Declan McAleer
West Tyrone · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“The regulations are designed to strengthen and complement the existing framework governing the welfare of animals at the time of killing. They build upon EU regulation 1099/2009 and the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2014, ensuring that the North maintains high standards of animal welfare.”
“Inspectors are granted clear powers to enforce the regulations, including the ability to enter premises, carry out inspections and, where necessary, seize evidence to ensure compliance. Enforcement notices may also be issued where breaches are identified, with appropriate mechanisms in place for appeal.”
“<BR /> <BR />From a resource point of view, which is another key debate, and looking at the practicalities of the Bill, we must not create a situation in which councils will be expected to take on significant new responsibilities, incur substantial costs and manage increased workloads without the necessary resources.”
“I will follow on from the key points made by my colleague Aoife Finnegan MLA. First, I record our appreciation of the Committee staff, including Janice and Glenda, for the work that they did. I also thank the Bill Office for its assistance during our scrutiny of the Bill.”
“We support the ambition of the Bill — we made that clear at First Stage and at Committee Stage, and we have made it clear today — to give councils stronger powers to intervene. However, the stronger powers must be accompanied by a framework that is properly resourced, legally robust and workable.”
“There are three council areas in our West Tyrone constituency, for instance. <BR /> <BR />We heard a lot from NILGA and received correspondence from SOLACE about the costs and the fear that costs could not be recovered. If legal challenges were brought to councils about notices that were made, it would be costly to the ratepayer.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,560 lines we hold for Declan McAleer, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 32.
“I welcome the opportunity to outline the Committee's views on the Hunting of Wild Mammals Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Committee received evidence from the Bill sponsor last Thursday. It recognises that this is a contentious matter and that due consideration needs to be given to the issues before introducing such restrictions. The Committee heard that the purpose of the Bill is to ban the use of dogs to hunt wild mammals to death, including foxes, rabbits, deer, hare and mink. It seeks to bridge a legislative gap here and in other parts of these islands. The Bill goes further, however, by closing legislative loopholes that have been exploited by individuals to continue the use of dogs to hunt under permissible activities.”
“We also recognise that there is some discontent about the fees currently charged to bookmakers for the fund and that it is important to ensure that those be fair and proportionate to their overall revenue. The Committee acknowledges, however, that those measures will take time and cross-departmental collaboration, and, in that context, it did not consider it appropriate to provide for that in the Bill; instead, it has made a recommendation to DAERA and the Department for Communities to take those work streams forward. <BR /> <BR />In summary, the AERA Committee supports the Bill and the need to restore speedily the ability of Down Royal and Downpatrick racecourses to access fund payments to support their activities, which provide an important social outlet for the public and greatly benefit the local economy.”
“Committee members are also content with clause 3, which removes obsolete references in the 1990 Order relating to rules and by-laws of the Down Royal Corporation. The Committee did not identify any issues with clauses 4 to 6, which are technical and/or inconsequential. <BR /> <BR />The Committee is also content with the amendment that the Minister tabled that will put in place transitional arrangements for the calendar year 2022 only and avoid any further delays for operators in receiving allocations. The Committee acknowledges the issue raised by stakeholders that there should be a comprehensive review of the fund to look at what entities should be eligible to apply and about how the fund is operated.”
“That will allow fund payments to resume to Downpatrick and Down Royal. The Committee agreed that an amendment should be brought forward that would enable operators to apply for backdated payments so that they could access lost income from 2019 and 2020. The Committee therefore welcomes and supports the amendment brought forward by the Minister that will enable retrospective fund applications until the end of the transition period. The Committee also supports the amendment under clause 1 that will enable DAERA to make future changes to named operators through secondary legislation to avoid any future delay or suspension of fund allocations. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also supports clause 2, which will give greater flexibility to racecourse operators to make financial submissions independently or jointly.”
“The Committee heard that the inability to access fund payments has had a major impact on their revenue and that, as a result, they have had to resort to other means of subsidising their income to maintain their activities. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the inability to access fund payments has come at a particularly challenging time for the courses and has prevented them from making improvements to their facilities. We heard how crucial fund payments are to subsidising the prize pot payments available at each racecourse. That is important for attracting high-quality races and maintaining spectator levels. <BR /> <BR />The Committee therefore supports clause 1, which removes specific references to named beneficiaries in the 1990 Order and replaces those with a generic definition.”
“Officials from DAERA briefed the Committee on the clauses on 16 September and confirmed that its primary purpose was to reinstate the allocation of fund payments to both racecourses in County Down through amendments to the 1990 Order. The Committee questioned the officials about the prospect of widening the scope of the fund to allow greyhound tracks to make applications and for them to use the licence fees currently charged to bookmakers. DAERA officials advised that the limitations of the fund are acknowledged and that the Department is committed to undertaking a fundamental strategic review of it in the long term but that will take time and require input and engagement from other Departments. <BR /> <BR />On 23 September, the Committee received evidence from Down Royal and Downpatrick racecourses.”
“We sought assurances from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs about that. The Department advised that, so long as the operator uses fund payments for the specific purpose of supporting horse-racing activities, it is not of relevance. The Committee was content with that rationale.”
“That would have a negative knock-on effect on the economy and employment. In general, the respondents supported the Bill's aims, and there was consensus to modernise the provisions of the 1990 Order so that courses are not prevented from applying in future. <BR /> <BR />Through our call for evidence, we heard that a review of the scope of the fund might be useful, as well as an assessment of the levies that bookmakers are charged to resource the fund, in order to make sure that they are proportionate to their overall revenue. We also heard concerns from some stakeholders that the current operator of Down Royal is a privately funded company and, therefore, it is questionable whether it should be entitled to fund payments.”
“Following that, we commissioned a briefing from the Assembly's Research and Information Service and undertook a call for evidence between June and August 2021. The Committee received eight responses to its call for evidence, and the majority of respondents supported the Bill's objectives and its primary aim of facilitating the resumption of fund payments. <BR /> <BR />We heard how important the activities at Down Royal and Downpatrick are to the local equine sector and the wider economy. It is estimated that £4·5 million is generated annually in off-course spending by spectators, reaching retail, hospitality and restaurant venues. Stakeholders were concerned that a prolonged delay in receiving fund payments had the potential to jeopardise the racecourses' activities, meaning that they might have to hold fewer events in the year.”
“There has also been a knock-on impact on Downpatrick: its fund applications were not considered by the Department because of concerns about breaching state aid regulations through continued allocations to one course over the other. <BR /> <BR />The Bill aims to overcome those issues by making changes to the 1990 Order. It inserts a generic definition of a "horse racecourse operator" at each site. That will enable the resumption of fund payments to both racecourses. It also makes several other technical amendments to future-proof the provision of fund allocations, should a similar scenario arise in the years ahead. <BR /> <BR />The Bill was referred to the Committee on 26 April 2021.”
“Since 1990, both courses have been able to apply yearly to the fund, which is overseen by the Department, to support their activities, to subsidise prize money and to subsidise spending to ensure spectator safety and the proper conduct of races. <BR /> <BR />The Horse Racing Order 1990 provides for the management of the fund and names specific beneficiaries at Down Royal and Downpatrick racecourses. The fund is resourced through annual charges to local bookmakers, and its income is approximately £350,000 a year. Following a change of ownership in 2019, the incumbent operators at Down Royal have been unable to apply for fund payments due to the wording of the 1990 Order.”
“I welcome the opportunity to outline the Committee's views on the Horse Racing (Amendment) Bill following its scrutiny at Committee Stage. The Committee's report, which was made available to Members prior to the debate, sets out its full work and considerations. In summary, the Committee welcomes the Bill and recognises the need for the legislation in order to support the sustainability of racing events at courses in County Down that not only provide a popular social outlet but generate significant income for the local economy. <BR /> <BR />As the Minister outlined, the Bill's main objective is to facilitate the resumption of payments from the horse racing fund to Down Royal and Downpatrick racecourses.”
“As for the wider infrastructure, the Strathroy Link Road is there and Arvalee is on-site. A lot of demolition and site preparation work has taken place on-site to get ready for the main contract. So much progress has been made so far, but there is still so much to do. This is a phoenix-like project. It is iconic and game-changing, and it is in the heart of Omagh town. We talked recently about the need to make progress on our climate change legislation because we owe it to our children. It is the same with this project: we owe it to our children and to future generations to see it through.”
“The walkway is built right through it, and the council and others are looking at the potential uses of the sites that the schools will vacate when they move onto their new site. There is so much potential for economic development and decentralisation.”
“That will take the pressure off schools of having to provide the full subjects in their own school. They can network with others. Indeed, the Omagh learning community is doing that already. This will make it even more efficient. Spreading that across the network of schools will allow some schools to perhaps specialise in STEM, linguistics or whatever. <BR /> <BR />The emphasis is hugely on sharing. There is the shared education centre on-site, which focuses on STEM subjects, art, drama and the sixth form. The sports pavilion has multiple courts and multi-use game areas. That is accessible to the wider community as well, which is a huge benefit for the Omagh area. The council has played a huge role.”
“Thomas quite rightly mentioned Omagh High School, but a number of schools, such as Sacred Heart College and others, need new builds. They are not in good shape. The Arvalee School and Resource Centre is already on site. Unfortunately, its former premises were burned down a number of years ago. It is on-site now, waiting for everybody else to come on board. It is great that a special educational needs school will take its place at the heart of that new inclusive project. <BR /> <BR />The project has so many pedagogic, social and community benefits. It has the potential to deliver a 21st-century curriculum in new and modern shared facilities. Key Stage 4 and post-16 pupils will particularly benefit; they will be, effectively, integrated, because this will enable each of the schools to deliver the entitlement framework and more.”
“<BR /> <BR />The project has strong support in the community and, uniquely in this part of the world, there is strong cross-party support and support across all sections of the community as well. I remember that the NI Affairs Committee was on-site when I was in my former role working with Pat Doherty MP. I do not normally quote Tories, but I remember Sir Patrick Cormack, who was the Chair of the Committee at that time, referring to it as a "phoenix-like project". That always stuck with me, because it is a "phoenix-like project" when we take a large-scale site, build it up and grow it into a site where children from all sections of the community can come together and be educated as one. <BR /> <BR />There are also six new schools at the centre of this.”
“I welcome the debate this evening and thank my colleague Nicola Brogan for securing it. It is great to see the Minister in the Chamber to listen to the debate. <BR /> <BR />I have been heavily involved in this project from as far back as when I was a councillor, as has Thomas Buchanan when he was on Omagh District Council. Being a grassroots project is the strength of the project. At the outset, it was driven by visionaries, such as Reverend Robert Herron and Monsignor Joseph Donnelly, by school leaders and by Omagh District Council. The former chief executive of Omagh District Council Danny McSorley and the current chief executive of Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, Alison McCullough, played huge roles, along with school leaders, in driving the project forward.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Across the island of Ireland, we produce enough food each year for over 15 million people, with the North accounting for about 10 million of that figure. That is thanks to the hard work of farmers and the wider agri-food sector. Will the Minister give us an indication of how the green growth strategy will interact with his future agriculture policy?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement this morning. Minister, you made reference to waste crime and waste management. Regardless of the fact that we have two jurisdictions on this island, we live on one single epidemiological island. We know that other elements of our environment, such as water and air, know no boundaries. Will the Minister outline to us what all-island aspects have been incorporated in the strategy?”
“In the context of the increasing levels of North/South trade, will the Minister give a commitment to work with the agri-food sector to enable it to maximise the benefits of the protocol in being able to access the EU and the British market?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. He will know that, in the past, the island of Ireland was the most forested part of Europe, but, unfortunately, we now have the dubious distinction of being the least forested part. Some great initiatives are taking place at Dunmoyle and Altmore in my constituency; indeed, most recently, there are proposals on the table for Seskinore Forest. <BR /> <BR />Will the Minister outline what role the forest at Glenarm and, indeed, any other forest developments across the North can play in promoting and protecting biodiversity here?”
“It is a debate for another day, but certain aspects of PPS 21 need to be revisited. <BR /> <BR />I am glad that the Minister has rescinded the guidance. Like other Members, I commend that decision. I stress the importance of consulting local councillors, councils and wider rural community organisations in particular. They are at the forefront and were the first to raise the concern that we have reflected in the debate. It is important that local stakeholders, councils and other representatives in the wider community are consulted in the event of any guidance or policy being issued in the future.”
“We need them to sustain our schools and services and to give that heartbeat to our rural communities, which are under a lot of pressure with Brexit, a lack of broadband connectivity and other issues. <BR /> <BR />Whilst the Minister may feel that the SPPS is fit for purpose, which is a fair enough point, under PPS 21, there is one plan every 10 years. Many families in the country, especially farming families, may have four, five or six siblings in the house. Being granted one planning permission every 10 years is extremely challenging, so it is important that there are other opportunities, such as infill sites and renovations and that personal circumstances are considered. They are very difficult to get. It is important that flexibility remains on infill sites, clusters and building on the farm.”
“We do not want unregulated planning or "bungalow blight" in the country. We want to achieve a balance between protecting the countryside and enabling people and their families to live there. People and families provide the vibrancy — the heartbeat — of rural communities. <BR /> <BR />I made the point a couple of weeks ago that, in the vast majority of cases, it is young couples who want to start their life in the country. In most cases, they want to build beside their home place. They may be farming people, perhaps with aging parents; they want to start a new life there and support their parents, as they age, on the farm. Rural representatives will know the kind of people I am talking about; we have all met them on sites. <BR /> <BR />We need people to live in the countryside.”
“I raised the matter a couple of weeks ago at Question Time, and the Minister made the point, at the time, that the PAN was guidance rather than a policy change. That is a fair enough point. However, paragraph 2 of the PAN says:”
“She stated that she was committed to having a vibrant rural economy and rural communities and that it was important to strike a balance between protecting the countryside and encouraging development. <BR /> <BR />Looking ahead, the Minister said that she will look at the potential implications of a climate change Act and the green growth strategy, and she again emphasised her commitment to having vibrant rural communities. <BR /> <BR />That was a summary of some of the main points of the debate. I will make a few points before concluding. There definitely seems to have been a clear rejection, in the House and amongst rural organisations and representatives, of the PAN. It was clear that it would inhibit planning on farms, infill sites and rural settlements.”
“<BR /> <BR />Minister Mallon responded to the debate and said that it had been a healthy one, which she welcomed. She mentioned that the SPPS was published in 2015 to manage development in the countryside and to protect the environment while sustaining communities. She said there was a call for evidence in 2016 and that further research was carried out in 2017 to inform the development of the strategic planning policy. The Minister is satisfied that the SPPS is fit for purpose. <BR /> <BR />She made the point that she issued the PAN to clarify the implementation of PPS 21 and that, in fact, it was not a policy change. She recognised, however, that it had caused confusion and had not provided the clarity intended, so she withdrew it.”
“She highlighted the challenge for councils, as the appropriate resources did not go to councils when the planning powers were transferred, and the voluntary exit scheme had resulted in the haemorrhaging of a lot of seasoned and experienced planners. She also highlighted a local area planning issue. <BR /> <BR />George Robinson said that he had heard many concerns from his constituents regarding the impact of the PAN. He questioned why it was issued in the first place, and he said that there should have been consultation before any such decision was made. He said that sensible and sensitive decisions must be made about planning in the countryside and that there was a need for consultation. He commended the work of the Infrastructure Committee in highlighting the issue.”
“I remember Deborah as a young journalist in Omagh a few years ago. It is great to see her in the Chamber today, and I congratulate her on her maiden speech. Deborah acknowledged the rescinding of the PAN and believed that the Minister did not fully take on board the potential impact of the PAN and that it had caused a lot of concerns. She talked about the importance of appropriate planning policy for future generations to keep them on the farm and the wider implications for rural communities. <BR /> <BR />Dolores Kelly said that the PAN was a consequence of PPS 14 and PPS 21. She said that there were different interpretations across councils, and she also spoke about the need for social housing in rural areas and the importance of getting a balance in relation to sustainable rural communities.”
“He went back to PPS 14 and PPS 21, highlighting some of the challenges that people experienced in relation to planning. He said that councillors and rural groups were on the front line of those decisions, and he welcomed the withdrawal of the PAN. He said that it was not a rural versus urban issue. <BR /> <BR />William Irwin said that the PAN has not been very well received across councils and that it has created confusion. He said that there is already a very rigid rural planning policy and that appropriate planning was important for the rural economy. He mentioned the issue that the UFU had highlighted about mortgage implications and the fact that houses can be seen as unsellable if people are forced to build on the farmyard. <BR /> <BR />I want to acknowledge Deborah Erskine's maiden speech.”
“He highlighted the fact that there may be differences in interpretation of planning policy among councils and that a flexible approach was needed. He also highlighted the pending climate change legislation. <BR /> <BR />Andrew Muir said that Alliance supports PPS 21, and he pointed to Donegal as an example of where there is "bungalow blight" that it is too late to fix and suggested that we do not want to go down that road. He said that the policies protect the environment and that the Department should have consulted on the case for action more clearly. He made the case that the planning advice will be revisited and that the way in which councils interpret PPS 21 will become a big issue. He said that a change in planning policy is required. <BR /> <BR />Cathal Boylan said that there was a need for broader discussion on rural planning.”
“Deich mbomaite. Go raibh maith agat. I came into the debate as Mr Buckley was speaking. He referred to the health benefits of planning and building in the countryside and to the fact that it has been five and a half years since the previous consultation on rural planning policy. Another one is needed soon. <BR /> <BR />Broadcasting brought Cara Hunter in, who welcomed the removal of the PAN. She emphasised the fact that there was no policy change and that the Minister had taken on board Members' views and made the appropriate changes. Roy Beggs emphasised the importance of the need for sustainable development in the countryside. He thanked the Minister for listening and for removing the PAN, and he emphasised the need for dialogue and consultation. He also cited the RCN statistics on planning approvals over the past number of years.”
“Does the Member believe that an effective rural planning policy is important for the vibrancy of our towns, villages and rural communities?”
“Does the Minister not agree that the protocol has provided us with a unique opportunity to access both markets? Invest NI recently provided information that up to 30 foreign direct investment (FDI) companies are now looking at the North as an opportunity. Does the Minister's party's opposition to the protocol not fly in the face of business leaders who want to seize the unique opportunity of access to both markets?”
“Thank you, Minister. You partially answered my supplementary question. Do you anticipate that your future policy will become live in 2022-23 and that we will continue as we are, having incorporated your simplifications in the interim?”
“The Minister will be aware that this has come about because Britain diverged from EU regulations and rules. Will he agree that the best way to resolve the situation and get the best of both worlds is through a veterinary agreement that aligns the UK and the EU?”
“We are heading into the harvest, but seasonal workers will not be able to come here this year because of the British immigration rules that apply in the North. <BR /> <BR />Minister Poots wrote to the Home Office about immigration. The Committee received the reply from the Home Office. It is contemptuous and shameful that the Home Office will not look at any relaxation of the visa rules, expedition of the tier 2 visas or including butchers and meat processors on the shortage occupation list. <BR /> <BR />I thank everybody for their contributions today. It was a good and wide-ranging debate. I agree with Mr Nesbitt that positions have not changed greatly, but it was very helpful to discuss the motion today.”
“The challenge is that the British market, which is so important to us, could be filled with products from other countries that the British Government have entered into arrangements with. <BR /> <BR />We have seen that the divergence in regulations can have a negative impact. Whilst we have left the EU and have the protocol to facilitate trade, we have different immigration rules on the island of Ireland. The British Home Office rules apply in the North, and that is causing mayhem in the agri-food and processing industry. We now have a situation in which 25,000 pigs are backed up on farms across the North because we have a shortage of butchers and processors in the meat plants. That is causing a crisis in the pork industry.”
“<BR /> <BR />As for how all this came about, it absolutely is a product of Brexit. It is also a product of Britain setting the scene for divergence from EU regulations and rules. We saw that when the British Government steadfastly refused to include minimum standards in the Agriculture Act. That was the first sign of it: they refused to include in the Agriculture Act minimum standards for imports. They then put their face against a veterinary agreement. The British Government are setting the scene to diverge from EU regulations and to enter into trade agreements across the rest of the world. We saw that in the case of Australia, where the regulations differ from those of the EU. That is where the protocol is an important protection against those imports coming into the North.”
“I want to deal with the issue of leaving the EU, which was touched on as well. In my role as spokesperson on agriculture and rural affairs, I deal with a lot of people in farming and rural communities. Certainly, Brexit has put all of us on the back foot. For example, the South of Ireland has negotiated a €10·7 billion chunk of the common agricultural policy to spend over the next seven years, whilst here in the North we do not know what will happen with funding beyond the lifetime of the current British Parliament. Also, we are looking at PEACE PLUS as a possible replacement for the rural development programme. However, that will be at risk if the DUP decides to pull down these institutions. The Finance Minister said the other day that, if that is the case, there is a possibility that it may not be signed off at the NSMC.”
“<BR /> <BR />That was a bit of a run-through of some of the main issues raised. From my perspective, as Sinn Féin's agriculture and rural affairs spokesperson, we want seamless trade east-west, because 50% of our agri-food product goes across the water to Britain, so we need two-way trade. We also need North/South trade, because our processing lines are North/South. Some £1·3 billion in trade is done North/South. The figures are very startling. We import about half a million pigs from the South into the North, and we export about half a million sheep. Upwards of a billion litres of milk are exported into the South every year as well. We have seen the scrapie monitoring crisis and the pedigree issues, and those need to be resolved.”
“<BR /> <BR />Ms Bailey talked about the Brexit disaster that was imposed on us without our consent and referenced the contempt that has been shown to us by the British Government in that regard. She referred to the huge number of statutory regulations and LCMs that have been rushed through. Indeed, the Committee was at the front of that over a number of months in order to get a functioning rule book ready for transition day. She also referred to the protocol benefits. She said that businesses need clarity and that the protocol, itself, is a bespoke agreement. <BR /> <BR />Mr Nesbitt, who wound on the amendment, said that positions had not changed much. He outlined his proposition for a Celtic sea border and his preference for an arrangement to deal with goods that are at risk.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Beggs said that the protocol is not working and that we have only had a taste of its effects here. He said that there are challenges for small businesses, and he gave the example of a car business trying to access parts. He also said that his preference is for an at-risk system. <BR /> <BR />Mr Muir said that we have had the hardest Brexit here. He said that, in a recent survey, 18% of the public said that they thought it was going well. He highlighted the importance of an SPS veterinary agreement and said that that was the best way forward. He said that, in the referendum, Alliance supported the bid to remain. He also said that long-term rules for businesses need to be established and that the EU and the UK need to work together.”
“Minister Poots spoke again about the need to dismantle the protocol by triggering article 16. He referred to the number of CHEDS coming in and the implications of checks on those for businesses. He said that businesses had not had any particular issues with checks at the ports for goods that were going into the single market but that was not the case for goods staying here. <BR /> <BR />Mr McGlone talked about the free movement of goods, capital, people and services. He also talked about the implications of Brexit in Britain. He referred to the fact that the majority of people here voted to remain, that the protocol was a product of Brexit and that we have a duty to protect the Good Friday Agreement. He said that, if article 16 were triggered, issues would still remain and that we instead need stability and a positive way forward.”
“<BR /> <BR />Emma Sheerin talked about EU membership being good for the North and that Brexit was bad. She said that we need a resolution to make the best of a bad situation. She talked about Brexit being driven by an ideology that was bad for here and that had the rhetoric of the old days of the British Empire. She said that an SPS agreement would make sense. She highlighted some of the issues that we face around blackface sheep. She said that alignment would create even more trade, and that would be good. <BR /> <BR />Harry Harvey talked about the damage done by the protocol and referred to livestock, medicines, food, horticulture, the Good Friday Agreement, the EU and the importance of removing the sea border.”
“He referenced the scale of checks, called for them to be binned and mentioned the importance of the British market. <BR /> <BR />Mr O'Toole referenced the importance of the EU-UK SPS agreement. He said that he has never heard any successful argument for SPS land border checks on the island of Ireland. He referred to the fact that, for decades, the island of Ireland has been a single epidemiological unit for animal plant and health, and he said that the Swiss deal could be taken off the shelf. <BR /> <BR />Mr Blair said that we have a supply chain North/South and east-west, that the protocol is a response to Brexit and that it is easier to have checks at the sea than across a land border of 250 miles. He said that a bespoke EU-UK SPS agreement must be a priority, that article 16 would not stop the protocol and that he supported the motion.”
“This has been a very interesting debate with a lot of opinions across the Chamber. It kicked off with my colleague Caoimhe Archibald, who highlighted the need for practical solutions to reduce checks. She said that the Trade and Cooperation Agreement was a minimalist, threadbare approach and stressed the importance of the protocol to protect the all-Ireland supply chain. She spoke about SPS models throughout the world and how we need a genuine bespoke agreement here to resolve the outstanding issues. She said that triggering article 16 would provoke a discussion phase. <BR /> <BR />Mr Aiken said that time is running out, that the protocol is not working and that it needs to change. He said that that is important because it is affecting east-west trade. <BR /> <BR />Mr Irwin said that the protocol is the problem and not the solution.”
“I thank the Minister for her response. She will be aware that there are a lot of concerns about planning in the country. The planning note to which she refers appears to restrict the interpretation of planning policy and make it more difficult for people to build in the countryside. In most instances, that will affect young couples who want to build beside the home place. There is enough pressure in rural communities at the minute, between Brexit, broadband and rural isolation in the middle of the pandemic. Will the Minister reconsider and perhaps withdraw the planning advice note?”
“I thank the Minister for his response. Will he join me in commending the excellent work of charities such as Endometriosis UK? I want to mention, in particular, Laurene Agnew, who has campaigned endlessly and been living with the condition for 20 years, and indeed her brother Cormac, who is completing a full-distance Ironman challenge for Endometriosis UK, Cormac's IronmanForEndo, on 23 October.”