Andrew Muir
North Down · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. As Minister, I am grateful to the Chair of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee and to Members from all sides of the Chamber for their consideration of the Bill and their contributions to the debate, which have been valuable and useful.”
“I will write to you with regard to your query. <BR /> <BR />The other issue, as I said, is reporting pollution incidents so that they can be effectively investigated. There is a duty on everyone to do that promptly.”
“Aquaculture provides real economic opportunities, and the Bill will help ensure that those opportunities are realised responsibly without compromising the environment. Importantly, the Bill includes transitional provisions so that existing licences can continue seamlessly as aquaculture licences, with their conditions unchanged.”
“That is not about being punitive for its own sake; it is about ensuring that the legal framework reflects the true value of our natural resources and the importance of protecting them for future generations.”
“<BR /> <BR />On strengthening the regulation of inland waters, the Bill modernises long-standing powers under the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, ensuring that they are fit for today's environmental and industry challenges. That matters because fisheries management today goes far beyond simply catching fish.”
“<BR /> <BR />A full regulatory impact assessment of the financial impact has been completed. It concluded that the Bill does not introduce significant new financial burdens and that any costs are outweighed by the long-term benefits.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,733 lines we hold for Andrew Muir, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 95.
“<BR /> <BR />In relation to the issues raised by Patsy McGlone during the debate on the engagement with the Department for Communities, I can confirm that, as was previously set out, the Department for Communities is working in partnership with the Department for Infrastructure and my Department on the Shaping Sustainable Places programme. The recently published responses to the consultation on that are useful to consider. <BR /> <BR />The Shaping Sustainable Places programme is a long-term, £150 million physical regeneration programme that aims to support the transformation of villages, towns and city centres across Northern Ireland, helping to deliver long-term benefits for places and the people who use them.”
“It is considered reasonable to assume that they will adopt an approach that does not put their finances at risk and that ensures that they maximise success in the interests of the ratepayer. The inability to trace an owner should not inhibit a council from carrying out the works itself. Owners or other persons of interest should and will be actively pursued. I am conscious of councils' desire for the legislation to work in an effort to improve and regenerate their areas, using a variety of methods. Those can include Land and Property Services searches, Companies House searches and section 16 information notices. Therefore, there are means to explore that.”
“As is the case for serving a notice under the Bill, the Department was keen to ensure that the range of persons from whom costs may be recovered is broad. Before deciding to recover costs from a particular person, it will be in order for a council to satisfy itself that it is appropriate to pursue that person for the costs. The provision of robust and effective measures to ensure that the appropriate person or organisation pays for the necessary remedial actions is key to minimising costs to the public pursue and to preventing unscrupulous property owners from deriving financial benefit from letting buildings fall into disrepair. <BR /> <BR />Under the Bill as drafted, councils will have to use their judgement on a case-by-case basis to determine whether to begin enforcement proceedings if the likelihood of recovering costs is minimal.”
“I thank Members for the debate and for raising the issues that they did. It is important that I put on record my thanks to the Committee for its deliberations. It was an extended Committee Stage, and good work was done in taking evidence from witnesses. <BR /> <BR />I will pick up on a couple of the issues that were raised during Consideration Stage. The Chair of the Committee raised a number of issues, one of which was how a council will recover its costs if an owner cannot be traced. Clause 12(2) provides that, in court proceedings to recover costs:”
“Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Happy birthday to you. Others have said it, and I wanted to make sure that I did not omit doing so.”
“Does the Member understand my disappointment at hearing her contribution on this? It is an Executive Bill, to which I got Executive agreement to progress. The first time that those concerns have been outlined to me, as a partner in government with her party, has been in the Chamber today. I would have liked to have been able to engage with her and try to resolve some of those issues. I note the fact that the Committee agreed a report that expressed its satisfaction around that. For this to have occurred today concerns me when it comes to the future of these institutions.”
“Does the Member accept that, whilst that consultation was undertaken in 2016, the Committee, during its deliberations, had a call for evidence and was able to engage with people on that? We need to strike a balance because, often, I hear from Members about the number of consultations that we undertake, rather than about our actual delivery. It is about trying to strike a balance, engage with people, get evidence and also deliver action on the ground, and we must do that in cooperation with local government, which is what we sought to do.”
“I recognise that the Member is relaying what he has been told, but the reality is much different. The issue was previously consulted on, and councils, for example, welcomed the move to allow maintenance notices to be served. I set that out in my opening remarks. It is a discretionary power for councils to use. Does the Member recognise that bringing dilapidated buildings back into use would also benefit councils' rates base?”
“Rather, it gives councils the flexibility to use the new powers, as resources permit. There are extensive new cost recovery mechanisms and a requirement for DAERA to publish statutory guidance in order to give greater clarity than exists in the present set-up. The Department will continue to work with local government to develop the guidance, which will include terminology, definitions and thresholds. Hardwiring that into the Bill could inhibit use of the legislation, and that is why I have proposed amendments at Consideration Stage today.”
“I thank the Committee for its work, which involved several briefings from the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA), and its report, which indicated that the Committee was content to proceed to the Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />Dilapidation policy in Northern Ireland has been in development since 2015, with work on the Bill being undertaken continuously over the past two years. That work has culminated in the current draft of the Bill, which includes new discretionary powers to issue maintenance notices to tackle low-level dilapidation. The powers are already available in England, Scotland and Wales, and councils in Northern Ireland supported the powers in their response to the public policy consultation. The Bill does not impose new statutory duties or financial burdens on councils.”
“<BR /> <BR />I, along with my senior leadership team and officials who have been working directly on the Bill, have met council representatives on multiple occasions, and four local government-sponsored amendments have been tabled to strengthen the Bill, including new provisions on costs and warrants to access properties. Although proposed changes that could potentially make the Bill inoperable are not being taken forward by the Department, they will instead be addressed by statutory guidance as in other parts of the UK. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly's Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee undertook thorough scrutiny of the Bill as part of an extended Committee Stage.”
“<BR /> <BR />There has been significant and sustained engagement with local government on the Bill, helping to shape robust, fit-for-purpose legislation that grants councils discretionary powers equivalent to those now long established in Great Britain and Ireland. As Minister, I value the constructive relationship that has been fostered with councils, and I am grateful for the extensive engagement by local government throughout the earlier policy consultation process and, again, since work restarted on the Bill following restoration of devolved government in 2024 and the introduction of the Bill to the Assembly in June 2025.”
“<BR /> <BR />The two minor amendments are amendment Nos 31 and 35 to clauses 25 and 30. They are predicated on the proposed new clauses, and, in asking Members to reject amendment Nos 33 and 34, those would fall, but the Speaker will guide them with regard to the protocol associated with that. <BR /> <BR />We can have a discussion around this, but I will close with the responsibilities of councils arising from the legislation. It is important to take a perspective in relation to that. The Dilapidation Bill, which we are debating here today at Consideration Stage, will consolidate and modernise outdated Victorian legislation to help regenerate our cities, towns and villages by giving councils the power to better tackle the blight of dilapidation.”
“The amendment seeks to place a statutory burden on councils by requiring them to establish, maintain and publish a register of action taken under the legislation. As I just touched on, the same argument as to why the Department dropped a clause that would have placed a statutory duty on councils to conduct a survey and maintain registers is also appropriate in the case of amendment No 34. <BR /> <BR />When drafting the Bill, the Department was quite clear that no additional statutory duties would be placed on councils. The amendment, if carried, would have the potential to create significant additional burdens for councils. If members of the public or elected representatives, for that matter, wish to know what action councils have taken under the new legislation, they can go through the usual channels to request that information.”
“Following the survey, councils would then have had a duty to compile, maintain and publish a register of the buildings and land identified during the survey. The Department recognised that that would have placed a significant burden on councils, and the clause was removed as the Department was keen that no additional statutory duties were placed on councils, and, of course, the Bill does not do so. That is not to say that councils should not compile relevant information in their areas to enable them to carry out work to tackle dilapidation, but it should be at the discretion of each individual council as to whether it does so. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 34 proposes a new clause on an accessible register of action taken. I do not support amendment No 34 and urge Members to join me in that.”
“<BR /> <BR />Appointing an outside body — at a significant cost to the public purse, I might add — would not represent value for money. It would also risk duplication of work and poor use of public funding, with councils maintaining their own records. A centralised assessment of that nature would place practical limitations as it would be too restrictive to take account of the flexibility in the legislation to enable individual councils to determine what they consider to be dilapidated, dangerous and so on. <BR /> <BR />I will highlight to Members that the Bill initially contained a clause that would have imposed a statutory duty on councils to carry out a survey of the levels of dilapidation in their areas within 18 months of the commencement of the Act.”
“I then have a few summing-up remarks to make before we continue the debate. <BR /> <BR />I do not propose to support the amendments that Daniel McCrossan has tabled, and I urge the Assembly to do likewise. Amendment No 33 proposes a new clause on the periodic review of dilapidated buildings etc. It seeks to impose a statutory requirement on my Department to appoint a person or body to conduct a periodic review of dilapidated buildings. The most appropriate bodies to conduct any review of the level of dilapidation in an area are councils. Their officers are on the ground every day, and they are aware of the problem buildings and neglected sites in their areas. My Department does not have operational responsibility in that area or the relevant technical expertise in key matters such as structural engineering and building safety.”
“Amendment No 32, which will insert new clause 28A, was proposed by the AERA Committee. I was pleased to accept it, as it will ensure that an initial review of how the Act has been working in practice will take place no later than three years after the Act comes into operation. Thereafter, there will be a review every five years, the terms of which will be set out in regulations, which are to be made at a future date. Similar provisions exist in the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 36 is to schedule 1 and is consequential to the changes to clause 19 that are proposed in amendment Nos 27 and 28. Paragraph 7 of schedule 1 requires a small amendment in order to make it subject to the amended clause 19. <BR /> <BR />Those are my amendments. I will now address Daniel McCrossan's amendments.”
“I will address his amendments at the end of my opening remarks, if that is OK. I will speak to my amendments first, after which I will address Daniel McCrossan's amendments.”
“Amendment No 31 is also an amendment to clause 25 and has resulted from proposed new clause 28A in amendment No 35, which Daniel McCrossan tabled. I seek guidance from the top Table on whether I am permitted to address Daniel's amendments now or should do so in my winding-up speech.”
“Clause 21 currently provides that there is nothing to prevent a different notice being served in the case of land where an earlier notice applied, such as in cases in which dilapidation has become worse and a stronger notice would therefore be more appropriate. The amendment will allow the same notice to be served, meaning that, where a maintenance notice has been served but a fixed penalty notice was issued to discharge liability for conviction, and no remedial works were carried out, the council can issue a fresh maintenance notice. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 30 is to clause 25. It is consequential to the renaming of the "defective premises notice" provided for in clause 11 and substitutes references to "defective premises notice" in clause 25.”
“The amendments are necessary in order to make it clear that the fixed penalty to discharge liability for conviction for a failure to comply with the maintenance notice is up to the date of payment of the fixed penalty. If, however, the person continues to fail to comply with the maintenance notice after they have paid the fixed penalty, it does not affect the criminal liability for continued failure to comply with the maintenance notice after that date. In other words, the amendments will make it clear that payment of a fixed penalty does not mean that a person does not have to comply with the terms of a maintenance notice. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 29 will make a minor amendment to clause 21 as a result of the amendments to clause 19.”
“Amendment Nos 25 and 26 are to clause 18. Clause 18 gives councils various powers of entry relating to their functions under the Bill. The amendments were requested by councils and will give them an additional power similar to that which is provided in section 177 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, whereby a warrant may be sought from a lay magistrate where entry has been refused. Councils must have the power to enter by force in cases of emergency. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 27 and 28 are to clause 19. Clause 19 provides for a discretionary fixed penalty to be offered by councils to discharge liability for conviction for a breach of a maintenance notice and for a failure to provide information without reasonable excuse.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 23 and 24 will make minor amendments to clause 17 to clarify that a council's functions as they relate to heritage sites are:”
“I thank the Member for his intervention and for outlining that issue. I have received a number of items of correspondence and questions for written answer about that invasive species and my responsibility to act. The key issue is identifying the landowner. I will write to the Member to set out the law. There is an obligation to address that issue, and I know how it can affect properties. Through the Bill, we are seeking to give councils increased powers to act, while recognising that those powers are discretionary. Councils will decide to exercise their powers in cases in which they have confidence in their ability to trace the owner of the building. As I said, I will write to the Member to set out the law, because it is an important issue, about which people are concerned.”
“The amendment was requested by district councils, and it would strengthen the powers and mirror those already available to councils under article 72 of the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 so that they can serve a notice requesting information on anyone such as a solicitor or other person with a financial interest in the land.”
“The amendment has been drafted in respect of ongoing maintenance and repair of fencing in cases where the property itself continues to be dangerous but the presence of the fence removes the danger. In that case, the fence presents an ongoing cost to the council, and the property owner has done nothing to address the danger presented by the building or site. There are also minor amendments to clause 12 that are consequential to the renaming of the defective premises notice in clause 11. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 22 is to clause 16. Clause 16 allows councils to obtain information on buildings or land.”
“The provisions in clause 11 are not meant to overlap with the DFC legislation, but it is proposed that the defective premises notice be renamed "urgent abatement notice". That aligns more closely with the standard abatement notice provisions in Part 7 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, which we, of course, reference in clause 11(1)(b). These are cosmetic changes that do not alter the intention behind the provision. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 19 to 21 are to clause 12. Clause 12 enables councils to continue to recoup the cost of fencing a dangerous structure or site only until the danger has been removed. In cases where the owner has acted to remove the danger by repairing or demolishing a structure, councils should not be able to recover ongoing fencing costs, and they are content with that position.”
“The suite of amendments to clause 11 arose following discussions between my officials and the Department for Communities, which had concerns that clause 11 had the potential to cause confusion and conflation with the Defective Premises (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, which, Members will recall, was amended in 2024 in light of the Victoria Square situation. <BR /> <BR />Clause 11 is a direct replication of article 65 of the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which councils will already be familiar with. With the ongoing DFC work on new building safety legislation and recent post-Grenfell reports criticising the fragmentation in that area, the proposed amendments will remove any reference to defective premises.”
“Therefore, while the intention appears to be clear, I agreed that there is an opportunity to strengthen the drafting of clause 4(5) by revisiting the reference to "condition" to include reference to the obligation to comply with the building being a heritage site, as defined in clause 17. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 3 is to clause 7. The amendment is a carbon copy of amendment No 2 but applies to clause 7(6) by also clarifying the obligation to comply with the building being a heritage site. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 4 to 18 are to clause 11.”
“Officials in the Department for Communities' historic environment division (HED) confirmed that listed building consent for alterations or demolitions does not strictly relate to condition; it relates to architectural or historic character. The word "condition" needs to be inserted because, if the reference was removed, an interested person would be obliged to comply with all statutory provisions in relation to the building, which is not the policy intention. For example, if a building is in a state of disrepair, it may not be possible to comply with all health and safety obligations.”
“I advise Members that most of the amendments that I have tabled arise from deliberations during Committee Stage. I express my deep appreciation of the sterling work of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in its detailed consideration of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1 proposes to align the wording of clause 2(2)(c), which refers to land "adversely affecting amenity", with that of clause 1(1), which refers to a building or other land being "detrimental to" the amenity. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2 is to clause 4. The amendment proposes to strengthen clause 4 and close any potential loopholes in section 85 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, which provides for the offence of carrying out unauthorised works on a listed building.”
“I have legal obligations regarding water quality in Northern Ireland. We are seeking to have the inner Belfast lough shellfish area designated as a sensitive area, as a result of two reviews and a recommendation of my predecessor. I am seeking Executive agreement to that. At the beginning of March, I set out other actions that we are taking on waste water. It is not acceptable that Belfast lough is on course to become our next Lough Neagh, and it is important that people support me on the required interventions.”
“There will be additional testing and biosecurity advice across Northern Ireland, and any wildlife interventions will be applicable across all of Northern Ireland. The regionalised approach is necessarily confined to a geographical area. That is why we are seeking to take action on a Northern Ireland-wide basis.”
“We have made significant progress in recent times, but we do not underestimate the impact that it has on the farming community, as well as the costs and the mental health impacts on farmers.”
“The action that we are taking in that regionalised approach to TB is not the only intervention that we are taking. We are basing it on people, cattle and wildlife, and the biosecurity advice for farmers is out for procurement. We have also increased the level of testing so that we can have a better handle on where the infection is. That will allow us to get in early. We are also going to consult on wildlife interventions. Therefore, significant work is being done. I recognise that it is something that has existed for a long time. The levels are unsustainable, and we need to address them. That is what the Department is seeking to do in partnership with stakeholders.”
“I believe that it is a good use of funding. Members come to the House and ask, "How are you going to ensure that climate action measures are carried out in a just and fair way?". I am making it clear that we want to make sure that those voices are heard. I am also making sure that I am listening to stakeholders, including the Ulster Farmers' Union, which welcomed the establishment of the just transition commission.”
“This is a requirement in the climate change legislation. I am keen that we implement our obligations arising from that legislation and set them out to the House as part of the debate on the regulations. That will ensure that our duties are performed in a way that is just and fair.”
“I have asked officials to ensure that there is one DAERA approach, because you have the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and the veterinary service responding to it, and district councils also have a responsibility. Ultimately, we do not want to see this activity happening. That is one of the key issues arising from this. It can also take some time for people to identify and become aware that the incidents have occurred. Ultimately, the landowner has responsibility for the removal of the carcasses, but we are seeking to work with our partners, be that in councils or across the Department, on a response. I urge people to bring forward any information, if they have it.”
“It is an issue that is of deep concern to me. Local people have encountered those carcasses, and it is distressing, particularly for children. We need to get out the message that such activity is not acceptable and that if people are aware of who is doing it — people do know — they should report it and contact their local DAERA Direct office.”
“I am very concerned about that issue. There has been door-to-door engagement undertaken to encourage people who have any information to report it to their local DAERA Direct office. I have said previously and will repeat it today that the vast majority of farmers dispose of fallen livestock responsibly. Those who are engaging in the dumping of animal carcasses are doing great disrespect to the farming community. If done near a watercourse, there are also potential public health implications. It is therefore imperative that anyone who has any information come forward with it so that the people who are doing it can be brought to justice. <BR /> <BR />The locations at which the carcasses have been dumped are the responsibility of the landowner. The Department, alongside councils, will engage and intervene as and when necessary.”
“The Bill was passed unanimously in the House at Final Stage, and the DUP put it in its manifesto and was trumpeting the legislation. It has now changed its tune. The shame that the Member should feel is because his party collapsed the institutions for two years and did not allow us to progress legislation and make the important interventions that we are seeking to make. If his party wants to see progress made, agree the first climate action plan, which I will be bringing to the Executive in the short time ahead.”
“It was a Bill that was introduced by a DUP Minister, and you —.”
“The Member conveniently seeks to forget that my predecessor passed the legislation. Your party —.”
“I am very conscious that there is an ongoing court case dealing with an appeal associated with the A5, so I am limited in what I can say. On the Member's question about whether I have been engaging with Executive colleagues to change our climate change targets, the answer is no.”
“I do not come to the House to divide people, which is what the Member seeks to do day and daily.”
“I have published the outcome of the review, and we will continue to implement the actions that I set out in April and the actions arising from the review. A senior partnership, governance and oversight board will support the advancement of that work. It will underpin and enhance departmental support and sponsorship for AFBI as we jointly implement the required improvements. Through the steps that the AFBI board and its executive management team have taken and the additional oversight mechanisms that are now in place between AFBI and my Department, I am confident that AFBI will continue to be able to deliver high-quality science services for the Department and the wider agri-food sector. <BR /> <BR />I come to the House and do my job because I seek to serve all the people of Northern Ireland diligently and to deliver for them.”
“When I come to the House, I do so to give my answers in a truthful and honest matter, and I take great exception to your seeking to impugn my integrity on the issue. Sadly, however, I am not surprised. <BR /> <BR />AFBI is DAERA's key science partner, delivering the majority of its scientific needs, and it is a key contributor to the needs of the Department and to Programme for Government outcomes. The Member will know from my statement in the Assembly in April that AFBI currently faces a number of key challenges, most notably with its laboratory facilities following an inspection report, as well as because of allegations about farming practices at the Hillsborough farm and because of the data breach. He will also be aware of an independent review of AFBI that my Department and AFBI have been considering.”
“I am very grateful for the work of all stakeholders as part of the task and finish group associated with the nutrients action programme. Over the past number of months, they have been committed to finding a way forward that is workable at a farm level and contains practical measures that meet our legal obligations within realistic time frames. A significant amount of work has been undertaken in that regard. Hopefully, that work will come to a conclusion soon and the report will be published, after which we will undertake a further consultation on the measures. It is important that we allow space for that work to be completed, after which we will have that consultation, so that people can give their views. I have the utmost respect for all those who took part in that process, including the group's independent facilitator, Karen Brosnan.”
“I am very conscious of the law in that respect. The Department was investigated in 2023. That report is available on the website of the Office for Environmental Protection, which undertook the investigation. There was a situation in which we were acting unlawfully. That is not now the case, but we need to deal with the practical issues. We have been engaging with stakeholders to gain an understanding of the challenges and come up with practical solutions on the ground, in particular, so that we have a planning process that enables the quicker approval of covered slurry stores.”