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 30 of 95.
“under section 16. Once the fixed penalty has been paid, no prosecution may be brought for that offence. Fixed penalties will not be available for more serious offences. The Department may amend the fixed penalty amount by regulations. Schedule 1 makes further provision regarding the form and content of fixed penalty notices and receipts. I look forward to hearing the contributions during the Committee's scrutiny on that. There is, obviously, the opportunity for amendments on that issue to be tabled at Consideration Stage, but I get your concerns. <BR /> <BR />The other issue was the definition of low-level dilapidation that we provided. We will consider the statutory guidance that is associated with the definition. If that is not forthcoming or you do not feel that it satisfies you, we can give further consideration to that.”
“I will double-check with officials, and, if there is information, I will write to the Member, but I do not believe that there is an inventory of buildings currently. <BR /> <BR />The Member raised issues about the £500 fixed penalty and expressed the view that the penalty was too low. That came out in other Members' contributions. I will give you a proper response to that point, because I want to ensure that it is properly dealt with. Clause 19 provides for a:”
“Hopefully, I have addressed that by expressing my desire to meet the MLAs for North Belfast to consider what more can be done to address those issues by my Department and by working collaboratively with others, including the Department for Communities. We need to address those issues, and it is important that all constituencies in Northern Ireland are assured that the Bill seeks to provide powers to do that. Nuala has been a good person in showing me around North Belfast and the need for the Bill. I am happy that we are able to bring it through its Second Stage today. <BR /> <BR />Gerry Carroll wanted to know whether there is an indication of how many buildings are likely to be affected by the Bill. Unfortunately, there is no indication at the moment.”
“Clause 17 binds councils to consult relevant planning colleagues in the Department for Communities about historic monuments before taking action. That will properly address heritage issues and is more proactive, allowing action to be taken at a much earlier stage, thereby preventing avoidable decay in important buildings. Councils have powers under section 161 of the Planning Act 2011 to carry out urgent remedial works for the preservation of listed buildings, but I get the point that the powers that are in place are not seen to be sufficient, which is why we are moving that forward. <BR /> <BR />I will continue through the issues, because it is important that I respond to them. My colleague Nuala McAllister spoke about a range of concerns in North Belfast.”
“It also defines "owner" in relation to land. Hopefully, the Member is satisfied about that point. <BR /> <BR />On the period within which work should take place, I have tried to strike a balance by saying that councils can phase that in, but it is ultimately for councils to decide. <BR /> <BR />The Member also raised a relevant issue on Crumlin Road Courthouse — I have declared an interest as a member of the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society — and I am glad that he did so. The courthouse is a key piece of Northern Ireland and North Belfast's history. As someone whose family is from North Belfast, I value it, and its restoration would undoubtedly regenerate the surrounding area. <BR /> <BR />We have sought to ensure that the Bill affords protections to respect the heritage of buildings.”
“He asked why the powers were discretionary rather than mandatory: I hope that I have addressed that. I know that that will be brought out by the Committee. It is about striking a balance between the power that we give to councils and our influence, as political parties, on those councils. <BR /> <BR />The Member also raised dealing with unregistered land, which, I know, is a cause of dilapidation. The council can carry out remedial work, or it can register a charge. It will be for the council to make a judgement on that, but I get the point that, in the areas of dilapidation that we have seen in Northern Ireland, unregistered land is a cause of concern for local people. <BR /> <BR />The Member raised a point on the meaning of "interested person" in clause 24. Clause 24 specifies that a person:”
“<BR /> <BR />Phillip Brett has been a passionate, strong and diligent supporter of the Bill. On the basis of his initial comments, he could probably be hired as director of campaigns for my party, but we will let him decide on that role.”
“I hope that I have provided clarification on that. <BR /> <BR />Mr Buchanan also asked whether there were any plans to introduce grant schemes. There are no immediate plans for grant schemes as part of the Bill, but Members can consider that during the scrutiny period. The Bill is deliberately designed to minimise costs to the public purse and to ensure that costs rest with the people who are responsible for dilapidated buildings. That is the right balance to strike. <BR /> <BR />Maolíosa McHugh also raised council liabilities, which, I hope, I have addressed. Another point that Maolíosa raised was whether compliance could be phased in over time. The council can specify the periods in which work needs to be done. That allows councils to look at work on a case-by-case basis and to take a pragmatic approach.”
“<BR /> <BR />Clause 11 also allows the person on whom the notice was served to serve, within seven days of the defective premises notice having taken effect, a counter-notice that states that they intend to remedy the defect themselves. If they did that, that would be good news. In such a case, the council is prohibited from taking any action unless the person fails to remedy the defects within a specified time or to a specified standard. That is not a new power — it is available to councils under article 65 of the Pollution Control and Local Government Order 1978 — but it is being re-enacted and enhanced to cover listed buildings. It should be noted that clause 11 does not conflict with Department for Communities defective premises legislation, which relates to liability and limitation periods.”
“The council may serve a notice stating that it intends to remedy the defective state of the premises and specifying the defects that it intends to remedy. The notice is served on the owner if the defective state of the premises arises from a structural defect and, in other cases, on the person responsible for the premises being in a defective state or, if that person cannot be found, the owner or occupier. Nine days after the notice takes effect, a council may carry out whatever remedial works are necessary. The building does not have to be dilapidated or dangerous but present a problem that, the council considers, needs to be tackled quickly, hence the nine-day turnaround time in the absence of appeal procedures.”
“That power would be used in circumstances that require relatively rapid remediation, such as in the case of a building in which a staircase had been incorrectly installed. In such a case, there would be insufficient time for a preliminary view and a subsequent, more considered, view to be taken.”
“Ultimately, if councils want to protect and grow their rates base, it is in their interests for those areas to be regenerated and for dilapidation to not be allowed to occur in the first place. A wider perspective has to be drawn. <BR /> <BR />Tom also raised a point about the defective premises notice and whether the nine-day period set out in clause 11 is too tight. I want to make sure that I give you the correct answer. Clause 11 is on the defective premises notice. That notice would be used on occasions when there would not be time to go down the route of statutory nuisance, provided for in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, to remedy defects.”
“I will write to the Finance Minister to reflect those points back to him, because, ultimately, we need to coordinate everything that we are doing across government. <BR /> <BR />An issue that was raised by Declan McAleer and Tom Buchanan was that of councils' financial powers and the cost that they will bear. I understand that point totally, and it is important that the guidance is issued for the Committee to scrutinise it at the end of September. That would allow councils to fully consider how they will go forward with this. The Bill is deliberately set out in such a way that the owners of the buildings are the ones who take the liabilities that are associated with it.”
“That is, however, something to be considered. <BR /> <BR />The leader of the Opposition asked how the Bill fits with the broader issue of dereliction. The Bill interfaces with a variety of areas in other Departments, and my officials have primarily been in close contact on it with the officials from the Department for Communities. <BR /> <BR />I have already touched on the issue of Tribeca. That is a good example of a case in which councils want more effective powers. Hopefully, the Bill will give them that and allow Belfast City Council to use the appropriate powers to take things forward in that case. <BR /> <BR />The other issue that the leader of the Opposition raised was on the role of the rating system. That is a matter for the Minister of Finance, but it has been a thread throughout the debate.”
“Owners or other persons of interest should be actively pursued in an effort to improve and regenerate their areas using a variety of methods, such as the services of Land and Property Services or Companies House, internet searches, private investigators — if doing so is deemed to be ethically appropriate — and the information notices provided for in clause 16. There are, therefore, a number of ways to move on that. Fundamentally, that is about us working in cooperation with district councils. <BR /> <BR />In an intervention, Mark H Durkan raised the role of public bodies. We all have a responsibility to keep our public estate at the proper standards. There is engagement on that, as appropriate, on a case-by-case basis. If you need to use legislation such as this against a public body, government has failed in that instance.”
“All of us in the Chamber know of examples of that: such behaviour is not right, and we need to find a way to deal with it. Hopefully, the legislation will help with that. Under the current draft of the Bill, a council would have to judge, on a case-by-case basis, whether to begin enforcement proceedings if the likelihood of recovering costs is minimal. It is reasonable to assume that a council would adopt an approach that did not put its finances at risk and ensured maximisation of success in the interests of ratepayers. <BR /> <BR />Another point is whether the ability to trace an owner would inhibit councils from carrying out their work. That should not prevent councils from carrying out works.”
“make an order accordingly. As is the case with serving a notice under the Bill, the Department is keen to ensure that the range of persons from whom costs may be recovered is broad. Before deciding to recover costs for a particular person, it would be in order for a council to satisfy itself that it is appropriate to pursue that person for the costs. I understand that councils need to have discretion on that. <BR /> <BR />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 the cost to the public purse and to preventing unscrupulous property owners from deriving financial benefit from allowing buildings to fall into disrepair.”
“Tracing the owner of a building and taking action is a fundamental issue that the Bill seeks to address. The Committee can drill into the specifics through its scrutiny of the Bill and as part of the call for evidence over the summer. Hopefully, the councils will be helpful and highlight where they see the challenges. Fundamentally, we want to minimise the cost to the taxpayer in Northern Ireland and make sure that it is borne by the people who are causing the dereliction and dilapidation. Clause 12 provides that, in court proceedings to recover costs:”
“Hopefully, I have addressed that issue. The leader of the Opposition talked about cost recovery, and that is an important issue.”
“The leader of the Opposition, who is not here at present, mentioned the Tribeca site and the wider issues in north Belfast. The Bill is designed to deal with the dilapidation issues that affect constituencies across Northern Ireland, and, as has been articulated in the Chamber, there are particular issues in north Belfast. To be fair, Members who represent the North Belfast constituency have raised a number of those issues with me, and I will offer to meet the five MLAs from that area to go through the sites and see what more can be coordinated across government. The issue has been raised consistently, and the MLAs have engaged constructively with the Bill. We need to find a way forward, and that is the best way to address the issues. <BR /> <BR />The Chair of the Committee asked why the powers are discretionary and not mandatory.”
“Members are also aware of their current powers, such as those relating to developer contributions, but the Bill deals specifically with dilapidation and gives councils up-to-date powers. There needs to be a wider understanding of the impact of dilapidation on areas, because not taking action has wider consequences for the people living in an area, those considering investing in an area or, as has been discussed, businesses leaving an area because of it. <BR /> <BR />The Chair of the Committee asked what success would look like. For me, success is when dilapidation is not seen as the norm. There are different attitudes in central and local government towards dilapidation. When it starts to develop, we need to go in quickly and take action.”
“New powers are discretionary, giving councils the flexibility to avail themselves of them as their resources permit. I acknowledge the thread of debate about the discretionary power and whether it should be mandatory, and the Committee can scrutinise that in the time ahead. I have a strong desire to work in partnership with district councils on the matter. There is a role for us all, because we have representatives on the district councils, and we can influence them to take forward the powers in the Bill. Obviously, the balance between discretionary and mandatory powers can be considered. <BR /> <BR />Funding support has been given to councils for the wider area of regeneration. I could go through that, but most Members are aware of it.”
“Hopefully, the Committee will have the guidance at the end of September to allow for scrutiny of the Bill, because that is a key part of the legislation. <BR /> <BR />I get the concern about financial support for councils. That issue was raised a number of times during the debate, and it is important that I address it. The inclusion of robust and effective cost recovery provisions will reduce the likelihood of councils being disadvantaged financially. The effective implementation of the new regime will require council buy-in to undertake enforcement activity, and it is recognised that councils will need to allocate adequate resources because, in the current budgetary climate, no discrete funding provisions are included in the Bill.”
“I am grateful to everyone in the Chamber who contributed to the debate. It is what the Assembly is about: scrutinising and passing legislation. I will seek to respond to the points that were made. A variety of issues were raised, and I will try my best to deal with them. At the outset, I declare that I am a member of the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society. It is important that I put that on the record. <BR /> <BR />The Chair of the Committee mentioned having sight of the guidance. That is currently being pulled together. It is important that the Committee has sight of the guidance during its scrutiny of the Bill. The desire is that it will be with the Committee at the end of September. We have to engage with the councils on the matter, because they play a key role.”
“It takes us time to develop and deliver the legislative programme. Also, in presenting the Bill to the Assembly, I have to have confidence that I can say to you all that it has the proper vires and competencies. We have been through a process to assure ourselves of that. It is important that I say that we are debating the Bill today because we have ensured that we are confident in the Bill that we have presented to the Assembly. I look forward to the debate, and I commend the Bill to the Assembly.”
“The Dilapidation Bill has the potential to contribute to wider regeneration and urban quality objectives. There is little incentive for private property owners to invest in the quality of their property if they are in an environment that is of such low quality that it simply sucks value out of their property. The Bill can and will help to tackle the blight of dilapidation, which spoils the appearance of our neighbourhoods. In doing so, it will improve the quality of life for all the people in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />I will also comment on the fact that we are debating the Bill on the final day before recess. Some people have had concerns about the delay in introducing the Bill. Obviously, when we came back in February last year, government was switched back on, but it does not power up immediately.”
“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 purse and preventing unscrupulous property owners deriving financial benefit from letting buildings fall into disrepair. <BR /> <BR />As with serving a notice under the Bill, officials were keen to ensure that the range of persons from whom costs may be recovered is broad. Where costs cannot be immediately recovered, they will be treated as a charge on the land and placed in the statutory charges register as though they were a mortgage, thus ensuring full cost recovery. <BR /> <BR />Experience has shown that those powers have delivered important, tangible and lasting improvements to amenity in other jurisdictions.”
“Penalties range from a £2,500 fine on summary conviction for failure to comply with a maintenance notice to a £5,000 fine on summary conviction or on conviction to indictment to a fine or a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both, for failure to comply with a dangerous structures notice. The Bill also provides for councils to issue a discretionary £500 fixed penalty to discharge liability for conviction for breach of a maintenance notice or failure to provide information without reasonable excuse. <BR /> <BR />The Bill significantly enhances the cost recovery powers for councils. Where the relevant person has failed to carry out the remedial action that was specified in the notice, a council may take such action itself and recover its costs from that person through the courts.”
“<BR /> <BR />Specific grounds for appeal to the Magistrates' Court are in the Bill, as is provision for further appeal to the County Court by the appellant or the council. Protections will be afforded to listed buildings. The Bill binds councils into ensuring that they will consult the relevant planning colleagues or the Department for Communities about historic monuments before taking any action. That will properly address heritage issues in a more proactive way and allow action to be taken at a much earlier stage, thereby preventing avoidable decay in important buildings. <BR /> <BR />Non-compliance with the various notices will be a criminal offence.”
“The Bill allows councils to issue the combination of notices that it deems to be appropriate, with each situation to be considered, rightly, on a case-by-case basis. Many of those powers do not exist in Northern Ireland but have been established in England and Wales since 1990 and in Scotland since 1997. Others with a relevant interest may include a person with a financial interest in the property or any person with a responsibility for the management, maintenance or safety of the property. The scope of works that can be required is wide and can include planting, clearance, tidying, enclosure, rebuilding, repainting, external repairs and, in extreme cases, demolition or part demolition. That will obviously be determined on a case-by-case basis.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill allows councils to issue a range of notices, depending on the severity of the dilapidation, that require owners, occupiers and others with a relevant interest to take appropriate remedial action to deal with varying levels of dilapidation and neglect or that allow the council to take such action itself and recover the costs from the relevant person. <BR /> <BR />The Bill allows for a hierarchical approach to severity, with low-level cases being the least severe, dilapidated structures being moderately severe and dangerous structures being the most severe. Those groupings are not mutually exclusive, and there can be overlap across all three. However, it is likely that a single notice will suffice in most cases.”
“<BR /> <BR />In the current budgetary climate, no discrete funding provisions have been included in the Bill. In cases in which district councils take enforcement action, there will potentially be costs to the owners of dilapidated properties. The inclusion of robust and effective cost-recovery provisions will ensure that councils are not financially disadvantaged. Effective implementation of the new regime will require council buy-in to opt in to undertaking enforcement activity, and it is recognised that councils will need to allocate adequate resources.”
“That assessment recognises that, in the commercial sector, there are likely to be additional costs for landlords, property developers, property management companies, financial institutions and others who own dilapidated buildings in cases in which councils take enforcement action. However, to a large extent, those costs will be offset by enhanced property values, additional activity in the construction sector and a range of non-monetary social benefits. <BR /> <BR />The Bill will not impose a financial burden on my Department, and it must be stressed that the new powers in the Bill do not place any new statutory duties on councils; rather, the Bill gives them additional discretionary powers, allowing them flexibility to avail themselves of those powers as resources permit.”
“It is envisaged that that approach will give district councils, property owners, financial institutions and other government agencies much greater clarity on the scope of the legislation and the responsibilities of the various actors. <BR /> <BR />There is likely to be a positive impact on employment, business, charities, social economy enterprises and the voluntary sector, as the powers in the Bill will enable councils to tackle dilapidation, thereby enhancing communities, benefiting the economy, improving the quality of the built environment, increasing tourism and reducing antisocial behaviour. <BR /> <BR />As detailed, a formal assessment of the regulatory impact of the proposals in the Bill has been completed.”
“<BR /> <BR />The intention of the Dilapidation Bill is to provide all district councils with a modern, fit-for-purpose, Northern Ireland-wide enforcement regime to deal with the negative impact of dilapidated and dangerous buildings and neglected sites. The definition of "building" is broadly drawn and seeks to encompass most man-made structures. There is currently no statutory or non-statutory guidance to support the various pieces of legislation that are available to councils. Given the intended scope and potential complexity of the Bill, my officials are developing clear statutory guidance. That will be laid in draft before the Assembly in due course to allow the Committee to scrutinise it.”
“There is also a significant legislative deficit in Northern Ireland compared with other relevant jurisdictions. Although local legislation purports to address the same basic issues, there is a lack of consistency across it, and the Northern Ireland-wide legislation is subject to differences in interpretation between councils, making some reluctant to use it. That deficit has been addressed by including in the Bill provisions that are broadly equivalent to those in England and Wales under sections 215 to 219 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on low-level dilapidation and neglected sites, and sections 77 and 78 of the Building Act 1984, on dangerous buildings and emergency action. Similar provisions exist in relevant Scottish legislation.”
“The overwhelming majority of respondents to the 2016 formal public consultation exercise expressed a preference for the development of a wide-ranging dilapidation Bill that would consolidate and amend much of the existing legislation and supplement it with new provisions on low-level dilapidation and dangerous buildings that were already available to local authorities in the rest of the UK. The other key proposal was to strengthen the cost-recovery options that are available to councils, enhancing the financial viability of councils undertaking remediation work themselves. A review of the legislation that was available to councils concluded that that legislation, much of which dates back to the Victorian era and/or applies to specific geographical areas, is limited in its scope and effectiveness.”
“An agreed way forward is needed to ensure that district councils have a proper toolkit of powers that enables them to take effective action against owners who fail to stop their buildings from falling into significant disrepair. <BR /> <BR />Work on the development of a dilapidation Bill originated as a result of a number of councils taking part in two blight summits and significant engagements between my officials and a range of key stakeholders nearly a decade ago.”
“Such local environments attract more investment and have a positive impact on our health and well-being. <BR /> <BR />There are, of course, many examples of dilapidated buildings and neglected sites that negatively impact on the amenity of neighbourhoods. Recently, I visited a number of sites in Northern Ireland to see at first hand the scourge of dilapidation on our communities. I am sure that Members will agree with me when I say that it makes for depressing viewing. Although the former Department of the Environment's dereliction intervention programme, which included the shrouding of buildings and the introduction of false shopfronts, helped councils to tackle the detrimental impact on amenity that is caused by derelict and dilapidated buildings and gap sites, it was always intended to be a relatively short-term fix.”
“First, I thank my Executive colleagues for their support for the Bill. I look forward to working with Members across the Chamber to take the Bill forward, particularly with members of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, which is ably chaired by Robbie Butler. <BR /> <BR />I say with some confidence that the Bill should be welcomed by all Members. The Bill will improve the quality of local environments across Northern Ireland in neighbourhoods, villages, towns and cities and in our rural and coastal areas. The Bill impacts on all of Northern Ireland: all the people of Northern Ireland and those who visit. Clean and tidy neighbourhoods help to engender a sense of civic pride in their residents. People feel safer in such neighbourhoods and more at ease in their surroundings.”
“In particular, I thank the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee for its scrutiny of the Bill and for working cooperatively with me and my officials. There is lots more legislation coming down the road, and if we can work together, we can deliver for the citizens of Northern Ireland. I think that I have made a robust case for the Bill, and, at the same time, confirmed my commitment to the mushroom industry and the wider horticulture sector. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the House.”
“I welcome the support for that and for the recognition that my confirmation that the fruit and veg aid scheme will continue after this year has provided the clarity and security for which stakeholders called. Should the Bill be enacted, I look forward to the opportunity to consider what improvements could be made using the new powers in the Act. I look forward to working with stakeholders and the Assembly to make such changes, including looking at what can be done to improve environmental and economic outcomes. I also look forward to seeing progress on a successor scheme and the opportunity that that will present. <BR /> <BR />I again thank Members for their contributions and for their support for the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />With regard to discretion, in the end, as reflected in Members' comments today and throughout the Bill's passage, the key concern has been the removal of a mandatory requirement for the Department to support all eligible fruit and veg aid scheme claims. As I said, making support discretionary does not close the scheme. It gives me scope to consider future funding on a case-by-case basis, and I would require a very robust reason for me to do that. I see two scenarios where that might happen: when support would have a major negative impact on budget or if there was a risk that Executive earmarked funding could be used for the benefit of non-Northern Ireland growers. I am glad that Members have seen the need to mitigate such risks.”
“Importantly, the review will not, nor did it set out to, provide a detailed outline of a replacement scheme. The policy development work remains to be done in consultation with the horticulture sector, informed by the review findings. Without the Bill's powers, however, there would be limited scope to change existing rules that applied under EU law at exit. The powers would allow for improvements to the scheme, including to align it with support elsewhere, and may provide scope for simplification of the EU base rules. The modification possible using those powers could, as I said, include incremental improvements while the co-design of any future scheme is progressed. Importantly, the Bill provides scope to respond to the issues raised during the review and to make changes as required.”
“With regard to the latter, I understand that there has been tentative interest from other sub-sectors in recent weeks. Time will tell where those discussions might lead.”
“It is important that I reiterate that today. <BR /> <BR />Reference has been made to the review of the fruit and veg aid scheme. The review is assessing the existing scheme, which was inherited from the EU; how it operated; what it achieved; lessons learned; and how it fits with Northern Ireland policy priorities. It is also considering why only one subsector has, until recently at least, availed itself of the scheme here — a matter that was discussed during Committee Stage.”
“My officials' immediate focus is, rightly, on ensuring that preparations are in place to ensure smooth transition to DAERA delivery of the FVAS from the end of this year. However, I see the current scheme running alongside policy development until there is a suitable replacement. <BR /> <BR />That has been broadly welcomed by stakeholders. I recognise the request from a number of people that support should remain at the current level. That will be the case under existing rules and will, no doubt, be factored into discussions with the wider horticulture sector as part of the co-design process for a replacement scheme. It has always been the case that DAERA's support will continue to be available for Northern Ireland growers who previously availed themselves of fruit and veg aid under the legacy scheme.”
“It is important that we give our support to them and that we give the attacks outright condemnation without any ifs, buts, maybes or conditionality at all. The mushroom sector is reliant on people who come to work every day and work really hard, supporting that industry, and the Bill will allow us to continue to support them and to look at further ways in which we can do that. <BR /> <BR />I have instructed officials to begin preparatory work on a replacement scheme to be developed in co-design with the horticulture sector, informed by the ongoing FVAS review. I note calls for that work to be taken forward at pace, but it is at a very early stage and will get fully under way once the pilot horticulture schemes have been rolled out.”
“That is an outworking of Brexit, and, if we are talking about U-turns, I would wholeheartedly welcome one on the policies of the UK Government because they have damaged the UK economy significantly and have damaged agri-food businesses. <BR /> <BR />It is also important to put on record that I am extremely grateful for the work that people in the agri-food sector do. Essentially, they help us to put food on people's tables and help with food security, not just in Northern Ireland but more broadly across the UK and elsewhere. A number of them are foreign nationals, and the recent attacks on them are despicable. I stand four-square in support of foreign nationals in Northern Ireland, and those attacks are an attack on us as a community.”
“Thank you, John. While we are talking about the mushroom industry, one of the issues that has been raised regularly is that of the UK Government's migration policies and the impact that they are having on agri-food businesses in Northern Ireland. We know that that impact is most acute for the mushroom sector. I visited one of the main businesses in the sector with the Northern Ireland Office Minister and made representations to her. I asked, if the UK Government were not going to change migration policy, what support they would give us to develop automation, which is quite expensive. Unfortunately, a reply on that was not forthcoming, and I will continue to engage with the UK Government on their migration policy.”