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 21 of 32.
“In August, its business case to procure facilities for physical checks, with the aim of reducing the need for documentary and ID checks of goods to be carried out at points of entry, was successful. The costs for its preferred option are approximately £45 million, with £38 million required for upfront capital expenditure. Around £6 million of revenue will be required for recruiting, employing and training additional personnel and programme implementation costs. <BR /> <BR />Yet another major issue with EU exit is the future funding to replace current EU funding. As Members are aware, the bulk of EU funding that comes to DAERA is paid out as direct payments to farmers. While the Committee welcomes the fact that funding of £293 million has been secured for 2020-21, it still has concerns about what will happen beyond that date.”
“The Department, therefore, has flagged up to the Department of Finance a requirement of £25·6 million resource DEL to cover the full-year costs of those staff in 2021-22. Additional staffing may be required depending on the need for contingency arrangements. <BR /> <BR />Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the protocol, DAERA is required to implement the EU Official Controls Regulation. That includes sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) checks on regulated goods arriving at points of entry into the jurisdiction. The preparedness work includes physical facilities as well as IT systems and trained staff. It also requires reprioritising DAERA work programmes and the staff resource required to deliver post-transition official controls. DAERA had submitted a business case to the Treasury.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee was aware that the aquaculture sector was also suffering, so it was pleased to hear that £368,000 had been secured for it, with 80% of that coming from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to the next major area of financial concern for the Committee and one to which we have recently turned our attention: the financial impact on DAERA of preparing for and delivering EU exit at the end of the transition period. In written briefings to the Committee, DAERA noted that it needed an additional 456 staff to support the wider delivery of Brexit and was actively working to fill those posts. However, there is no baseline funding for those staff.”
“I am glad to say that we, as a Committee, made strong representation to DAERA on that aspect and that the requirement for VAT registration has now been removed. That funding scheme opened recently, and applications are now being received by DAERA. <BR /> <BR />An additional £1·5 million is being made available to the fisheries sector. Recently, the Committee wrote to the Department to get an update on that funding. <BR /> <BR />The Main Estimates and Supply resolution will also show that some £3·8 million of COVID-19 funding has been allocated towards waste. Most of that was to help local authorities to cope with the closure of public amenity sites during lockdown and the resultant increase in fly-tipping.”
“However, we are all aware that we are not out of the woods when it comes to the financial impact on farmers. Further support may yet be needed in this financial year. <BR /> <BR />The second scheme is aimed at the ornamental horticulture sector and accounts for £1·6 million. That is the sector from which many of our vegetables, soft fruits and garden plants come. When the secondary legislation to provide authority to the Department to spend that money came to the Agriculture Committee, it had concerns with the requirement for those businesses to be VAT-registered. The ornamental horticulture sector has lots of small businesses, many of which are not VAT-registered and would not, therefore, be eligible to apply.”
“We made a quick call for evidence and heard in writing from a large number of farmers and stakeholder groups about what was happening on the ground and what support was needed. <BR /> <BR />There are two schemes for the distribution of the £25 million support. The first, with the bulk of the money, is for the dairy, beef, sheep and potato farmers and accounts for £21·4 million. The dairy sector gets up to £11 million, while the beef sector gets £7 million. That scheme is now closed. The Committee was clear with the Department that the funding should be targeted at those who were most in need and had suffered most loss and that it should be equitable in its distribution. Some members still have concerns about the funding for beef cattle and whether enough was given to sheep farmers.”
“We have an industry here that produces high-quality food that is exported all over the world. It has also been supplying the hospitality and catering industries, and it is that aspect that has taken a direct hit. Be it seafood, our grass-fed cattle and hill sheep or our local potatoes, the farmers have taken a body blow as the markets for their produce — the export and the home markets — have just disappeared. The AERA Minister made a bid for and received an additional £25 million for the agri-food sector. As I indicated, that was with the full support of the Committee. We, as a Committee, also took a specific interest in that funding and have helped to shape how it is distributed.”
“The Committee has been considering the DAERA budget on and off for the past eight or nine months. When we started our consideration, we could never have imagined something like COVID-19 and the impact that it would have on all parts of our society. That includes the impact on our agri-food industry and how DAERA has used its budget to respond to and deal with it. <BR /> <BR />I will start by referring to the additional agri-food COVID-19 funding that DAERA bid for and was successful in obtaining. We have every reason to be proud of our agri-food industry. It has kept operating and kept the food supply chain running seamlessly during the worst of the lockdown and into this new phase, and we have every confidence that it will continue to do so in the coming months. For some, however, particularly the farmers, it has not been easy.”
“Everything is in place. I take this opportunity to urge the Minister to make the decision on it now, to get moving with what is an absolutely vital facility and to finish off the second phase of our new Omagh Hospital and Primary Care Complex.”
“I give credit to Minister Poots for maintaining the Tackling Rural Poverty and Social Isolation (TRPSI) initiative in the Agriculture Department. It addresses rural isolation in particular. He has kept up its funding, which is important. I am certain, as, I am sure, we all are, that the COVID crisis that we are experiencing now will cast a long mental health shadow in the time ahead. We will certainly need facilities such as the acute mental health facility in Omagh. <BR /> <BR />Let me go back to 2016. It was absolutely great news that Omagh was going to get the new facility. It was the second phase of the new hospital, about which we were all very happy. Of course, we were then very disappointed in 2018. I echo what Members have said previously: it is time to move on it now. The business case is with the Department.”
“We are talking about an isolated rural constituency with very few services. Government statistics indicate that. We all know it: we all lobbied for the retention of the Gortin day-care facility, for example, because such things are vital.”
“<BR /> <BR />Due to my role in the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, I have a special interest in rural affairs. West Tyrone is an isolated rural constituency. One of the super output areas in West Tyrone, Owenkillew, is the number one, out of 890, most deprived area in respect of access to basic services in the North. Up until the most recent Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) census, Plumbridge, which is also in West Tyrone and will be served by this unit, had the highest level of deprivation in relation to access to services.”
“A wide range of highly qualified professionals live in the district, and generations of families have worked in mental health provision in the Omagh district. There is, therefore, a strong pedigree and long tradition in the area. <BR /> <BR />After years of campaigning by elected representatives, supported by clinicians and the wider community, Simon Hamilton's announcement, in 2016, when he came to Omagh, that Omagh was the preferred location for the new mental health inpatient facility in the Western Trust was greatly welcomed. There is a deficit in mental health services in the area. We see that, unfortunately, in the rise in suicides. As Daniel McCrossan said, that is compounded by the pressures of the COVID crisis, which require all of us to lock down and go into social isolation.”
“I thank and commend Thomas Buchanan for tabling the Adjournment debate. One of the features of West Tyrone and, I am sure, many other constituencies is that there has always been a collegiate approach across all parties when it comes to health issues. That has been the case throughout my experience. Previously, Ross Hussey and Barry McElduff were very much part of the team here in trying to achieve a cross-party, cross-community approach to improving the health provision in the district. <BR /> <BR />As was, rightly, pointed out, there is a very strong background of mental health provision in the Omagh district. The old hospital on the site was built in the 1850s, and it became the Tyrone and Fermanagh Hospital in the 1930s.”
“However, we do not know precisely how to segregate qualifying goods from non-qualifying goods or what measures will be in place to stop the North of Ireland becoming a back door into the British market. Labelling is another huge issue. <BR /> <BR />I will conclude quickly. The best way to protect the agri-food industry and all elements of the eating ecosystem is full implementation of the protocol. Friction equals cost. As Minister Poots said earlier, checks have been taking place here since the 19th century. The narrative that additional food standards checks at ports create some sort of border down the Irish Sea that impacts on the constitutional position of the North is completely wrong and misleading.”
“Recently, a programme assurance review was carried out. It listed that as red with regard to Brexit preparation, which means that there is urgent need for intervention to enable our ports to get things ready for east-west trade. Every day, 200 lorries come here from across the water so that our shelves can be stocked with stuff that might have a maximum six-day shelf life. If there is any delay to that, it will cause mayhem here. <BR /> <BR />There are problems with IT systems. Last week, the Committee heard from the port bosses that the HMRC goods vehicle movement service (GVMS) will not be ready in time for businesses to pre-register. The VAT system will not be in place until November. As regards unfettered access, last week, a letter came, I think, from the NIO. It made some movement towards looking at which goods might qualify.”
“There is the EU market, the British market and the rest of the world, but we need the island of Ireland for processing purposes. That is so crucial. <BR /> <BR />There are a couple of red flags — my time is running out — in respect of that access.”
“The east-west trade for agri-food is worth £4 billion. It is absolutely crucial. Some £1·5 billion is beef, dairy and sheep meat. There is a £2 billion North/South trade, but the processing lines are on this island, and if we do not have the protocol here to protect those processing lines, we will not have a product to export to Britain. The dairy farmers that Members all represent in rural areas will have to dump their milk, as the milk lorries will stop coming up the lane. Sausages, bacon and pork products here are from pigs right across the island, and the meat products are from cattle right across the island. There is this idea that Britain is the biggest market, but we need to remember that it is two sides of the same coin.”
“The point that I am making is that they have four processing locations in the North: Artigarvan in my constituency, Ballyrashane in Derry, Banbridge, and the global logistics centre, which is not too far from here in Newtownards. They export to 80 countries throughout the world: a third to the UK, a third to the EU and a third to the rest of the world. The point is that it is absolutely impossible to segregate milk. Milk from cows in the North and milk from cows in the South cannot be segregated, so we need the protocol here to enable that all-island processing capacity, because that is how our dairy product is —”
“We do not have the dairy processing capacity here in the North. We need the all-island trade. <BR /> <BR />One particular case study is Lakeland Dairies. It is one example of a big processor here in the North that has been briefing some of our MPs, and, indeed, I spoke to my colleague Órfhlaith Begley, who is one of the MPs who was briefed. That particular company processes 1·85 billion litres of milk here on the island of Ireland. That is from 3,200 farms: 1,950 in the South and 1,250 in the North. That is processed into thousands of tons of dairy products. Some 88,000 tons are exported across the water to Britain.”
“Even though Members opposite do not support the protocol, the only way that we can get frictionless access to the British market is through the full implementation of the protocol. Therefore, we support the amendment. <BR /> <BR />Market access to food production is one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is the need for all-island processing lines. For example, here in the North, we export 800 million litres of milk every year to the South of Ireland. We import 350,000 pigs from the South. We export 400,000 lambs to the South, and we have imported over 40,000 cattle so far this year. If we did not have processing capacity in the South of Ireland, those 800 million litres of milk — and many of you rural Members represent those farmers — would end up in their tanks or in their sheughs, because there would be nowhere for it to go.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion this evening on the importance of the implementation of the protocol. As the Sinn Féin spokesperson on agriculture and rural affairs, I will focus my remarks mostly on agri-food and the wider agri-food sector. <BR /> <BR />In the North, our food and drink industry employs 100,000 people, and we feed 10 million people. It accounts for nearly 30% of total private-sector employment here in the North. The imposition of Brexit has caused mayhem and uncertainty in the sector. A lot of evidence that we have gathered from various stakeholders at the Committee and other places is testimony to that. For food and drink production, we need access North/South and east-west. Frictionless trade is absolutely crucial in every direction, but Brexit threatens that.”
“I am glad that the Minister is still deliberating on the issue. I cannot emphasise enough the depth of feeling of the farmers in the region. On the night of that flooding, farmers in Inishowen were similarly affected, but they received their funding some years ago. I encourage the Minister to conclude his deliberations and look in a positive light at supporting those farmers at the earliest opportunity.”
“The Minister will be aware that the recent assurance review into the transition programme gave it a status red and said that there was a need for urgent intervention. Given that east-west trade in agri-food and drink is worth in the region of £4 billion a year, what guarantees can he give that systems will be put in place so that unfettered trade can continue from 1 January?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Minister Poots made a statement yesterday that outlined additional funding for the fishing fleet here. That funding is very welcome for the hard-pressed fishing industry, which has been hugely impacted on by the COVID crisis. The statement was issued as a written statement yesterday morning, yet I note that the Minister was available for the media later in the afternoon. <BR /> <BR />I suggest that, rather than issue a written statement for such announcements on sitting days, when the Assembly is convened and we are here, it may be more appropriate for the Minister to attend the House in person to make an oral statement so that Members can ask questions and comment on it. I would be grateful if that could be brought to the attention of the Minister and his Department.”
“On the question of support, the Minister will accept that, between 2014 and 2020, the fishing industry here in the North benefited from the EMFF to the tune of £18 million. He will also accept that the Bill includes no reference to funding at all. In fact, in the White Paper and in leading up to the Bill the British Government made reference to the industry taking shared responsibility and making a greater contribution to the costs. That suggests to me that we are coming out of the CFP, which provided funding under the EMFF, and the British Government really have no intention of putting funding towards fishing at all, yet we sell 86% of our fishing stock away from the North of Ireland, with over 40% going to the EU. There is a focus on support, but I am not convinced that that support is going to be there.”
“That difficulty has been further compounded by the fact that it is being asked to do so in the context of the legal uncertainties around the Internal Market Bill and the withdrawal agreement. That is all that I want to say as Chair of the AERA Committee.”
“<BR /> <BR />Officials further advised that the amendments to be tabled at Report stage that will impact on this jurisdiction are the following: powers for the Department to regulate fishing for marine conservation in our offshore regions; amendments to six statutory rules to ensure that the restrictions and requirements in them will apply equally to all fishing vessels to fish in the NI zone; and powers for the devolved Administrations to enter into arrangements with other organisations, including marine management. <BR /> <BR />The Committee discussed that update with the officials in the short time that it had and agreed that, due to the lack of information and the limited time that it had to consider the amendments, it had been unable to fully explore and understand the potential impacts and implications for the jurisdiction.”
“The amendments that have been made include the following: extending the time frame in which the joint fisheries statement is to be published; ability to publish information on financial assistance; amendments to the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 and the Wildlife Order to allow for trade to the USA; a technical amendment to the definition of minimum conservation reference size; and the electronic communication of the granting of temporary licences.”
“<BR /> <BR />Furthermore, the Committee noted that there will be considerable implications for marine conservation arising out of the Environment Bill and a crossover with the Agriculture Bill, but it was unable to explore that further due to the time constraints placed upon it. <BR /> <BR />The Committee is concerned that many of the provisions in the Bill will be enacted by secondary legislation that provides less of a scrutiny role or opportunity for amendment than that which is provided through primary legislation. <BR /> <BR />The Committee heard from departmental officials on 24 September that there have been a number of amendments to the Bill, as well as a number of anticipated amendments that will be tabled at Report stage.”
“The Committee has stated that it would like to see all efforts made to maintain that and the good relations that currently exist between the fishing industries across the island of Ireland. <BR /> <BR />The importance of migrant labour in the fishing industry cannot be overstated. There has been a reliance on workers from overseas labour markets for many years, and the fishing industry would not be able to cope without them. <BR /> <BR />On the issue of marine conservation, the Committee noted that we do not have fully devolved competency in that area. The Minister has written to his DEFRA counterpart to raise that issue. We had an update on that at our meeting on 24 September, and we will continue to follow it up as time goes on.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will now quickly mention the voisinage agreement, which allows reciprocal access to fish in the nought- to six-nautical-mile zone between the territorial waters of North and South. It had operated successfully until 2016 when the legality of the agreement was challenged by a number of Irish anglers. That led to a court case that then banned boats from the North in Irish waters, despite the previously agreed limit. However, the Sea Fisheries (Amendment) Act was introduced by the Irish Government in April 2019, and the previous arrangement was reinstated. The Committee explored the issue with officials, who advised that they are keen to keep the voisinage agreement separate from the general fisheries agreement with the EU.”
“<BR /> <BR />It remains unclear to the Committee what the interface between the Fisheries Bill and the protocol will be. That uncertainty is further compounded by the Internal Market Bill. For example, there are many unanswered questions, including potential issues around the minimum landing size, the marketing of seafood produce, the risk of regulatory divergence and whether the annex 2 commitments will have an adverse financial cost on the fishing industry. The Committee is aware that there is uncertainty about where fish can be sold. Currently, any fish landed here are sold to the EU and are subject to free market access. How that may change after Brexit is unclear.”
“One of the concerns is whether the new scheme would be compatible with the state aid considerations contained in article 10 of the protocol. That is very significant, given what the Internal Market Bill states regarding state aid. Members will be glad to know that I do not intend to outline all our concerns here; instead, I will refer them to page 18 of our report. <BR /> <BR />The Committee report also draws attention to a number of factors outside the Bill that will impact on the implementation of its provision. Those include the implementation of the protocol, trade agreements, the voisinage agreement, migrant labour and marine conservation. While the detail of that is on pages 18 to 24 of the report, I want to touch on some of the key points.”
“Stakeholders welcomed the assurance that a replacement scheme for EMFF was being considered. Nevertheless, the Committee has highlighted a number of concerns in relation to that in its report.”
“That allowed the fish and aquaculture industries to improve the marine and aquatic environment and to develop areas in which fish or aquacultural activities are carried out. Our fishing harbours also used that funding for capital and infrastructural works. The Committee was keen to hear about what the Department was considering as a replacement for that funding, as the UK Government had advised that each devolved Administration will lead on their own replacement funding schemes. <BR /> <BR />The Committee heard that while there had been discussions on the matter with the British Government, nothing has yet been guaranteed. However, the Department indicated that it was hopeful that any such funding would be similar to what had been available through EMFF but that it would be subject to the spending review.”
“<BR /> <BR />Stakeholders advised the Committee that while they envisage that the current method of allocating quotas will be continued, they have concerns about the distribution of any additional quotas that will come their way following exit from the EU. They expressed concern that the fishing zone here is small and does not accurately reflect the fishing activity of our fleet. If the decision is made to divide up fishing waters by square miles of territorial waters, then the consequences would be disastrous. Other stakeholder concerns, such as those relating to the Hague Preference and the infrastructure constraints of our fishing ports, have been outlined in the Committee's report. <BR /> <BR />Previously, under the CFP, financial assistance was available under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF).”
“Clause 23 of the Bill provides that the Secretary of State will determine, in a calendar year, the fishing quota for the UK, which will take international obligations into account. The Bill states that the Secretary of State must consult with the four fisheries administrations. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was keen to explore with the Department if any assessment had been undertaken of the potential for an increase in fishing opportunities for our local fleet. Officials advised the Committee that an assessment of the benefits arising out of Brexit had been mapped. However, the main fishing opportunities for fleets here are mostly in the Irish Sea for prawns and no major change to quotas are anticipated.”
“However, that role will change on 31 December 2020 and the risks and resource requirement for that was being considered. That is another area that the Committee was unable to explore in any great detail with the Department or stakeholders. Questions remain over the resource implications for the sea fisheries inspectorate to enable it to ensure compliance with licensing requirements, as well as what its role and remit will be on 1 January 2021 and how it will manage the requirements that are contained in the Fisheries Bill. <BR /> <BR />Members will be aware that fishing quotas have always been the subject of heated debate and have long been one of the main criticisms of the common fisheries policy.”
“To do so would be entirely legal but the potential exists for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and claims that fish that were caught in one area were caught elsewhere. <BR /> <BR />The Committee is concerned that uncertainty exists around moving from fishing waters of a European jurisdiction to Scotland, Wales, England or here, including the Isle of Man and the South of Ireland and further guidance on that aspect is required. Stakeholders also raised the issue of remote electronic monitoring (REM) as a fishing management tool. Further information on REM can be found in the Committee's report at page 12. The Committee raised that matter with departmental officials. <BR /> <BR />The Department advised that it has a sea fisheries inspectorate which has an enforcement and control remit.”
“That requirement will revoke the current arrangements, which automatically provide rights to such vessels. In addition, the Bill will revoke provisions in the Fishery Limits Act 1976 and will introduce a new requirement that non-UK vessels must be licensed by the Marine Management Organisation or by one of the fisheries administrations to fish in UK waters. <BR /> <BR />Clause 17 empowers the relevant fisheries authority to issue licences to non-UK vessels to fish inside their zone. Stakeholders raised the issue of such licensing and of potential governance gaps. Concern was expressed about the potential for a non-UK vessel to access Isle of Man waters post-Brexit.”
“<BR /> <BR />Throughout the Bill there are references to "foreign fishing vessels", which some members of the Committee objected to when used in connection with vessels from the South of Ireland. Clarification was sought from the Department on the use of that terminology. <BR />Officials advised the Committee that the term is a recognised one, which is used worldwide to define vessels that are not registered in the country that is being referred to. They further advised that the term is used 53 times in the Bill. For the purposes of the Committee report, it was agreed to replace the term "foreign fishing vessel" with "non-UK fishing vessels or boats". <BR /> <BR />The Bill requires such non-UK vessels to have a UK-issued licence to fish in UK waters.”
“<BR /> <BR />Although some of the stakeholders broadly welcomed the objectives and the joint fisheries statement and the fish management plans, we as a Committee felt that there is a distinct lack of clarity and detail around those particular clauses, making it very difficult to assess what the impact will be on the fishing industry. Again, the lack of time and resources afforded to the Committee has prevented the full and rigorous scrutiny that the Bill required. <BR /> <BR />Access and licensing is another feature of the Bill, which will revoke and replace all current powers for licensing authorities to license for fishing in British waters.”
“Others considered that they should be underpinned by a clear legal duty on relevant authorities to achieve them, alongside a level of consistency between the devolved Administrations to ensure that the objectives are achieved. <BR /> <BR />There were numerous issues identified in the RaISe briefing which the Committee considered in relation to the objectives, such as the role for Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) with regard to the scientific evidence objectives etc. These are outlined on page 9 of the Committee report.”
“<BR /> <BR />From the evidence gathered by the Committee and analysis of the Bill in the time that we had, the Committee identified a number of issues that I share with you today. <BR /> <BR />The first issue that I want to draw Members attention to is the hierarchy of fishing objectives that the Bill revolves around, which will lead to a joint fisheries statement underpinned by fish management plans. There are eight objectives and they are sustainability, precautionary, eco-system, scientific evidence, by-catch, equal access, national benefit and climate change. <BR /> <BR />Stakeholders expressed some concern around the definition of eco-system and stated that they would like to see the definition expanded to include the sustainability of the fleet and the communities that they support, in order to allow for a holistic approach.”
“For that reason, and many others that I will outline shortly, the Committee decided not to take a position on the legislative consent motion. <BR /> <BR />I will now look briefly at how the Committee undertook its scrutiny of the Bill in the short time that it had to do so. We took oral and written evidence on one day only — 5 March 2020 — from a number of stakeholders. Ideally, we would have preferred to have heard from many more, but as I have already said, time was against us. <BR /> <BR />The Committee commissioned a research paper from the Assembly’s Research and Information Service (RaISe) on the Fisheries Bill and received a written submission from Brexit and Environment, which is a network of impartial academic experts who analyse the implications of Brexit for government.”
“Furthermore, the Committee’s consideration of the amendments has been further compounded by the fact that it is being asked to do so in the context of the legal uncertainties around the Internal Market Bill and the withdrawal agreement. <BR /> <BR />Our fishing produce is world-renowned and much value is placed on our exported produce. Nevertheless, many will know that the fishing industry is a dangerous occupation and it is a living that is hard-earned. Therefore, we must not merely nod through legislation which could create further complexities for our fishing industry, including financial, technical and territorial problems. Many coastal families and communities have seen fishing handed down from generation to generation and have no desire to see further hardship or regulation for the sake of it.”
“<BR /> <BR />I want to make it clear today that, as a Committee, we had a very short timeframe in which to consider the Bill. Not only was the Committee considering the Fisheries Bill, but it also had the Environment Bill and the Agriculture Bill, all within weeks of one another. That caused much concern amongst Committee members. We were finishing our consideration of the evidence when the COVID-19 crisis hit in March and that also had an impact on our scrutiny. This type of rushed scrutiny is not how we like to do business. <BR /> <BR />The Committee wishes it to be clearly understood that due to the lack of information on the Fisheries Bill and the subsequent amendments, and the limited time that it has had to consider them, it has been unable to fully explore and understand the potential impacts and implications for this jurisdiction.”
“As we have heard from the Minister, this is a Westminster Bill that aims to provide for a new legal framework to replace the common fisheries policy (CFP). It will make provision for fisheries, aquaculture, marine conservation and the functions of the Marine Management Organisation, and in doing so will revoke the EU legislation that currently exists. <BR /> <BR />There are a number of clauses within the Bill that extend to this jurisdiction for which legislative consent is being sought and they have been outlined in the LCM. The Committee has reported on those and a copy of our report was provided by email to all MLAs on 7 July. A supplementary LCM has since been tabled to take account of further amendments that affect here. The Committee took evidence on that last week and I will refer to those amendments later.”
“The best option for seamless east-west trade and North/South was to remain in the EU. Unfortunately, the democratic wishes of the people of the North of Ireland were completely discarded, and we did not get that. The backstop might have facilitated a freer flow of east-west trade. That was undermined by the DUP in Westminster when it was in hock to the Tory Government. Now we have the protocol, and the Internal Market Bill has added confusion to a huge level of uncertainty. There is no good Brexit, but, at this stage, the protocol is probably the least-worst option that there is to try to deal with a very complicated situation, so —.”