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 14 of 20.
“Many of the stakeholders who provided evidence to the Committee expressed reservations regarding the definitions in the Bill, with a focus on clause 6 and the definition of rural needs. The Committee deliberated on the issue, noting that it was highly desirable that DARD would work closely with all relevant public bodies on definitions. The Committee noted a letter from the Minister that confirmed the intentions of the Department in that regard. The Committee was therefore content that DARD would provide supplementary advice and guidance on definitions to public bodies. <BR /> <BR />Other matters raised and discussed by the Committee included the need for training and the provision of baseline information to be used to review the effectiveness of the Bill. The nature of the cooperation arrangements was also discussed.”
“The deliberation took account of the amendment to clause 2 that would strengthen the duty of the Department regarding the provision of guidance, advice and information. Reference was also made to the amendments to clause 3 to strengthen the transparency of the reporting arrangements. The Committee agreed that, together, the amendments, if accepted by the Assembly at Consideration Stage, would strengthen the Bill. This would address some of the concerns around lack of enforcement, while not imposing a separate and potentially costly enforcement mechanism. <BR /> <BR />Another matter discussed by the Committee was clarification of the definitions and terminology used in the Bill.”
“The Committee deliberated on the issue, and it reflected on the fact that it had achieved amendments to clause 1 in connection with the strengthening of the duty on public authorities to have due regard to rural needs and on the naming of additional public bodies.”
“The letter from the Minister indicated that she would table the amendments that did not require Executive approval. <BR /> <BR />Before I complete this introduction, I wish to make a very brief reference to some of the other issues that were discussed but on which the Committee decided that no amendments were required. The Committee, aware that there were concerns regarding the apparent lack of teeth in the Bill, explored the issue of sanctions and enforcement. It is a central provision of the Bill that public authorities comply with the new duties that are imposed by it. To that end, there will be monitoring and reporting arrangements on how public authorities comply with that duty. However, as was pointed out by stakeholders, there is no means of enforcing the provision, nor is there any sanction for non-compliance.”
“She forwarded the text of amendments to the Committee but made the Committee aware that the amendments in connection with the strengthening of the statutory duty and the inclusion of additional public bodies represented a policy change and therefore needed the agreement of the Executive. To be clear, that concerns amendment Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 13 and 14. At our meeting on 9 February 2016, the Committee received a letter from the Minister indicating that Executive agreement had not been obtained for those amendments. Officials could not explain in detail why that was the case. The Committee debated and ultimately agreed that, as it had initially sought the amendments about strengthening of the duty and the additional public bodies, it would table them in its name.”
“Those matters were, first, the strengthening of the duty to consider rural needs and, secondly, the inclusion of public bodies other than Departments and local government in the Bill. The third matter was an amendment to clause 2 to leave out the word "may" and insert the word "will". The fourth and final matter was in connection with transparency and accountability on reporting arrangements in clause 3. <BR /> <BR />I will speak about all those matters in more depth later. For now, I wish to note that the Minister agreed with the Committee on the need for those amendments.”
“On that day, the Committee heard from the Department; local rural support networks; the Rural Community Network (RCN) and the Rural Development Council (RDC); the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives NI (SOLACE NI); and the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) and the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association (NIAPA). The Committee also agreed a motion to extend the Bill's Committee Stage until 26 January 2016. <BR /> <BR />The Committee had discussions with departmental officials on the Bill's key issues at its meeting on 1 December 2015. As a result of the evidence gathered and its consideration of a range of issues, the Committee agreed to ask the Minister to bring forward amendments on certain matters.”
“<BR /> <BR />Following the Bill's introduction on 9 November 2015, the Committee wrote to key stakeholders and inserted public notices in the 'Belfast Telegraph', 'The Irish News' and the 'News Letter'. A total of 19 organisations responded to the request for written evidence, and a copy of the submissions that were received is included in the Committee's report. The Committee also commissioned the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe) to provide research on the content and implications of the Bill. Those papers are also included in the Committee's report. <BR /> <BR />On Tuesday 24 November, the Committee held an all-day meeting to take oral evidence on the Bill from relevant stakeholders and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.”
“It is my pleasure to speak today as the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. Before I present the Committee's position on the amendments, I will take the opportunity to outline the work that the Committee did in its scrutiny of the Bill and highlight some of the issues that came out of that scrutiny. I thank the Committee members for all the work that they did on the Bill. Considerable hours of Committee time and dedication of members went into the scrutiny, and the Committee Clerk and her staff put in a big effort. <BR /> <BR />I also want to mention the previous Deputy Chairperson, Mr Joe Byrne, who has since retired from the Assembly. He was heavily involved in the initial scrutiny of the Bill and took a deep and very informed interest in its provisions.”
“I thank the Minister for her statement. I refer her to paragraph 5 of the statement and the discussions on the difficulties around cross-border trade in livestock and country-of-origin labelling. The Minister noted a resolve to continue efforts to agree a resolution. Will she expand on what efforts have been made and what successes they have had?”
“AFBI plays a key role in Northern Ireland in providing research to our farming and agrifood industries. The Committee has received several briefings on AFBI in the past year. Members have repeatedly voiced their concerns about how budget cuts will affect the delivery of services. It is crucial to the industry that the institute’s capacity to carry out agricultural research is maintained. The plan to end several research programmes as part of AFBI’s Shrink to Grow strategy has certainly caused us concern. However, I will finish on a positive note. The Committee has been assured that AFBI’s R&D budget will be more protected in the future as a result of a change in Treasury rules. The Committee has always recognised that the success of the agrifood industry is dependent on research and development. As a result, we welcome this change.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee recently received a briefing on a major DARD IT project, the new Northern Ireland food animal information system. We were glad to hear that the procurement exercise for this is finally approaching completion. We were also reassured to hear that the project costs are likely to be less than originally estimated. The Committee was previously told that resource costs between 2014-15 and 2019-2020 were estimated to be £14·8 million. Capital costs for the same period would amount to £19 million. However, as a result of the tendering process, it seems that these projected costs can now be revised downwards. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I would like to make some brief remarks about funding to the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) in the 2016-17 budget.”
“Officials confirmed to us that this will be used to fund the farm business improvement scheme, which they plan to launch in the 2016-17 financial year. This includes a capital investment element called the business investment scheme, which will provide capital support to farmers. However, the Committee has a number of outstanding concerns in relation to this scheme. For example, it has not been made clear to Members whether DAERA has received the necessary funds under Budget 2016-17 for the business investment scheme. We are also aware that DFP approval is required before any RDP-funded programmes can open. However, we have yet to be updated on the status of the business investment scheme business case. The Committee is certainly very eager to see the details of this scheme announced as soon as possible.”
“<BR /> <BR />The funding of TB compensation has long been a concern for the Committee. DARD continues to make monitoring round bids in order to top up the funding for the scheme; this is not sustainable. Members have repeatedly called for the mainstreaming of TB compensation funding, which is, after all, a statutory obligation. We understood that this had been done, so it is very disappointing to see that DARD has had to make use of the monitoring rounds for this funding. <BR /> <BR />The Committee expects the new rural development programme (RDP) to play an important role in improving the lot of those who make their living in farming. Under the 2016-17 Budget, £5 million has been allocated to RDP.”
“The Committee feels very strongly that the departure of so many staff should not be allowed to impact the administration of all the EU payments that farmers and rural communities depend on so much. <BR /> <BR />I would now like to specifically reference the issue of TB compensation. The TB scheme costs DARD in the region of £30 million a year. This amounts to almost 15% of the resource allocation for the new Department. At a recent meeting where we discussed finances with DARD officials, the Committee was informed that there is still an outstanding pressure of £4 million for this scheme. It is alarming that DARD has not yet managed to get both the disease and the costs under control. Indeed, there are actually signs that TB rates are increasing again, which, in turn, means an even bigger call on the purse of the Department.”
“The Committee is anxious to see that record maintained and surpassed by DAERA, but that may prove challenging in the face of the cuts imposed by the Budget and the loss of over 300 staff to the recent voluntary exit scheme. On voluntary exit, the Committee was told last week that DARD expects to make savings of almost £5 million in staff costs in 2015-16. The first two groups left under the VES before the end of last year. The third tranche of staff left only at the end of January 2016, and the fourth group will not leave until the end of March 2016. DARD has chosen not to avail itself of a fifth tranche of voluntary exits. This means that the full impact of 300 staff leaving has not yet been felt in service delivery.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee repeats its call for front-line services to farmers and the rural population to be protected from the worst of these cuts. In particular, the timely administration of CAP payments must remain a priority for the new Department. I am sure that all Members are aware of the falling farm-gate prices and ongoing struggles that are faced by farmers in Northern Ireland. Many of you will have read last week that farmers in Northern Ireland suffered a very significant drop in their incomes in 2015. That means that they rely more than ever on these direct payments as their major source of income. <BR /> <BR />The Committee acknowledges the work of DARD in the past year to ensure that over 96% of eligible farm businesses received their basic payment by January 2016.”
“Over the past year, DARD officials have told the Committee that there will have to be major changes in the services that are delivered and in how they are delivered by the new Department. We have heard that, to meet ongoing budgetary pressures, DAERA will have to be a more modern, leaner and digitally focused Department. The Committee is concerned that that might result in a reduction in the quality and availability of key services. However, Members also believe that the formation of the new Department presents an opportunity for efficiencies to be made. The streamlining of inspection regimes is an obvious example of that, and the Committee will certainly call for these types of savings to be realised as quickly as possible.”
“As a result, the new Department has been allocated a total of £197·9 million resource and £48·8 million capital. Departmental officials informed the Committee that that 5·7% resource cut will be applied pro rata across the three areas that are joining together to form DAERA. That equates to a cut of £10 million for DARD, £1·7 million for DOE functions and £0·3 million for inland fisheries. <BR /> <BR />The Committee has taken its duty to monitor DARD’s financial performance and its delivery of key services very seriously. However, it is important to note that it has been difficult for our Committee to anticipate or assess the true impact of the 5·7% cut to those areas that were previously under the remit of DOE and DCAL and, indeed, to the sustainable development functions under OFMDFM.”
“I will speak on behalf of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. The fact that the Budget for 2016-17 relates to the newly restructured Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, or DAERA, has muddied the waters a little for our Committee. As Members know, DAERA will not have responsibility for the Rivers Agency. However, it will have absorbed a number of other functions, including environmental and marine responsibilities from the Department of the Environment and inland fisheries responsibilities from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. It will also take policy responsibility for sustainable strategy from OFMDFM. <BR /> <BR />What we do know is that the budget for DAERA will be subject to a 5·7% cut to its resource.”
“The Minister talks about an all-Ireland animal health strategy. Does she accept that the Irish Republic has reduced TB to a much lower level than that in Northern Ireland through a badger cull and a deer cull? Have the Minister and her officials looked at how the Irish Republic has been able to reduce TB levels? Will she take the same action?”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he accept that the perception in the wider community is that many of these criminal gangs can act with seeming immunity from the law?”
“Thank you Mr Speaker, and I would like to thank the Minister for her statement. I refer the Minister to the paragraphs in her statement that make reference to landing obligations. The first of the landing obligations for species such as mackerel and herring came into effect last year. I understand from previous briefings by officials that the landing obligations for prawns and white fish came into effect on 1 January 2016. What assessment has been done on the real-world financial impact of these landing obligations on our fleet and the associated processing industry?”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I totally agree with the Member that research and development is vital to the future of our industry in Northern Ireland, and every effort must be made to find more finance and support for it. As has already been said, in Scotland and Wales, the mainland, and even the Republic of Ireland, extra funding is being put into research and development. That is vital for the future of the industry.”
“The Committee is fully supportive of the need to retain adequate research and development bases in Northern Ireland, and we will be examining the AFBI budget in some detail.”
“We have now heard how the big issue this year with the single application forms was a lot of duplicate fields and that, in the future, it is hoped that online applications will help to identify and assess duplicate fields early, thus giving farmers a chance to rectify that. <BR /> <BR />Finally, the Committee has always expressed an interest in the budget allocation to the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), as the Committee is aware of the pressures that AFBI is under, both in its resources and in coping with an ageing estate. It has buildings and equipment that urgently need repairs and replacement and has had to reduce its staff complement and either stop or reduce research.”
“Farm inspections are an important aspect of the work of DARD and other agencies to ensure compliance with EU legislation. The Committee is of the opinion that further work could be done to drive efficiencies in this area. We would like to see inspecting officials coordinate their efforts to create, where possible, a scenario whereby the farmer has one visit in which all his inspections are done. <BR /> <BR />The Committee has also heard on a number of occasions that DARD intends to put more of its services and interactions with consumers online to release staff posts in the future. We have heard about how this work uses a single application form.”
“While I cannot speak for any incoming Minister or Committee, I can say that I firmly believe that this needs to be the number-one priority for the new Department in the new mandate. <BR /> <BR />The next point that I want to raise is how DARD and the new Department deal with the challenges of staff reductions, and the loss of their expertise, yet ensure that essential business continues as normal. This is with particular reference to the added challenge of bringing together two very distinct work areas: agriculture and environment. These have very distinctive cultures and viewpoints, and we have to make sure that they are integrated and work together. For example, the process of inspections that happens in both sectors will provide an opportunity for joint working and cooperation.”
“The Committee noted that 95% of eligible farm businesses received their basic payments in December 2015 and that more than 1,700 cases that had been inspected were included in that number. I cannot emphasise enough how important those payments are to the farming and rural communities. Members will be aware that all sectors face hardships from falling farm gate prices, but dairy farmers and fresh produce farmers are being particularly badly hit. The payments are essential and are much needed by all farmers.”
“Scrutiny of the budget is falling between two stools, and that can mean that details will be missed. However, that aside, the concerns of the Committee with regard to the budget and the departmental finances are as they were last year. The Committee's view is that the number one priority for DARD and the new Department should be the payment of grants to farmers and rural communities. <BR /> <BR />First and most important, the Committee has always been adamant that front-line services to farmers and the wider rural community should not be affected by cuts. This is with particular but not exclusive reference to the new basic payment under CAP reform. There should be, at least, a continuation of the current level of service for payments to farmers as the main priority.”
“I understand that the Finance and Personnel Committee raised this as an issue at one of its recent meetings and was informed by DFP officials that there would be scope in the June monitoring round for the new Ministers to take account of Committee representations. <BR /> <BR />The budget that the Agriculture Committee will consider next week is that which is being presented for the new Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. However, the Committee as it is today does not have a scrutiny remit for the environmental aspects. I understand that DARD officials will not cover the detail of that part of the budget. Although aspects of that budget area were covered by the Environment Committee in its recent consideration of the budget, I am concerned that there is a gap.”
“I speak today as Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and will represent the views of that Committee. The Committee has had only a very short preliminary briefing from Department of Agriculture and Rural Development officials prior to Christmas. At that stage, the Budget details had not been agreed, so we were presented with a best case scenario by the officials. Our next briefing on the details of the DARD budget is not until Tuesday 26 January, so I am limited in what I can say today. <BR /> <BR />I begin by pointing out a few concerns around procedures. The timescales and the opportunity for real influence by the Committee are very limited, which may be of concern to some members.”
“I thank the Minister for her reply. I acknowledge that Northern Ireland and her Department have done very well in getting a large percentage of payments out — indeed, I think that it is the highest anywhere in the UK — but that is cold comfort to those who are still waiting. What percentage of basic farm payments are still to be paid? Actually, not the percentage — the number; it looks as if the percentage is 4%. I surmise that it might be higher, but we will take your word for it.”
“Will the Minister give an assurance to the House that she will endeavour to get financial aid to farmers and businesses that have been affected in recent days?”
“<BR /> <BR />I conclude by putting it on record formally that, as per our correspondence with the Minister, it is the intention of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development to focus its scrutiny on clause 6 and the necessary general provisions such as interpretation, the commencement clauses and the short title. The Committee stands ready to work with the Minister at Consideration Stage with regard to notices of intention to give effect to that decision.”
“The Minister stated that, if that were only the provision contained in clause 6, she would be grateful for the Committee having assisted in removing the threat of infraction. <BR /> <BR />At the meeting on 14 December, the Committee agreed that it would consider only clause 6 and the associated general clauses. It arranged its work programme on the Bill accordingly. The Committee also wrote to the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure informing it of that decision and asking whether it still wished to undertake scrutiny of the clauses relating to inland fisheries. That Committee met on Thursday 7 January and decided that it would be unfair to the inland fisheries stakeholders to attempt to rush its scrutiny of the relevant clauses.”
“<BR /> <BR />The response from the Minister noted that she had given consideration to the issue. The use of subordinate legislation had been ruled out because of the EU Commission's concerns that DARD could not directly enforce all EU fisheries legislation immediately. Furthermore, the size of the subordinate legislation required would create difficulties in bringing it forward in a timetable that would satisfy the EU Commission. The Minister also ruled out, for various reasons, not moving the Bill at Second Stage and looking to have an alternative Bill dealing only with the content of clause 6 and moving that by accelerated passage. Instead, the Minister proposed, with the consent of the Committee, to take forward at Consideration Stage only the clauses that the Committee was content that it had had time to consider thoroughly.”
“The Committee noted that DARD appeared to be relying on the Bill completing its legislative passage to address the EU Commission's concerns and thus to address the potential for infraction. The Committee agreed to write to the Minister to ask her to consider other options for dealing with this urgent matter. The letter suggested that the use of subordinate legislation be considered. The letter also suggested that alternatives be explored by the Minister, including procedural solutions such as an alternative Bill focusing narrowly on clause 6 matters and moving only clause 6 at Consideration Stage. The Committee met on Monday 14 December to hear from DARD and DCAL officials on the Minister's position on the Committee's concerns, including alternative methods for dealing with the EU pilot case.”
“The Committee immediately expressed concern and serious reservations that, despite numerous briefings by DARD fisheries officials, it had never been made clear that a pilot case had been opened against Northern Ireland. That is a serious breach of protocol in providing important information to the Committee in a timely manner, but it allowed the Committee to identify what is urgent in the Bill: in other words, what really needed to be done, what was essential and what could wait until the next mandate. The Committee questioned DARD and DCAL officials on that and on other policy issues in the Bill at its meeting on 8 December. <BR /> <BR />The Committee asked officials whether the urgent matter of clause 6 could be dealt with by means of subordinate legislation or in other ways.”
“A letter from the Minister indicated that there had been an inspection 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. DARD officials provided an explanation that the Fisheries Bill was being developed and that it would have the effect of directly applying most EU fisheries regulations as soon as it came into operation. DARD indicated that the Bill, subject to various approvals, might be passed by April 2016. Nevertheless, the EU Commission opened a pilot case on the issue. That was the first time that the Committee had been made aware that the EU had opened a pilot case against Northern Ireland and there was a risk of infraction proceedings.”
“This 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. This would allow the Department to enforce most EU fisheries legislation as soon as an EU regulation came into operation. This is apparently something that the EU Commission is insisting upon following inspection visits to Northern Ireland.”
“Indeed, that would make more sense, as all the provisions, including the inland fisheries provision, would fall to the one Committee. Additionally, the section that relates to aquaculture, which was omitted by the Minister in an attempt to allow the Bill a smoother passage, could also be included in any Fisheries Bill introduced in the new mandate. There would also be 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 in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Committee wrote to the Minister expressing these concerns and asking for an urgent reply. In her response, the Minister indicated that the most urgent provision in the Bill is clause 6.”
“<BR /> <BR />From previous work undertaken by the Committee on departmental Bills, it is aware that there is often a substantial gap in stakeholder awareness and knowledge of a policy proposal and how that translates into a draft Bill. The Committee points out, therefore, that rushed scrutiny is no substitute for proper and full consultation on the Bill by the Department with key stakeholders and the fishing industry in particular. This could result in a disservice to that industry. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also considered and discussed the urgency of the Bill. It wished to understand why the Minister was seeking to introduce this Bill given the high risk that it would fail due to lack of time. The Committee was well aware that the Bill could be introduced in the next mandate.”
“Given that this is a complex and technical Bill, the Committee expressed concerns that it would be able to undertake effective and proper scrutiny of the Fisheries Bill within 30 working days let alone 25 days. The Committee had, therefore, real concerns that rushing its scrutiny of the Bill would result in poor legislation and that, ultimately, this would not be in the interests of the fishing industry or those communities that rely on that industry. The Committee is aware that, some time ago, there was a departmental consultation on the policy proposals of the Bill. However, the Department has not formally consulted with the relevant stakeholders on the actual draft Bill.”
“The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, therefore, requested that Committee to consider and report on those sections as per Standing Order 64A. However, in order that the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development would receive any such report from the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure in time for consideration and incorporation into its report, it had to ask that Committee to report in a much shorter time frame. The Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure would be required to report in fewer than 20 working days. Even with this time frame, there is no guarantee that the Bill would complete its legislative passage before Easter recess and dissolution. <BR /> <BR />The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development discussed this in some detail at its meeting on 1 December.”
“However, in this instance, 30 working days would have meant that the Committee would report on 22 February. In doing so, there would not be sufficient time for the Fisheries Bill to complete all its legislative stages. Final Stage would not be reached before Easter recess and the subsequent dissolution for Assembly elections. The Bill would, therefore, be likely to fall. To allow the Bill a reasonable chance to complete its passage to Final Stage before Easter recess, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development would need to complete its scrutiny and report by 15 February; that is, in fewer than 25 working days. <BR /> <BR />As I mentioned earlier, a section of the Bill deals with issues around inland fisheries. These are matters that currently fall to the remit of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure.”
“This is a technically complex Bill in that it seeks to build upon and update a number of existing pieces of primary legislation, including the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, the Sea Fisheries Act 1968, and the Fisheries Act 1981. In other words, this is primarily an amendment Bill. It will amend four other Acts, all of which are complex and technical in their own right. <BR /> <BR />As Members will be aware, Standing Orders allow the Committee 30 working days from the date of referral to consider and take evidence on the provisions of the Bill. At the end of the 30 days, a Committee must report its opinion, including proposals for amendments, to the Assembly. The Committee and indeed the Minister are allowed, by way of a motion to the Assembly, to extend the date for the Committee Stage.”
“I speak as the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and will reflect the various discussions that the Committee has had on the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Minister sent a draft copy of the Bill and its associated documents to the Committee in early December. At that stage, she indicated that it had been cleared by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, using the urgent procedure for introduction to the Assembly on 7 December. The Bill was introduced very late in the parliamentary session and, as such, from the very beginning, the time frame for the completion of all its legislative stages, including Committee Stage, has been extremely tight. <BR /> <BR />The Bill falls into two distinct remits, namely inland fisheries and sea fisheries. Four clauses are specific to inland fisheries.”
“The previous Member asked for compensation for farms —”
“My colleague Sydney Anderson and me visited a number of farms at the weekend. Indeed, at one particular farm, a pump has been going from New Year's Eve right up to now to keep the water away from the cattle houses. Indeed, one 82-year-old farmer said that it is the worst that he has ever seen in his lifetime. <BR /> <BR />Given that farmers are aware that there is a very high level of silt in the River Bann where it enters Lough Neagh, will the Minister give an assurance that that will be comprehensively looked at? There is a strong feeling that that has played a part over the last number of years. As my colleague said earlier, it has been a very high level of flooding this year, but, over the last number of years, it has been getting higher each year. It is very important that that is addressed.”