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 22 of 32.
“It amends the NI Act in relation to what they term "Distortive or harmful subsidies". They tell us that they decide what so-called distortive or harmful subsidies are, so if mother England is telling us what is good and what is bad, we cannot make up our own mind. Clause 49 amends the NI Act as well. The entrenched amendment restricts the Executive and the Assembly's competence to modify aspects of the Bill that could have implications here. It is about the protection of the Act against modification. Again, that completely and utterly rides roughshod over our ability here to have any input. That NI Act was unilaterally amended without any consultation with or recourse to this devolved Assembly. It undermines every single one of us. <BR /> <BR />As has been said, there is no good Brexit.”
“<BR /> <BR />Clause 43 is about the disapplication of state aid, which might sound good to some people, but when Britain leaves on 1 January, World Trade Organization rules will kick in. The WTO rules post-transition are hugely different to the state aid rules that govern our payments and subsidies here. For example, the WTO does not set any limits at all on coupled and decoupled support for farming and agriculture. That will create a huge imbalance in the playing field for our producers compared with those across the water in Britain. As Seán Lynch said a while ago, clause 45 overrides all the other relevant laws. <BR /> <BR />To draw attention to a couple of other things that I noted, I will point out that, in clause 48, the British Government have completely and unilaterally amended the NI Act 1998. That is written into the Bill.”
“I took a look over the legislation earlier, and clause 42, for example, disapplies the EU declaration exit procedures and gives a commitment that there will be no new checks on goods that are going from here to Britain. It does not address unfettered access, because it has not set out what a "qualifying" good is. We do not know. We had imported 41,000 cattle and 350,000 pigs into the North by August this year. If the products that come from them are not to be qualifying goods, will they be able to go to the British market? While the Internal Market Bill aspires to have no exit declarations, it does not state that there will be checks on what goods qualify and do not qualify.”
“In the USA, Nancy Pelosi and members of the Ways and Means Committee have expressed concern. Indeed, the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Declan Morgan, has said that it shows a flagrant disregard for the rule of law and undermines confidence in the legal system. So, this is not a Brit-bashing exercise where we are trying to get at the Brits. The Bill has huge implications, and it is quite right that we debate it because it could have huge implications for businesses here. As Chair of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, I have a special interest in that aspect of our society. <BR /> <BR />Turning to the actual legislation, it is important to look at a number of its clauses.”
“I commend those who tabled the motion. Over the course of the debate, there has been some quite intemperate language used such as "Brit-bashing". That is not what the motion is intended to do. The Internal Market Bill is one of the greatest acts of internal self-destruction that I have seen, and it has caused huge damage, if more damage could be caused, to the international reputation of the British Government. That analysis comes from within the British establishment; it is not coming from these Benches. We have already had Blair, Major and May — three former Prime Ministers — expressing huge concerns about it, as has Norman Lamont. We have had the House of Lords' Constitution Committee saying that it unravels the withdrawal agreement and brings the British Government into conflict with international law.”
“Do the latest COVID regulations have any implications for the use of community halls?”
“I thank the Minister for his response. He will be aware that any proposal that is brought forward to reduce ammonia could have a disproportionate impact on smaller hill farms. As the Department begins to assess the impact of proposals, does the Minister have any mitigations in mind to avoid a disproportionate impact on those small farms?”
“It is incredible that the health workers have been working on the front line through COVID and the Health Minister is now saying that the matter lies with the Executive. Will the Minister clarify where the matter lies? Is it with him or the Health Minister?”
“Given his responsibility for the Stormont estate, will the Minister provide Changing Places facilities in the grounds of the estate?”
“I thank the Minister for his answers. Given that we are just over 100 days away from exiting and that there will be an accompanying loss of EU funding for rural development programmes, will the Minister give us any update that he might have from the UK shared prosperity fund (SPF) on the possibility of getting it transferred here?”
“Can the Minister indicate what Brexit-related areas will require Assembly primary legislation?”
“Can the Minister indicate what Brexit-related areas will require Assembly primary legislation?”
“The Minister has no doubt been lobbied by the wool industry. Will he be minded to look at supporting those farmers who have been affected by the collapse of the wool industry in the next round, or with some of the money that he has retained?”
“Exactly. Dairy is a good example. Most of the milk produced in the North is collected by dairy producers based in the South. <BR /> <BR />I am out of time, but, before I conclude, I will say that, yes, there is huge amount of bandwidth being taken up by legislation. In the AERA Committee alone, we have 74 pieces of secondary legislation to scrutinise and pass before December, thanks to Brexit. That is going to put huge pressure on officials in the Department, and indeed on our own Committee, which will have to try to scrutinise and pass that legislation so that DAERA has a functioning rule book come 31 December, thanks to Brexit. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I commend the motion and support the call for more education and training for our businesses in farming communities.”
“I know that some people like to emphasise that the British market is so important, but our all-Ireland trade is hugely important in the agri-food sector. North/South and South/North, there is almost £2 billion of exports in live animals and food, which is really important. Dairy is organised on a —”
“It takes four to five months to create a new label and that deadline has already lapsed. <BR /> <BR />As I said, yes, of course Britain is a big market, but we must realise that the British market will shift as well. As Britain cuts itself off from its nearest market, the EU, as a result of Brexit, it will be cut off from its biggest market. That will have an impact on Britain as an export market for us. If Britain then enters into trade deals with the USA and imports cheap food, suddenly the floor could drop out of the British market for our agri-food produce. We must realise that Britain will not be the same market post-Brexit that it has been up until now. <BR /> <BR />The latest shenanigans from London are causing more concern.”
“<BR /> <BR />We also learned in the Committee a number of months back that 200 lorries a day come across the water to stock our shelves and that shelf life here is 12 to 18 hours shorter than it is across the water. What we are looking at is posing a huge challenge to the entire food ecosystem here in the North. <BR /> <BR />There are many unanswered questions. Indeed, a figure was put on that when the AERA Committee met the Brexit group last week. The Brexit group posed 67 questions and, so far, 60 have not been answered. The questions are on things like what constitutes a qualifying good, what is unfettered access, two VAT regimes, tariffs, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) checks and, of course, labelling. We will have to create a new label for our produce here in the North.”
“Our party is one of the most vocal opponents of Brexit; we are completely against it. This is not something that we want. The protocol is a way of grappling with a very bad situation. We, like all the parties here, are trying to do our best to make it as seamless and frictionless as possible for businesses, farmers and communities across the North. <BR /> <BR />As I said, Brexit has a disproportionate impact here, certainly on our agri-food producers. Our disposable income in the North is lower than that in Britain. We heard from the Brexit group last week that disposable income here in the North is £119 and that, in Britain, it is £215. Any friction that is caused and any extra cost that is passed on will have a disproportionate impact on consumers here compared to those across the water.”
“The Member is right. Any barriers or friction at all will affect not just the North of Ireland but the island of Ireland, because Britain is a big market for produce right across the island of Ireland.”
“Today's motion is very timely. I want to reflect on the motion in the context of the agriculture sector in the North. We know from many previous discussions and debates here that Brexit has caused huge issues for our 25,000 front-line farm families and the wider food and drinks trade, which accounted for £4·5 million in turnover in the North last year. The sector here is already under pressure with the COVID crisis and many other challenges, one of which is climate. <BR /> <BR />Agriculture is a big exporter. We export 87% of the North's agri-food produce and, yes, Britain is one of the areas that we export to most. It also goes to the South and Europe. We need unfettered access east-west, North/South and across the EU.”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she agree that, given that it is six years since the Stormont House Agreement, it is unacceptable that the British Government are still in default of their obligations?”
“— and the intentions of the motion, but he queried the time frame. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I thank you all and I commend the motion.”
“Was it was a plan? <BR /> <BR />Mr Stewart wound on the amendment and he questioned why the three-month time frame was picked. He supports an Act for here —”
“Yes. The Minister said that any actions with regard to climate change would be cross-cutting across Departments, so absolutely. Again, in going back to the Minister, he drew it across all of the Departments — which is quite right — but it is his Department that must take the initiative of bringing in a climate Act in the first place. <BR /> <BR />There are a few more points. With regard to the — where was I now? You have knocked me off course, Mr Givan.”
“Thank you for the intervention, Clare. He questioned the science regarding the impact of farming on greenhouse gas emissions, and he said that rushed legislation could damage farming so we should not be rushed. He does not want to get tangled up in a whole web of EU regulations.”
“He said that the South of Ireland's Programme for Government contains ambitious targets and legally binding targets to move them in the right direction. He said that we cannot wait any longer and that this has been a backwater for too long. He supports the motion, but not the amendment. <BR /> <BR />Mr Poots said that the time frame is impossible to achieve and that it was a ridiculous time frame. He said that we have a reduced carbon footprint but more needs to be done, and he wants to see things that will make a tangible difference. He said that he is a person of actions and he wants to do things that will make a change.”
“He said that we have a responsibility to act and that, if we did, it would bring benefit to all. He also made reference to the green growth strategy. Furthermore, he said that there is ample opportunity to engage and plenty of evidence to move ahead with a climate change Act. <BR /> <BR />Andrew Muir said that rapid decarbonisation and green growth would not happen without investment in infrastructure. He also mentioned the importance of broadband and the funding of it. He spoke of the importance of investing in sustainable transport and active travel. <BR /> <BR />Matthew O'Toole of the SDLP said that, between 1990 and 2007, emissions here fell by 18% but that there was a greater drop in other regions.”
“She spoke of the huge potential that exists on the island and said that climate change does not recognise boundaries or borders. <BR /> <BR />Harry Harvey made reference to the diverse environment and said that we have a wealth of natural resources. He does not see the need to whip ourselves up into a frenzy over the environment but called for positive actions on climate change. He commended DAERA and made reference to prosperity agreements which encourage business sustainability. He said that the North has innovative skills for green energy and new energy strategy and targets, and that much more must be done. <BR /> <BR />Mark Durkan said that we have a responsibility to act to combat the impact of climate change. He said that, in 2015, when he was Minister, there was a clear idea of how legislation should look.”
“She spoke of the need to think about how things will look, post-pandemic, and of the need to be guided by science and political will. She said that this is a unique chance. <BR /> <BR />Caoimhe Archibald said that climate is at the core of new policies. She said that evidence exists, and is growing, and that we need an Act that contains targets. The House calls for a fair, just and green economic recovery, and Caoimhe Archibald stressed that the evidence exists to achieve that. She also made the point that there would be a consultation period before any new legislation came in. It would help shape the final Act that is agreed. She said that climate action must be based on social justice. She also said that there was overwhelming evidence that action is required.”
“She said that failure to take action now will have a devastating impact and that that impact is felt across the world. She also stated that we must ensure that disadvantaged people are not disadvantaged even more so. <BR /> <BR />John Blair talked about the importance of the motion and its spirit of protection. He asked for support for the motion and said that we now needed to act here. He supports the motion and welcomes the green growth strategy. <BR /> <BR />Claire Bailey said that this was long overdue and that it was a humans rights and health issue which threatens our way of life. She said that all people would not be affected equally. She also said that this was a rare opportunity and that we must not lose it.”
“She also said that we need to have a consultation period for our legislation to identify the needs and the gaps that exist. <BR /> <BR />William Irwin said that this was an unquantifiable issue and that there was an unquantifiable cost. He referred to the important role of farming in relation to the motion. He does not support the motion. He also spoke of the need to ensure that the agri-industry remains profitable. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP's Cara Hunter said that we cannot wait any longer and that we must act now. She talked of the growing evidence of the impact of climate change and of the important role of young people in the area. She said that issues relating to climate change should be incorporated into the curriculum and that young people were leading campaigns on climate change.”
“On top of that has come the COVID crisis, the loss of the ANC payment, and the fact that many of them will be getting nothing out of the £25 million COVID scheme for which the Minister recently set the criteria. I hope that he will consider hill farmers in a tranche of the £7 million that he has retained. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to the debate. Philip McGuigan highlighted concerns regarding the dangers of global warming and said that the lack of action was alarming. He called for leadership and ambition and said that action needed to be taken now. <BR /> <BR />Rosemary Barton welcomed the opportunity for renewed support for a climate change Act. She called for a sustainable way of moving forward and said that there must be a combined effort to reduce emissions in an effort to move towards a zero carbon society.”
“Thank you for that intervention. I agree with one thing that the Minister said: farmers play a huge role. They are environmental custodians. I agree with what he said about the sequestration of cattle and the important role that they have for the environment and the climate. They are not separate; they are the same. <BR /> <BR />Climate has a huge impact. As a representative of the Sperrins, I know of the impact suffered in the Glenelly area, three years ago, when a huge landslide devastated farming in that area. Farmers are still dealing with that loss, and the Minister has yet to deal with it by way of compensation or support for those farmers. I have seen how the climate has impacted on those farmers who suffered that devastation.”
“I welcome the wide-ranging and robust debate. Before I go to some of the contributions, I want to pick up on a couple of things. I am glad to hear that the Minister has noted that I have been pushing the case for hill farmers, because he certainly has not been doing that. Since he became Minister, some of his decisions have been to the detriment of hill farmers: he did not return the ANC payments; he blocked the transition towards the flat rate; and not a penny of the £25 million that he allocated recently will go to the hills. At least my party and I are here to advocate for hill farmers because it is becoming increasingly clear that the Minister of Agriculture is certainly not the Minister of hill farmers. I am glad that he is reading the farming press, where he will read that I am advocating the case for hill farmers.”
“Can the Minister give an indicative timescale for the reopening of the public consultation that he referred to?”
“<BR /> <BR />At its meeting on 4 June the Committee was alerted to a minor technical amendment that was required following scrutiny of the technical aspects of the statutory rule by the Examiner of Statutory Rules. The amendment was to correct a reference to overall length of vessels in article 2 of the rule. Subsequently, the Department presented the amended SL1 to the Committee on 11 June, followed by the statutory rule at the meeting on 24 June. The Committee noted that the amendment was as highlighted by the Examiner of Statutory Rules and had no issues with the policy. Therefore, the Committee is content with the proposals from the Department and recommends that both statutory rules are confirmed by the Assembly.”
“The Department advised that, following consultation with industry representatives, the need for financial support for the sea fishing and fish-catching sector in the wake of COVID-19 was recognised as a genuine and urgent need, as many incomes had been affected significantly. The Committee heard that, under state aid rules, the scheme would focus on fixed costs, rather than the income generated, and that a number of conditions had to be met to be eligible for the scheme. One of those conditions was the overall length of a fishing vessel. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was content with the merits of the policy at SL1 stage and had no issues to raise. Members were supportive of the measures being taken by the Department to support the sea fish industry, which was experiencing severe financial hardship as a result of the ongoing pandemic.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak as Chairperson of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee and outline the Committee's views. <BR /> <BR />The Committee first considered the original regulations at the SL1 stage on 9 April 2020 and was advised by the Department of the need for the policy due to the collapse in the European and domestic markets for fish as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The hospitality and catering sectors had closed down, along with fish counters in supermarkets and other retail outlets. The market for much of our seafood is overseas, and it had collapsed overnight. The sea fishing industry was experiencing a major slump in demand for its product, and the demand for fish and shellfish was non-existent.”
“On a point of order, during the Finance Minister's statement, the AERA Minister released a written statement on the allocation of the £25 million agri-food market intervention scheme. Given that this is a sitting day, perhaps it would have been appropriate for the Minister to come to the Chamber to release that statement and leave himself open to questions from Members given the seriousness of and the huge public interest in the issue.”
“My question related to the £25 million agri-food intervention scheme that the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has announced. However, since the Finance Minister started making his statement here today, the AERA Minister has issued a written statement detailing how that should be allocated. As the Finance Minister is here, I will ask him this question: have his Department's officials been in contact with DAERA officials in relation to a business case for the allocation of that £25 million to an agri-food market intervention scheme?”
“The Minister will be aware that the fact that Britain is diverging from EU regulations and standards has increased the need for SPS checks at our ports and airports. Does the Minister agree that, in funding the cost of the expanded infrastructure and IT systems and controls, it would be very unfair if the financial burden was placed here, given the fact that the North voted to remain in the EU?”
“I thank the Minister for her answer to question 4. Will the best practice and the lessons learned from the pandemic be carried forward in future dealings with local government?”
“I thank the Minister for his wide-ranging statement. The Minister will be well aware that his Department is leading an environment strategy that will, I believe, come to the Chamber next week for consent on a legislative consent motion for the Environment Bill. Could the Minister indicate where he envisages that green growth strategy fitting within the environment strategy and the Environment Bill?”
“As I said, we are not happy with the lack of scrutiny or, indeed, the fact that this is another very unfortunate by-product of a Brexit process that the majority of people here did not accede to or vote for in the first place.”
“At the meeting on 11 June, although Committee members were extremely unhappy that they did not have time to fully explore, consult on and scrutinise the LCM, they were content with the LCM as related to the veterinary medicine provisions in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />My colleague Colm Gildernew touched on many of these issues, but I want to make the point that this has come about as a result of Brexit. We will see a repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act at the end of the transitionary period. That will mean that the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 no longer have to be aligned with the EU. In order for us to avoid a legislative gap here and so that we continue to be aligned with the EU as per the protocol, it is necessary for us to bring in this LCM.”
“<BR /> <BR />Reference was also made to clause 8(2)(c), especially on the need for clarity on the word "attractiveness". DAERA officials agreed to provide further clarity on that as a matter of urgency. That clarity was received but it was too late to be included in our written report to the Health Committee. However, in an email to the AERA Committee, DAERA stated that it consulted with the relevant Department and the response was:”
“However, DAERA officials noted that, even in this scenario, it was difficult to see how that power would be exercised, because, at that point, the 2022 EU regulations would have been incorporated into the veterinary medicine regime. <BR /> <BR />The Committee is also aware that a common framework is being developed to maintain a consistent and common approach between all four jurisdictions in the area of animal health and welfare issues. It is expected that that will include the regulation of veterinary medicines post-transition, that is after 31 December 2020. The Committee noted that it had not yet considered the common framework and that that left a gap in knowledge that it was unable to address due to a lack of time.”
“We explored that with DAERA officials, who noted that it refers mainly to new EU regulations that will come forward in 2022. As this jurisdiction must adhere to the protocol and remain aligned with the EU, the provision in clause 9(2) was unnecessary and is, in essence, a dormant power. DAERA officials explained that they had indicated to Westminster that they would prefer that it was not included and had asked for it to be removed. DAERA accepts that it is unlikely to happen and indicated to the Committee that it could live with it. Further consideration of the issue by the Committee yielded that the only circumstances in which the provision in clause 9(2) might be used were if the Assembly voted to remove the protocol in four years.”
“Under the protocol, this Administration must remain aligned with EU regulations on veterinary medicines. However, the explanatory notes on the Bill state that clause 9(2):”
“DAERA explained that the Bill is essentially an enabling Bill that does nothing in itself but enables amendments to be made by secondary legislation and that it is considered appropriate to retain that flexibility going forward. After the transition period, the Bill will allow DAERA to amend the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013, either by DAERA acting alone or jointly with Westminster. The Committee considered the regulation-making powers and is content that any changes to the current regime must be subject to the scrutiny of the Assembly, irrespective of whether they are made by DAERA acting alone or jointly with Westminster. The Committee is also content that most changes will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. <BR /> <BR />The Committee draws attention to clause 9(2).”