that it was content with the two amendments. <BR /> <BR />I have presented the Committee's position on those amendments agreed by the Committee and tabled in the name of the Committee and the Minister. The Committee has no position on any of the other amendments. <BR /> <BR />I will say, as spokesperson for the Democratic Unionist Party, that we have some concerns. We have concern with amendment No 5. Replacing the word "may" with "must" creates a problem for us. We believe that it goes too far and is too prescriptive. We also have issues —”
“That would allow the Assembly to receive an account of how rural needs were being considered by Departments and other public bodies in the policymaking process. It could also act as an incentive to encourage Assembly Statutory Committees to undertake scrutiny of the issue. Having clarified this position, the Committee requested that the Department consider such amendments. We were pleased that the Minister agreed to the amendments requiring the Minister to give an annual statement to the Assembly. The Assembly will, therefore, have the opportunity to question the Minister every year on the whole range of issues relating to the Rural Needs Bill and its operation in practice. It will also open up the opportunity for Statutory Committees of the Assembly to hold their Department and appropriate arm's-length bodies to account.”
“However, legal advice provided to the Department indicated that it would not be appropriate for such a statement to cover the impact of the Bill, as this would require a judgement to be made on the extent to which public authorities had discharged their duties. The Department felt that making such an amendment would go beyond the intended monitoring and reporting arrangements and create a false sense of the accountability of public authorities to DARD. The Committee deliberated on the matter and agreed that the amendment that required the Minister to provide an annual statement was desirable. However, the Committee did not want such a provision to be prescriptive and felt that it should read:”
“<BR /> <BR />In consideration of the evidence provided, it became clear that many stakeholders agreed that the provisions under clause 3 required strengthening in order to ensure accountability and transparency. There was a suggestion from several organisations, including the Rural Community Network, the Rural Development Council, the Northern Ireland Rural Women's Network, the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers (SOLACE) NI, that the clause be amended to require the Minister to make an annual statement to the Assembly assessing the impact of the Rural Needs Bill. The Department's report informed the Committee that, in principle, the amendment could be made to provide for a ministerial statement on the monitoring report.”
“The Committee noted and had no concerns with the advice that the wording of such an amendment be "must" rather than "will". The Committee, therefore, supported that amendment. <BR /> <BR />I will now present the Committee's position on amendment Nos 8 and 10, which relate to clause 3, "Monitoring and reporting". Clause 3 imposes a statutory duty on public authorities to compile information on the exercise of its functions under clause 1 and provide that information to the Department. In addition, it places a statutory duty on the Department to prepare an annual report. This report will contain the information sent to it by the other public authorities and details of the exercise of DARD's functions under the Bill. Clause 3 also requires that the report be laid before the Assembly.”
“The main reason appeared to be a concern that there was nothing in the legislation to compel anyone to have regard to the guidance, advice or information. <BR /> <BR />The Committee discussed this with DARD officials, who asked the Committee to note that the intention is that clause 2 provide an enabling power, which will have a broad scope. Nevertheless, after due consideration, the Committee agreed that it required an amendment to clause 2 with the effect of deleting "may" and inserting "will". The departmental officials indicated that the Minister was content to take this amendment forward. The Committee noted that the amendment will strengthen the role of the Department in providing support for rural proofing and the implementation of the Bill.”
“When the Committee considered evidence from stakeholders, there was a concern relating to the need to strengthen the wording of clause 2. Many stakeholders suggested that the first line of clause 2 be amended from:”
“<BR /> <BR />The Minister agreed and provided the amendment to the Committee. She suggested one further amendment to make transitional provision for these bodies. This is amendment No. 4. The Minister indicated that she was willing to provide these amendments but that, as was the case with the previous amendments inserting "have due regard to", Executive approval was required. At its meeting on 9 February, the Committee heard that the Minister had not obtained Executive approval for these amendments, and, after a fair amount of debate, the Committee voted to table the amendments on additional public bodies. As Chairperson, I fulfilled my duty in putting my name to the amendments on behalf of the Committee. <BR /> <BR />I will now move on to present the Committee's position on amendment No 5.”
“The amendments would then create a schedule to the Bill naming Departments, local government and the additional bodies that I referred to, such as the PSNI, education bodies, health trusts and Invest Northern Ireland. For members' information, these are all listed in amendment No 13. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was also conscious of the need to retain flexibility to adapt to changes in the future. The Committee felt that it was important that any list of bodies added to the Bill should be subject to regular review. This would allow public bodies to be added to the list and defunct NDPBs to be removed as appropriate. So, in addition to adding named organisations, the Committee requested an amendment requiring that the list be reviewed and amended as necessary at given intervals. This is amendment No 3.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee, therefore, requested that the Minister bring forward an amendment to add those bodies to the Bill. The Committee did not request any delay in the application of the provisions of the Bill to those bodies. The Minister concurred and provided the amendment, which the Committee considered and subsequently agreed. <BR /> <BR />The current Bill names Departments and local government as falling immediately under its remit. It has provision for other public bodies or persons to be added at a later date by subordinate legislation. The amendments would act to remove the reference to central and local government and other persons specified at clause 1(2).”
“The Committee also considered the use of a mechanism that named those public bodies in the Bill but allowed a gap of one to two years before the provisions of the Bill applied to them. After significant discussion, the Committee decided to go back to the list suggested by the majority of those who provided evidence to the Committee. This list, as I mentioned, was taken from the Local Government (Community Planning Partners) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015. The list has the merit of creating a cross-cutting element. It would bring together the bodies that expect to work together in a local government community planning process. There is, after all, an expectation that all those involved in the community planning process would have to consider the needs of rural dwellers in a council district.”
“DARD officials informed the Committee that, overall, it was not expected that the duty would be very onerous or expensive to carry out.”
“It was asked whether it was fair not to take time to talk and get opinions on the pros and cons of having a duty to consider rural needs; for example, such bodies might need to consider whether any additional financial or administrative resource was required to comply with the duty. <BR /> <BR />I should make it clear that the Committee probed the issue of the cost of the Bill to central and local government. In our questioning of both DARD and local government representatives, we asked questions around the additional financial or administrative resource that might be required.”
“As far as I am aware, other agencies can be added to the list. The Member reads it differently, but I am told that they can be added. The planning agency is one that could be added, and maybe it should be. The Member makes a valid point in that regard. <BR /> <BR />The Committee acknowledged that this approach would have certain advantages, namely that it would allow proper thought to be given to what bodies could be added. It would also allow time for such bodies to prepare for taking on the additional duty. <BR /> <BR />One other area that caused minor difficulties for some members of the Committee was the lack of consultation with the public bodies that may be added to the Bill. There was discussion of whether it was fair to add public bodies to the Bill and not give them any warning or time to prepare for that duty.”
“The Committee also commissioned the Assembly Research and Information Service to produce other lists of potential bodies that could be included. The lists of every NDPB in Northern Ireland proved to be very extensive and long. It was apparent that picking and choosing public bodies from such lists would present its own difficulties. I should point out that the Committee considered other ways of addressing the issue and noted that the Bill, as it stood, allows for other public bodies to be added at a later date.”
“It contains a schedule listing organisations that will be required to participate in the local government community planning process. Stakeholders indicated that it would be appropriate to adopt that list and include the organisations named in the schedule in the Rural Needs Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Committee considered the list, which includes the PSNI, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, the Education Authority, health and social care trusts, Invest Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service board, the Housing Executive, the Northern Ireland Library Authority, the Tourist Board, the Regional Agency for Public Health and Social Well-being, the Regional Health and Social Care Board and the Sports Council.”
“The Department provided a two-part explanation: first, it allows time for further consultation with the bodies that will be subject to the duty; and, secondly, the Department stated, it was difficult to know which bodies should be listed in the Bil and time was needed to refine and clarify that. However, the Committee remained concerned at the omission of named non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) from the Bill, especially given the fact that so many of our public services are delivered by those arm's-length bodies. During the discussions about which bodies should be listed in the Bill, reference was made by various stakeholders to the Local Government (Community Planning Partners) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015. Draft regulation is being considered by the MLAs on the Committee for the Environment.”
“<BR /> <BR />I now present the Committee's position on the amendments dealing with adding other public bodies or persons: amendment Nos 2, 3, 4 and 13. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was concerned about the provision in clause 1 that will allow the Department to impose a statutory duty on other bodies. As it stands, only central and local government will fall immediately under the remit of the Bill once it is commenced. However, the Bill gives the Department the power to specify, through subordinate legislation, the bodies to which a duty will extend in the future. <BR /> <BR />The Committee considered the Department's rationale for adopting the phased approach to extending the duty.”
“It will require public authorities to take rural needs into account and give the duty the required weight when making policy. However, it will not impose a requirement on authorities to undertake their functions in a particular way or to achieve a specific outcome or result. <BR /> <BR />The Committee succeeded in securing an amendment from the Department to strengthen the duty. However, as the amendment would have resulted in a change from the original policy proposals agreed, it required Executive approval. As I indicated, the Committee heard at its meeting on 9 February that the Minister had not obtained the approval of the Executive, and, after a fair amount of debate, the Committee voted to table the amendments. As Chairperson, I fulfilled my duty and put my name to the amendments.”
“<BR /> <BR />After detailed discussions with DARD officials and amongst members, the Committee decided not to look to amend the Bill to address the issue of mitigating adverse impacts. When it came to considering the strengthening of the duty, the Committee obtained further information on the section 75 duties. The duty to have or give due regard has the advantage of having been legally tested in the context of Section 75 equality and good relations duties in the courts. Broadly speaking, a "due regard" duty means that consideration must be given in advance of a final decision being made, not afterwards, and it must be done with an open mind to achieve the goals set out in statute. The Committee deliberated on the matter and, after some debate, agreed that it supported the inclusion of this higher threshold of statutory duty in the Bill.”
“As drafted, the Bill imposed a duty on public authorities to consider rural needs. The evidence presented to the Committee suggested that this was quite weak. There was concern that it would not result in any action being taken to protect rural communities from the adverse impacts of policy decisions. Practically all of the voluntary and community groups that we heard from voiced the same concern. Many of those who responded suggested that the duty to consider should be replaced by a duty to give due regard. The Committee considered the two aspects of, first, strengthening the due duty and, secondly, dealing with adverse impacts identified as a result of undertaking a consideration of rural needs.”
“The issue of whether the Bill should make provision for decisions relating to the closure of rural schools was raised as well. However, after due consideration and deliberation, the Committee decided that it would not pursue those matters by way of amendments or other means. <BR /> <BR />I now move to discuss the amendments dealing with the "due regard" matter — amendment Nos 1 and 14. I want to make it clear that I speak as Chairperson and represent the views of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. After its initial consideration of the Bill, the Committee had concerns about clause 1. The issues identified were also reflected in many of the responses received to the Committee's call for evidence. The principal issue was the need to strengthen the statutory duty that the Bill would place on certain public authorities.”