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 5 of 20.
“<BR /> <BR />On amendment No 30, it is clear, given that Northern Ireland is working towards a 2050 target from a United Kingdom-wide perspective, that advice on carbon budgets and other environmental issues should be taken, for the most part, exclusively from the United Kingdom's advisory services; indeed, the Climate Change Committee is an important inclusion in that proposal. It is vital that our overall direction is not dictated to by interests and loyalties to other jurisdictions that will be working to differently set agendas and outcomes. We must work to meet our respective targets in the UK framework. For that reason, I cannot support that amendment. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 32 and 34 insert new clauses that are unnecessary. The Climate Change (No.”
“Amendment No 11, which inserts a new clause, is a significant departure from the Bill, and the wider impact of such a departure is not fully understood. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 20 directly relates to the Department for the Economy. There is a significant need for that Department to make its own direction on consumption in regard to power generation from renewables. I again resent the casual approach of the proposers of that amendment, especially when the issue of power generation comprises so many different rules and regulations that deserve much greater consideration in their own right.”
“That line from the correspondence received yesterday from the federation was especially stark. The risks to small businesses are, indeed, enormous, and even the federation actively steers the House towards the 82% target. I therefore signal my intent not to support amendment Nos 1, 2, 3 and 5, as they would massively impact the time frame and, with that, create massive upheaval to Northern Ireland's economy and plunge it over a cliff edge. <BR /> <BR />I do not support amendment Nos 6, 7 and 8, as they have a significantly greater impact than that proposed in the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill, and that has not been fully understood. Amendment No 10 is unnecessary, as the Minister's amendment represents an adequate improvement.”
“They seek to do that by vastly shortening the time frames and, indeed, as a knock-on effect, by reducing the productivity of the agri-food industry. As I mentioned earlier, that has been well warned against by the Climate Change Committee, KPMG and the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU), as well as by the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), which, quite rightly, states that it wants to see the eradication of emissions but, crucially, not the eradication of small business.”
“I support the Minister's amendments, which are amendment Nos 4, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 31, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 64, 65, 66 and 75. I also support amendment No 15, which is a non-ministerial amendment, as I feel that it represents a worthwhile addition, given the importance of carbon capture and storage technology. The Minister's amendments seek to make sensible improvements to the wording of the Bill, and, although the wider aims of the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill are ambitious, they are more widely regarded as being achievable than, for instance, amendment Nos 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8, where it is very clear that the signatories to them wish to go so far as to place our entire agri-food industry in peril. As I have said, implementing them would cost Northern Ireland many billions of pounds, which is money that we do not have to waste.”
“The headlines in the KPMG report are stark. Beef and sheep farming in less-favoured areas (LFAs) could see a 98% drop in farm numbers. That would be catastrophic. As a dairy farmer, I note that 86% of dairy farms would close under the private Member's Bill's outcomes, and, although in my comments today I must remain on the Minister's Bill, it is important to touch on the important commissioned research on the competing private Member's Bill. Many of the amendments on the table today refer back to the private Member's Bill, and there is clearly an attempt to move the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill significantly into that territory. That is a grave mistake. <BR /> <BR />I move on to the specific amendments listed in group 1, which are associated with targets, carbon budgets and nitrogen balance sheets.”
“Although I have read commentary from those who would detract from this Bill by saying that it lacks ambition, I completely disagree with such a view, and I point to the collective nature of the Climate Change Committee's work to steer the United Kingdom as a whole towards meeting its objectives. The efforts of Northern Ireland are equivalent to the efforts across the other UK nations and, most crucially, are understood to be achievable. <BR /> <BR />It is also important to note that the competing private Member's Bill has been subject to a thorough assessment by the leading company KPMG, the results of which have been sobering and the topic of considerable discussion and alarm amongst the agri-food industry, both from the perspective of the representative bodies and that of individual stakeholders.”
“<BR /> <BR />As was outlined yet again in a very informative and worthwhile webinar yesterday, Minister Poots's Bill has been carefully constructed, with expert input to balance the important work of protecting the climate against the equally important work of ensuring that our agri-food industry and economic well-being are not irreparably impacted on. With that in mind, we are now well versed in the work of the UK Climate Change Committee. Its expert-led panel has recommended that Northern Ireland reach at least an 82% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050.”
“I found it interesting that the Speaker even thought it important to write to MLAs about the uniqueness of the situation. It is far from favourable to have two competing Bills. The situation, however, remains that two Bills are on the table, and I wish to state my support for the Bill before the House today standing in the name of the Minister of Agriculture, Mr Edwin Poots MLA, and for it to pass Consideration Stage. The Bill has the very wide support of the agriculture industry, and, although it is a Bill that encompasses much more than just agriculture, it is that sector that has responded loud and clear to the realities of meeting the challenges of climate change.”
“It gets more fanciful by the minute. Some Members continue to push Northern Ireland closer to an economic cliff edge. That is not a firm footing on which to move forward, and I again urge the parties in opposition to this Bill to reconsider their views.”
“That extra money does not exist. The Department believes that the extra cost of a net zero by 2045 target would be in the region of £5·5 billion, on top of the cost for the net zero by 2050 target.”
“To simply take the Department's Bill and attempt to amend it in such a casual manner by changing dates and reducing the time frames is a concern for a great number of reasons, not least because the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill is the Executive Department's Bill. It is a Bill that has been constructed by the people who will oversee its implementation. To casually insert amendments in this fashion rides roughshod over the Department. The net result, particularly if the amendments on the time targets were pushed through, would be the forewarned decimation of our agri-food industry. As a recent communication from the Climate Change Committee alludes to, it would also plunge Northern Ireland into a cost nightmare. Costs associated with the ridiculous proposal of net zero by 2045 would be to the tune of billions of pounds extra.”
“This legislative process has been quite a journey. It has been one of the most involved processes that I can remember in my time as a member of the Agriculture Committee; indeed, it is far from over, if the list of amendments is anything to go by. That points to the seriousness of the challenge that is before us as a legislative Assembly. <BR /> <BR />At the outset, I must state that I believe that the amendments tabled by some Members — certainly at the early stages — amount to a childish game of ping-pong. I resent the very obvious game playing. It does not bode well for us reaching a sensible outcome on one of the most important issues.”
“I thank the Minister for her response and welcome the fact that there will be a partial upgrade of the carriageway, and, even though it is only 1·3 km, it will still help. The existing dual carriageway has a couple of very dangerous turn-offs — Tirnascobe Road is one of them — so I welcome that. To my knowledge, the carriageway is one of the busiest single carriageways in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that a wider upgrade is needed for the road in the future?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. He named a number of organisations; have they received moneys from the fund?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, I am sure that you agree that agriculture is the backbone of our rural areas. Therefore, if the productivity and profitability of agriculture is reduced, it will have a knock-on effect on rural businesses and employment. There are real issues for the sector as a result of moving away from the targets set out in the Executive Climate Change (No. 2) Bill. What impact is that likely to have on our rural areas?”
“I thank the Minister and his officials for introducing the Bill, and I thank Members for their broad agreement in the Chamber to progress it. The matter has been the subject of consultation and has been well informed by a number of formats, which show a broad support base in wider society for the changes. I note that opportunities will be presented for a review, which will be important to ascertain how effective the legislation has been in deterring such attacks and how effective the response of the courts has been to any attack incidents. I support the Bill.”
“Once again, as in previous contributions on the issue, I welcome the swift passage of the Bill through the House. When concluded, it will represent a great step forward in the protection of service animals in Northern Ireland. The benefits of the Bill are obvious, ensuring that laws in Northern Ireland are brought up to speed with the rest of United Kingdom with regard to service animal protection in law. Service animals can often operate in very dangerous situations and are a vital part of the response, for instance, in law enforcement. <BR /> <BR />Up to this point, anyone who deliberately injured a service animal could be charged only with criminal damage. This change in the law will make an attack on a service animal a much more serious crime — rightly so, given the important job that they undertake.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome the £4 million for avian flu compensation. It is certainly a lifeline for the farmers who have been affected. In the Minister's view, does the Budget adequately meet the needs and targets set out in the Executive's Climate Change (No. 2) Bill, particularly the challenges for Northern Ireland citizens and for agriculture and agri-food businesses?”
“I thank the Minister for his response. Having spoken to the owner of the Armagh premises where there was an outbreak, I know that the farmer was very appreciative of the Department's response, help and advice. <BR /> <BR />The outbreaks were some distance apart. Has the Minister's Department been able to identify the source of the spread?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement on this worrying trend. Yesterday, I spoke to the poultry farmer affected in my constituency. He was very appreciative of the help and advice from the Minister's Department. What advice can the Minister give to poultry owners with commercial backyard flocks to ensure that the disease transmission is mitigated as much as possible?”
“I thank the Minister for his response. He has to accept that, if one's sight is impaired badly, having to wait four years is totally unacceptable. There has to be a way found to get that sorted.”
“I thank the Member for his response. I am sure that he will agree that it is important that Parliament Buildings leads the way on green energy. Is the Member aware of whether oil is still used for the main heating of the Building?”
“I am conscious of the workload before the House as we approach the Christmas recess and of the necessity to get through business in a timely manner. I therefore do not intend to dwell on this issue for long other than to state, as I have done on previous occasions when this matter has been before the House, that I welcome the fact that this matter has been able to be progressed under accelerated passage and that it will quickly reach a conclusion as a result. The Bill will address the blockage that has prevented payments from being issued from the fund, and I know that this will be a welcome development when it is finally put into law and that it will assist horse racing in general in Northern Ireland. I support the Bill.”
“It is positive and encouraging to have a Minister in place who knows agriculture and has a great understanding of the issues that farmers face. Minister Poots is not afraid of the issues, and I welcome that. I encourage him to make the changes that are necessary to ensure that our agri-food industry continues to grow and, outside the restrictive shackles of the European Union, ploughs its own furrow and remains an economic linchpin for this country.”
“That area is ripe for reform and restructuring. <BR /> <BR />There have been improvements in the appeal process, and I have had some experience of dealing with those issues, as I have accompanied farmers to appeal panels on numerous occasions. At times, I have been critical of the procedures and their impact on already stressed-out farmers, who have to juggle so many variables, such as the weather, pricing and input costs. Further improvements in procedures would, of course, be welcome. <BR /> <BR />There are, of course, many other areas where reform and adjustment are needed. I have had many conversations with the Minister on those matters, and I look forward to further discussions in the months and weeks ahead.”
“<BR /> <BR />The 'Future Agricultural Policy Framework Portfolio' was launched earlier in the year and is formed around themes such as focusing on increased productivity, environmental sustainability, improved resilience and a responsive supply chain. Those are key themes that underpin the success of our industry, and, therefore, financial support should be tailored around that. That growth and sustainability is absolutely vital. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has been looking at areas in which rules can be simplified and streamlined, and he will know that I have been keen to see movement on issues of cross-compliance, penalties placed on farmers for breaches and the weight of penalty versus the significance of any breach. There are few industries that I am aware of in which minor details are subject to such significant financial penalties.”
“The very fact that we are able to debate the matter in the House is to be welcomed. It is a direct benefit of Brexit and of our ability, as a Province in the United Kingdom, to set our own course on direct payments. Crucially, the fact that we can make simplifications and adjustments is of major importance to our agriculture industry in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Officials in the Department continue to look at ways to tailor support mechanisms to our needs in Northern Ireland. That is important work that can provide a vital opportunity to ensure that Northern Ireland's agri-food industry continues to be a shining light and an economic powerhouse in Northern Ireland. Our producers are central to that success, and they work tirelessly, week in, week out, to produce some of the finest food product in the world.”
“I thank the Minister for his response. Does he accept that there will be huge implications? For instance, there are people who drive a mechanical digger all day. They work for farmers in the morning and, in the evening, they are on a building site doing excavation work for a bungalow. How can they change from one fuel to another in a few hours? It is nearly impossible. It would be very difficult to work in that way.”
“I sincerely hope that it does not progress. It will represent a very backward step and create a legislative nightmare. The resource implications for the PSNI will be significant, and, as we have seen in other areas such as mainland UK, the rate of enforcement is disproportionately low when compared to other offences. On the basis of what is before the House, I cannot support the Bill, given the concerning legal ramifications. I urge the House to reject the Bill.”
“The poorly constructed Bill is concerningly open in its language in that area. It would have serious implications for a wide range of scenarios, such as a simple day out in the country with your pet dog. It would also have implications for rough shooters, gamekeepers, pest controllers and, indeed, farmers. <BR /> <BR />I say it again: the Bill is bad for the countryside and risks criminalising ordinary people. Surely, that cannot be allowed to happen in this day and age. Members, you simply cannot be oblivious to the ramifications of the Bill and what it would mean, in legal terms, for the countryside and rural dwellers. You may not have an interest in hunting, but surely you have an interest in the House creating laws that are sensible, logical and, crucially, enforceable. The Bill is none of those.”
“The consultation required only an email address, and of course it is important that any consultation focuses on the views of people here in Northern Ireland and is not open to abuse through organised spam emails. I remain concerned about the consultation process. <BR /> <BR />The inclusion of a two-dog limit in the Bill is a huge concern. It represents a real threat to how animals can be protected from vermin and pest species, and it would create huge difficulties to farmers with livestock that is susceptible to attack. The Bill would drastically reduce the capacity to deal with such attacks on livestock and, indeed, manage game. <BR /> <BR />Clause 6 is also a huge concern. It would see a criminal offence being committed if a dog, while out for a run with its owner, decides to chase a wild animal.”
“It makes an important point about evidence and the fact that, in the drafting of the Bill, no attempt seems to have been made to examine the evidence. There is significant research and a huge evidence base out there, following similar exercises on the mainland. It is worth considering that much of that evidence still points to a firm need to control the environment and pest species, and that need will remain. <BR /> <BR />Mr Blair's consultation has been the subject of much concern. There is a significant question mark over where the responses came from; whether they were from Northern Ireland or whether many were, possibly, generated from overseas.”
“Indeed, as on my farm, farmers on many farms throughout the country spend heavily each year to ensure that animals are healthy and well. They also spend heavily on maintaining healthy habitats for wildlife, which has important knock-on benefits for the countryside. The control of vermin and pest species is an important part of maintaining the rural ecosystem. Certain species must be controlled effectively to ensure that that important balance is kept. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is the thin end of the wedge. As we have seen with such attempts at legislation previously, hunting, whilst it is not a pursuit that I engage in, is not the issue here; rather, this Bill is an attempt to create division and, indeed, misrepresent the rural community. The Countryside Alliance has conducted a significant amount of research and consultation on the issue.”
“It is my duty to represent the hundreds of people who have contacted me, people who have raised their concerns and, indeed, drawn my immediate attention to the fact that practically every dog owner in the country whose dog may, at some point, chase a wild animal, could, indeed, be committing an offence if this poorly thought-out and ill-advised draft law were actually to come into force. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is poorly drafted, and its promotion has raised the concerns of many people. The Bill sponsor has unfairly painted a picture of rural life that is simply untrue. That is a regrettable by-product of this bad draft legislation. As a farmer, I am in tune with the rural environment and, indeed, care greatly for the animals that are in my control. I do not, at any time, wish to see any animal suffer needlessly.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate and record my concerns about the unintended consequences of what, in my view, amounts to bad legislation. As I represent a rural constituency, it will be no surprise to Members that I have received hundreds of pieces of correspondence from people who are deeply concerned about this poorly thought-out Bill. I wish to see it taken off the table. <BR /> <BR />The correspondence has come from responsible individuals who have taken time to explain to me their real concerns about the Bill.”
“I thank the Minister for her response. One caravan owner had been on a certain caravan site for almost 50 years, but, because he would not replace it with a new caravan that he could not afford, the crane was brought in and his caravan was taken out. Does the Minister agree that there needs to be more protection for caravan owners?”
“That would not be a welcome development. The House is in favour of addressing the anomaly, however. I support the proposed legislative change and trust that it can be implemented without further delay.”
“<BR /> <BR />Service dogs, by reason of their duty, often find themselves in dangerous circumstances, along with their handler, and they can often be at severe risk. The legislation seeks to address that and to ensure that anyone who carries out any form of attack on a service animal is dealt with appropriately through the justice system. Until legislation is put in place, those types of incidents can be argued from a self-defence perspective and treated as criminal damage. That is highly unsatisfactory. The recent accumulation of concern on the matter gave rise to what is known as Finn's law. <BR /> <BR />I support the need for the law to be changed, and I would welcome accelerated passage for the Bill. In the absence of such a change, Northern Ireland will remain the only part of the UK without such protection in place.”
“This is welcome legislation that will, no doubt, unite the House in its favour. With that in mind, I do not intend to dwell on the matter before the House under the accelerated passage process. It is a welcome development. Hopefully, the Bill will be concluded in a timely fashion. <BR /> <BR />The role played by service animals is well known and acknowledged. The fact that they have been injured with little or no consequences for the perpetrator is the reason for the proposed change in the law. I welcome the fact that the Minister took the issue forward through a consultation, which returned a fairly unanimous response in favour of the change. He now brings a necessary motion before the Assembly.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. What discussions were held about the Northern Ireland protocol, particularly the unacceptable impact that it is having on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?”
“I thank the Minister for his response. Does he accept that other regions of the UK and, indeed, the Republic of Ireland have different systems in place that work well?”
“I thank the First Minister for his response. When were you advised by the Health Minister that he was having difficulties with putting into legislation the obligations that he wanted for cafes and coffee shops?”
“The Bill enables that impasse to end and payments to be applied for again. For that reason, I do not intend to say much more on the matter, other than that I support the Bill.”
“As stated, the Bill addresses a technical issue on a specific set of circumstances relating to two racecourses in Northern Ireland. The reason for the change is to allow the racecourses to make applications to the horse racing fund to support their operating costs. That has not been possible for some time, owing to a number of technicalities that the Bill is designed to address. The amendments focus on the supply of financial statements on expenditure and accounts for the racecourses concerned. <BR /> <BR />The Bill's general thrust received broad agreement in the Committee. That being the case and given that the call for evidence opened and closed back in the summer, the Bill before the House represents an adjustment and correction of the technicalities that have prevented payments from being made for some time.”
“I have said for some time that changes were needed in the policy on housing on farms and even planners have stated that it would be better if the policy allowed a decision to be taken on a suitable site on a farm, rather than being forced to place a house beside farm buildings. <BR /> <BR />These are the issues that the Minister must begin to address.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have represented constituents who have been able to demonstrate a much better site close by, that is much less visible to the surrounding countryside. However, the planners will not countenance such an option, as it does not sit within the existing policy. I do not understand why the Minister does not focus on those situations and provide advice notes to planners that enable them to respond sensibly to applications in such circumstances. Where a much better site exists close to the farm, it will allow a young family to access financial aid through a mortgage in order to build their home and sustain the rural economy. <BR /> <BR />Withdrawing the PAN was the right decision, and, hopefully, in the future, the Minister can regain focus on sustaining our agricultural industry, rural infrastructure and the wider rural community.”
“We must always be mindful of the need to sustain rural communities rather than limit opportunities for rural dwellers and the rural economy. <BR /> <BR />Instead of issuing what was monumentally unhelpful advice, the Minister would, I feel, be best employed in dealing with existing policy shortfalls, such as the fact that policy CTY 10, for a house on a farm, will not show latitude in house placement. Many farming families have been put in difficult situations as planners have insisted that a house has to be located to cluster with existing farm buildings. That has meant that mortgage providers will not lend money where they would view the house as unsellable if, for instance, it has shared access.”
“Minister Mallon urged that it was not a change in policy, but my experience is that it was very much that, as my involvement with that application this week has shown. My constituent's plans were in disarray following the Minister's issue of the PAN. Indeed, one case officer told me that, before the note was issued by the Minister, the application was clearly to be approved. <BR /> <BR />What this means for all the other decisions taken across the Province in line with the PAN remains to be seen. It will be up to council planning departments and committees to deal with the aftermath, an entirely avoidable situation, of course. <BR /> <BR />Building in the countryside is already rigid in policy. There is little opportunity, and it is difficult for someone who wants to remain in the countryside to meet the requirements.”
“I do not conclude that that is the case, and even senior planners state that it amounts to a change in policy and it has affected their consideration of applications currently in the system. <BR /> <BR />The fact that, over the weekend, the PAN was retracted is, of course, welcome, and the immediate effect of that retraction, from my perspective, was that I received an update that a constituent's application, which had been due to be refused under the criteria of the planning advice notice, would now be approved. That was the impact of this planning advice note. It is simply not good enough that the Minister sowed this much confusion in the first instance in issuing the advice note.”