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 23 of 32.
“The AERA Committee, therefore, considered clause 8, which deals with the power to make regulations about veterinary medicines; clause 9, which deals with manufacture, marketing, supply and field trials; clause 10, which deals with fees, offences, powers of inspectors and costs, and clause 11, which provides an interpretation of Part 2 of the Bill and supplementary provision. We also considered some sections of Part 4 of the Bill, specifically the issues around the making of regulations and the consultation required. <BR /> <BR />The EU Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 were made on a UK-wide basis and will be transposed into domestic law when we leave the EU.”
“On behalf of the Committee, I want to be clear that, due to time constraints, we have not had the opportunity to fully explore the implications of the clauses, nor have we had time to consult relevant stakeholders. <BR /> <BR />During our evidence sessions, one of the first things that we asked officials about was the carry-over of the existing regime. We received assurances that, after the enactment of the Bill, the existing regime developed as part of our membership of the EU would remain largely the same. <BR /> <BR />The provisions of the Bill that deal with veterinary medicines are in Part 2 of the Bill. Veterinary medicines are transferred and, as such, would fall within the legislative competence of the Assembly.”
“At its meeting of 5 March, the Committee considered a letter from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs regarding the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill. That letter noted that it is a Westminster Bill, which is predominantly focused on human medicines and medical devices, with one section that deals with veterinary medicines. <BR /> <BR />The LCM was tabled by the Health Minister and referred to the Committee for Health for consideration. That Committee asked the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee to consider and comment on Part 2 of the Bill as it concerns veterinary medicines. The AERA Committee took oral and written evidence on the four clauses that make up Part 2, which deals with veterinary medicines, on 11 June. The Bill is complex and technical and we have had limited time to scrutinise it.”
“I hear what the Minister is saying. He seems to be focusing on the finishers and the dairy sector. What about the farmers who, during the pandemic, were selling their cattle between farms? According to his Department's statistics, under the integrated administration and control (IACS) formula there were around 7,000 movements a week during the pandemic. How does he propose to compensate those farmers? I am sure that he has read the 'Andersons Outlook 2020' report, which stated that cattle prices decreased by £240 a head and sheep by £31 a head. I do not know what figures he is quoting for the last number of years relating to income, because the figures that he mentioned at the Committee averaged out incomes at £12,000 a year for beef and sheep. I am not too sure which figures he is referring to today.”
“Does the Member agree that, following on from Mrs Barton's comments, support for the motion does not mean that you do not support other sectors in the agri-food sector?”
“<BR /> <BR />Folks, we are all in this together. We are not opposed to any other sector; we just want to take the opportunity today to highlight the importance of the beef and sheep sectors to our food production chain at this time in the middle of the COVID pandemic.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. It is worthwhile pointing out that all farmers and all sectors have been impacted. We have seen the independent per head evidence of that impact, and we have seen the number of movements that there have been from farm to farm after the collapse of the marts. I accept and we all need to accept that all farmers have been impacted by the rising input costs and the decreasing farmgate prices, particularly due to the COVID crisis. <BR /> <BR />I want to underline this point: supporting the motion does not negate support for, say, the dairy sector, the horticulture sector or any other sector. Members and the Committee have been lobbied heavily, particularly by the sheep sector and by beef producers in hill areas, that they have not been included in the response.”
“That would compensate the hill and marsh areas where it is more inhospitable and challenging to farm. That is where 10,000 of our beef and sheep producers are. A return of the ANC scheme could help to mitigate the impact of COVID and the other pressures that they face. Before COVID, as I said, farm incomes had dropped significantly — 26% last year — and they have started to plummet again at £240 per head for cattle and £31 for sheep. The lockdown of the restaurants and all has greatly contributed to that. <BR /> <BR />We are all in this crisis together. I want to make it very clear that supporting the motion does not mean that you are not supporting the other sectors. We are just flagging up this sector —.”
“It went down by 26% last year, and the beef and sheep sector is at the lowest ebb of all the sectors and will be able to avail itself of less from the self-employed scheme or any other scheme to deal with the COVID crisis. <BR /> <BR />A recent research paper looks at agriculture support across the devolved regions. In Wales, for example, an extra £5·5 million was provided to the basic payment scheme. I should point out that, in the January monitoring round, DAERA surrendered £12 million to the Department of Finance that was not spent in the financial year. It is important, as we look towards future financial years, that we try to avoid that situation. We should, for example, look at using money that was not going to be spent to make a bid for something like an ANC scheme.”
“Sheep meat has also been affected very negatively by the closure of the marts, the restaurants and the food service sector. Incomes in those areas are extremely low, and that is compounded, of course, by the loss of the less-favoured area (LFA)/areas of natural constraint (ANC) payment, which farmers relied on around March to sustain them. We are concerned that the sheep sector has not been referenced for funding in the scheme that the Minister has announced. There is a huge impact on this sector as well, the evidence being a price of £31 per head for sheep. Add in the input costs: we are told by many assessments that fertiliser went up during the pandemic by about £15 per ton and feeds by about £25 per ton. That has all been sustained by the sector; indeed, information from the Department shows that there has been a decline in income.”
“Again, if you apply the loss per head, it is a huge loss and again demonstrates the importance of the marts and the role that they play in the meat supply chain. It also demonstrates the scale of the impact. The Minister will be aware, certainly from Sinn Féin's perspective, that, given the scale of the loss and the fact that beef and sheep farmers represent 80% of farms here — they are the very primary producers at the beginning of our food chain — we have made a proposal that £15 million of the £25 million be allocated to the sector, given the impact that it is sustaining and the scale of the production that it provides. That is for that sector, notwithstanding the other sectors that have been impacted.”
“<BR /> <BR />Another figure from the LMC shows that, during March 2020, a total of 30,320 cattle were moved from farms to marts or farms, as recorded in APHIS.”
“We can look at the trading figures and have information from the animal and public health information system (APHIS). There was a substantial amount of farm-to-farm movement of cattle when the marts were closed: for example, 7,500 in the week beginning 26 April, and 7,000 in the week of 19 April. During those weeks, there was substantial movement of cattle from farm to farm. If we apply the average loss of £238 per head, we see that that is a huge loss to the beef sector, in particular. We are looking at a substantial figure. <BR /> <BR />According to the Livestock and Meat Commission (LMC), on 29 March, just five cattle were transferred from farms to marts in the North, compared with 7,800 cattle having been traded last year. The closure of the marts during the COVID crisis has had a huge impact on our beef and sheep sector.”
“It is pivotal that we keep the food supply moving and the food chain operational in the pandemic, and to do that the agriculture sector needs substantial support from us. <BR /> <BR />It is also of concern that some of the independent reports that we have seen show huge losses sustained by the beef and sheep sector, particularly as a result of rising input costs and the closure of the food service industry, which accounts for 35% to 40% of the beef and sheep red meats. We have seen losses in the region of £240 per head for cattle and £31 per head for sheep. That loss is substantial for small farmers. <BR /> <BR />The scale of the impact of COVID can be seen in the closure of the marts in March 2020 and the number of cattle being traded under the restrictions.”
“Some Government initiatives have been made available, such as the self-employment income support scheme (SEISS), through which self-employed people can receive a taxable grant worth up to 80% of their average trading profits in previous years, and that is paid by HMRC. However, the self-employment scheme is not enough to support our farmers during the COVID-19 crisis. That is particularly true for our beef and sheep sector farmers, whose average income is around half of the regional average wage at under £12,000 a year. When you apply the 80% and tax it, it is not enough to sustain them through the crisis. For that particular sector, the SEISS will have a negligible impact.”
“Written correspondence that we received highlighted the fact that financial pressures are increasing rapidly on businesses across the supply chains, for example, through the loss of the food service markets and certain export markets, reduced productivity at processing plants and increases in some input costs, such as animal feed. All of that has converged to create a crisis for the farming and agri-food sector. <BR /> <BR />Industry has been consistently calling for financial support measures. Some of the measures —”
“I commend the motion. The COVID pandemic has highlighted the importance of the agriculture and food sector in providing food security. COVID has brought a growing awareness of the value of local food producers. The agri-food sector has been negatively impacted by the crisis, and I want to commend the excellent work of our front-line farmers and food producers during the pandemic. <BR /> <BR />Committee members have received weekly updates on current issues affecting the agri-food sector, and I thank the departmental officials and Committee officials for providing them. Those weekly updates have consistently flagged up that, since the lockdown, the impact on markets and at farm level has been profound.”
“I know that we are talking about transition, but this so important. The British Government did not accept the food standards amendment to the British Agriculture Bill. In doing so, they have not protected Britain from the importation of low-standard goods. That again raises the question of how we are going to stop low-standard foods getting in here, as well as the question of how all of this is going to be checked. Moreover, the points-based immigration system that the Home Office has talked about recently will have a huge impact on seasonal agriculture workers. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I commend the motion, and we offer it our wholehearted support.”
“Thank you for that additional minute, Mr Storey. <BR /> <BR />I represent the people of West Tyrone, where 77% people voted to remain. The vast majority of people in the North voted to remain. That is whom we represent. If you want to refer to the British Parliament, that is OK, but it was England that took us out of the EU. It was not Scotland, and it was certainly not here. Therefore, no, because we represent here. That is the most important point. We want to represent the interests of people here. Indeed, the letter from Arlene Foster and Martin McGuinness in August 2016 referenced that this is a unique place. Here is different, because of our situation. OK? <BR /> <BR />The point is that the agri-food industry wants a pause. The other big thing that is totally connected to this is the British Agriculture Bill.”
“Hang on. <BR /> <BR />The DUP then undermined Theresa May's deal, which created the possibility of this regulatory border. Go ahead.”
“here. <BR /> <BR />There is therefore a huge challenge facing us. Whatever your view is on the EU, the situation has been brought about by the fact that the British Government decided to take us out of the EU and by the fact that the British Government decided to diverge from the regulations of the EU.”
“from across the water. That could create a:”
“The North is a unique place. The letter of August 2016 from Arlene Foster and Martin McGuinness to the then Prime Minister, Mrs May, reflected that and recognised that agriculture is one of the areas in which a special solution is needed for here. The worrying thing, however, is that there is uncertainty over access to the British market. <BR /> <BR />Most recently, the Commission's technical note made the point that the British Government should clarify whether they intend to have additional posts for the performance of controls in the North, such as at Larne, and stated that if that does not happen:”
“As a Member said earlier, there is a lot of uncertainty. With Britain moving away from the EU, there is uncertainty around tariffs, around VAT and around regulatory divergence. I will reflect on some comments made earlier. It is easy to blame the EU, and, led by Martina and others, we have engaged critically with the EU. It was the British Government's decision, however, to implement Brexit and to opt for regulatory divergence from the EU. They have created the possibility of additional checks at our ports here. <BR /> <BR />I refer to the technical note. It was the British Government that committed to applying in the North of Ireland annex 2 to the protocol, which relates to sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) requirements for all our agri-goods. The technical note states:”
“A good bit of it goes to Europe, and a huge amount of it goes across the water to Britain, so the implementation of this protocol is absolutely crucial. We need unfettered access to the rest of Ireland and, indeed, the EU. We also need unfettered access across the water to Britain, which is a huge market for agri-food from here.”
“I welcome the motion and commend those who tabled it. As most of us will know, the Brexit debacle has created a huge impact on the agri-food sector. As I said in yesterday's debate, we have 25,000 front-line farmers who support 48,000 people employed in the food and drinks trade across the North, a trade with a turnover last year of £4·5 billion. The sector here had already been under pressure already with the COVID crisis, and I am aware that the industry had been lobbying the Minister; indeed, we have found through the Committee and our engagements that the industry wants Brexit paused to give it more time. The motion today is in line with the overwhelming majority of the voices in the agri-food sector. <BR /> <BR />As I said yesterday, the sector is particularly vulnerable. We export 87% of the agri-food produced in the North.”
“— and replacement of our lost EU funding.”
“We have seen how important that network has been in the response to the crisis. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I commend the motion. I tabled it, so I obviously support it. Looking into the future, unfettered access east-west and North/South —”
“On a regional basis — I am surrounded by a couple of north-west MLAs — the likes of the A5 and rural broadband are hugely important in connecting and reconnecting isolated communities at this time. On the funding stuff and what we want to see in the future coming out of this, we want to see our Tackling Rural Poverty and Social Isolation (TRPSI) budget given legal protection in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, and, of course, we want to see the lost funding from the rural development programme. We are losing £80 million from priority 6 of the rural development programme as a result of Brexit. We need to see the UK shared prosperity fund matching or replacing that lost EU funding, because those projects are so crucial for community hubs, community support and village renewal.”
“The British market is so crucial, but the failure of the British Government to incorporate minimum food standards in their Bill has opened the door to Britain importing cheap, low-standard food, which will more than likely destroy the market for farmers here. We need to look throughout the rest of Ireland and beyond to the EU and other places to find new markets. <BR /> <BR />he future of agriculture and a future recovery require us to look at our indigenous food security, and we can see the importance of that with COVID and the volatility of the world stage. Things can change on a global basis, which underlines the importance of having our own secure food supply here. <BR /> <BR />Before I conclude, I want to say that isolation is an absolutely huge issue in rural communities.”
“The beef and sheep farmers in the North get less than the average weekly wage. It is very stark, and they are the producers of our food. <BR /> <BR />The other point I want to make about moving into an economic recovery is that it is so vital that the farming sector is protected. It also needs to be looked at across the island. Any future economic recovery has to look at agriculture and food production across the island. For example, we export about half a million sheep to the South, and they export about half a million pigs to the North. About 75% of our beef is exported across the water to Britain. Unfettered access north, south, east and west is very important to us. <BR /> <BR />Brexit, of course, has thrown a bit of a spanner in the works, because the British market is so crucial to here. We export 87% of our agri-food to it.”
“When we were gathering evidence on the Agriculture Bill recently, researchers from Queen's University told us that, without the direct payments, 30% of farms would immediately collapse. No doubt, since the COVID pandemic started, that figure will probably increase. The single farm payment accounts for over 80% of income for farmers, and farmers' incomes, even before the COVID pandemic, was decreasing year-on-year. Last year, we saw a 26% decrease in their incomes. That is very stark in some sectors. If we take the farmers in the areas of natural constraint (ANC) scheme, which covers the beef and sheep farmers, we see that their predicted income for this year is £10,000, and that is if they are lucky. I understand that, according to NISRA, the weekly wage here is £535.”
“I take the opportunity to pay tribute, in my role as the Sinn Féin spokesperson on agriculture and rural affairs, to all our farmers as front-line workers for producing our food throughout the pandemic. We have around 25,000 farms in the North, and they support the employment of 48,000 people across the food and drink industry. It is a huge contributor to our economy, with a £4·5 billion turnover last year. As well as having a huge impact on the economy, farming is a way of life, and those of us who represent rural constituencies know that it is a way of life for many people and supports many others. It is a key employer here. <BR /> <BR />Agriculture is under pressure. There are poor profit margins, the cost of production exceeds farm-gate prices and there are rising input costs every year.”
“In conclusion, I support the Budget. We recognise that the Executive have a restricted funding envelope at their disposal, and I support the Minister in his efforts both in the Executive and on behalf of the Executive to press the British Government and the EU for the necessary additional funding to support our agri-food businesses. I therefore thank you and commend the Budget.”
“People are quite right to extol the benefits of the Union — that is their belief — but that is what the British Government have done to farming across the water and potentially here. They have run down farmers in their function as food producers. As the COVID-19 pandemic highlights, a secure local food supply line is crucial, particularly in times of crisis, and it is shocking that that amendment to the Bill was not accepted a couple of weeks ago.”
“It has been compounded by the failure of the British Government to make any progress on the EU protocol. This is a technical note, prepared by the European Commission, that we got just last week through the Committee. It says that, if the existing posts are maintained as we enter the transition period, there will be no entry point solution in Northern Ireland for live animals and products of animal origin. That is a very, very serious situation as we are moving into this transition period. If we do not have some arrangement for this, there will be no points of entry for our markets here. That could be devastating for the industry here. <BR /> <BR />The point that I am making is that the British Government have let down and sold out their farmers.”
“If we have a situation where Britain enters into trade deals with countries around the world that have lower environmental and animal welfare standards, cheaper food will flood the market over there. It will destroy the market for our farmers, and it will completely decimate farming in Britain. Perhaps that is the strategy anyway. We recall that, a number of months ago, there was a leaked memo from a senior Tory that indicated that they wanted to run down food production completely and turn Britain into Singapore, where they import all their food. <BR /> <BR />So that was a very serious blow two weeks ago, and the farming unions here and, indeed, across the water in Britain were devastated. They felt that it was a slap in the teeth for our hard-pressed industry, which has worked so well to build up the industry here.”
“<BR /> <BR />Turning back to something that is really critical and connected to Brexit and the future well-being of the industry here: the failure of the British Government, two weeks ago, to support an amendment to the Agriculture Bill that was proposed by Neil Parish, who is the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee at Westminster. His amendment would have prevented low-standard food imports from countries that have lower welfare and environmental standards coming into Britain. This will further undermine the industry and decimate the British market. The British market is really important for farmers here, because 75% of our beef is exported into the British market. Britain itself is only 58% self-sustaining.”
“We have been told that the funding is secure until then, but after that we just do not know. It also applies to the pillar 2 rural development programme. We all know from our communities the importance of the rural development programme, particularly priority 6, for funding our rural community groups and for building community hubs, infrastructure and village renewal. That is also going when we leave the EU. I commend the Minister, who has been lobbying the British Government in relation to the UK shared prosperity fund. It was the British Government that removed us from the EU, with the consequent loss of that funding, so it should be the British Government who should replace that lost funding through their UK shared prosperity fund. I welcome the fact that the Minister has been lobbying the British Government in respect of that.”
“It is a long road to recovery. We got a report from the Livestock and Meat Commission just last week that said that it is a long road to business as usual. <BR /> <BR />This Budget has also been made in the context of Brexit, which overshadows a lot of it. Unlike the COVID-19 pandemic, Brexit was not what you could call a natural disaster. It was deliberate action by English right-wing Tories who have very little regard to here. I say that in the context that the majority of people here in the North did not vote to leave the European Union. One of the consequences, from an agriculture and rural affairs perspective, is that we have been removed from the common agricultural policy. That has thrown into jeopardy future funding for farm support beyond the lifetime of the current Westminster Parliament.”
“Some 80% of all farms in the North are beef and sheep farms. Of the 25,000 farms in the North, 20,000 are beef and sheep farms. They have experienced a very severe price drop as a result of the pandemic and, indeed, the increase in input costs. We received various reports indicating, for example, that cattle have increased by in the region of £230 a head; lambs by in the region of over £30 a head. Many of these farms are also in areas of natural constraint (ANC), and the farmers also have to contend with the loss of the ANC payment this year. Many of the farms are quite small, and they struggle to benefit from the other schemes, such as the self-employed income support scheme. As I said earlier in my speech, it is important that many of these farms, which fall through the cracks of the other schemes, can be supported by this funding.”
“I take this opportunity to commend the Minister for bringing the Budget before us today, particularly in the context of a very serious global pandemic, the COVID-19 crisis. In particular, I welcome the funding that he recently provided to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to help to offset the impact of the pandemic on the agriculture and horticulture sectors. The £25 million was particularly warmly welcomed by the sector. <BR /> <BR />On Friday, the AERA Minister was before the Committee. From listening to him and reading some of the public statements since the funding was announced, it appears that the priority sectors are dairy, beef and horticulture. However, I have been approached, like many other MLAs, by beef and sheep farmers who have been gravely affected by the pandemic.”
“Committee members also picked up on issues of how farmers would apply for the funding, how it would be distributed, the timescale for it being paid out and how DAERA might address the issue of fraudulent claims. <BR /> <BR />From our ongoing scrutiny of the food producers, we are aware that the aquaculture sector was also suffering, so we were pleased to hear that £368,000 had been secured for it, with 80% of that coming from European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, a further issue that was raised by the Committee was equality screening. We all recognise that the funding should get out quickly to farmers; however, it is important that we do not forget to undertake equality screening to ensure equitable distribution.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Minister is hopeful that funding will be released in a matter of weeks and certainly by the summer. He asked the Committee to communicate to him what it considered to be the priorities. The Committee is considering that. We have written to a number of key stakeholders and will get back to the Minister in due course. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also asked what steps the Minister could take to ensure that the funding did not distort market prices. It is aware that a cash injection of around £25 million to the sectors could have the potential of driving down prices paid by processors to farmers. The Committee was pleased to note that the Minister had considered that matter. Indeed, he referred to previous schemes, such as a payment that is linked to numbers of cattle slaughtered, which had had that effect.”
“That is a definite concern for some Committee members, who indicated that they would like to see some of the funding being used for businesses that are falling through the cracks of the other schemes, as they are either not eligible for other support mechanisms or receive so little from them that it is not worth talking about. Members gave the example of the beef and sheep sectors, which have had an average annual income of below £12,000 over the past number of years and would not benefit greatly, at all, from the SEISS. Minister Poots was aware of that issue and indicated that he wanted to ensure that he did not inadvertently overcompensate those who had already availed of COVID-19 business support mechanisms. He said that funding should be directed to those who need it most.”
“<BR /> <BR />Members of the Committee expressed concern that no funding had been referenced for the lamb and sheep sector. We listened to the Minister’s rationale for that, which was based on the fact that prices appeared to have recovered in that sector. He did, however, note that the entire farming sector is extremely volatile and unstable at the moment and that he has the option of going back to the Executive if further funding were required for any specific sector. <BR /> <BR />Committee members raised the issue that the funding could be used to compensate those farming businesses that had already successfully applied to other COVID-19 funding business schemes, such as the self-employment income support scheme (SEISS).”
“<BR /> <BR />Following on from Mr Irwin's comment on single farm payments, I want to add my commendation to DAERA front-line workers and farm agents across the North. Some 24,494 single farm payment applications were processed by the deadline of 15 May, which is a mighty achievement at any time, never mind in the middle of a COVID pandemic, when farmers and others were isolating due to the crisis. I want to place on record our thanks and commendation for that. <BR /> <BR />Minister Poots indicated that he was minded, at this point, to allocate roughly £2·5 million to ornamental plant growers and that the remainder would be used to target sectors such as dairy and beef. However, he was clear that that was indicative and that no firm position has yet been taken.”
“At the stage that the bid was made, the £1·5 million for fisheries had already been agreed. <BR /> <BR />The Committee had previously considered the planning assumptions behind the initial bid. We were in broad agreement with those assumptions and indicated our support of the Minister's position. We are aware that the request for agri-food was so big that the funding would probably need to come from London and/or Brussels, and the Committee wrote to the Executive, MPs and the European Commission to indicate our support for the £105 million for agri-food. <BR /> <BR />The Committee met Minister Poots on Friday 22 May to discuss his plans for the funding. We heard that, while he welcomed the £25 million, he felt that there was no magic bullet and that the funding would not go far given that there are almost 25,000 farmers in the North.”
“The Supply resolution document shows that, for DAERA, there is an addition £1·5 million available for fisheries support. However, it does not mention the additional funding allocated, as a result of the Finance Minister's statement to the Assembly on 19 May. The statement referenced a further £25 million for the agri-food sector and market intervention and £3·8 million for waste. That was a very welcome allocation by the Minister in response to the challenges faced by our agri-food and horticulture sector as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was aware that DAERA had made a bid for a much larger sum of money. That bid included £105 million for farming and animal welfare, £1 million for rural affairs, £16·7million for waste and £1·3 million for the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI).”
“<BR /> <BR />On behalf of my party, I am happy to support the derogation, as it is a sensible response to the unique circumstances that farmers found themselves in earlier this year. However, I stress that the Department must work harder to extend the same responsiveness across all sectors.”