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 74 of 95.
“The powers will help manage the pressure that is being experienced at the moment by health professionals in the context of COVID-19. If there is no progress on GPs being able to see patients in person in the manner that we were aware of before COVID-19, it is important that legislation is brought forward to allow for virtual consultations to be treated the same as in-person GP contact.”
“As others have remarked, the order allows for the process of registering deaths and stillbirths to be completed without the need for face-to-face interaction. Throughout the pandemic, that has ensured that deaths can be registered without delay and that grieving families can make timely funeral arrangements. We are all aware of the horrendous circumstances that have unfolded over the last two years for grieving families. The Alliance Party is content that the order is made, but there are issues and concerns to be noted. <BR /> <BR />It is important that we try to provide a road map for GPs to see patients in person as the public health situation permits. I am aware of the context in which the SR is being made and the high levels of COVID-19 infection in Northern Ireland.”
“It is great that today's motion could be tabled, given that, previously, not having an Executive inhibited that. We need an Executive to be able to deliver for people and businesses across Northern Ireland. I therefore support the order.”
“I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what that means for established businesses that open a second premises and whether they will be able to benefit from the reliefs in the order. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the order for the injection that it will give to our town centres and high streets, which need all the support that they can get in light of COVID-19. I think particularly of the support that Bangor town centre needs for its regeneration and renewal. I welcome the Minister for Infrastructure's recent decision, after 13 months' delay, to approve the Queen's Parade development in Bangor, which will, hopefully, help towards the revitalisation of the town. <BR /> <BR />It is important to recognise the impact of not having an Executive.”
“I thank the Minister for bringing the order to the Assembly. In response to Mr O'Toole's remarks, the Alliance Party continues to support a full, independent review of our non-domestic rating system. It is long overdue. <BR /> <BR />From the examination that we have done to date, and whilst not having any members of the Finance Committee, it is our understanding that the order will allow new businesses occupying a long-term vacant property that is valued as a retail unit to pay rates at a 50% reduction for a two-year period, reinstating the Back in Business scheme that expired in 2017 owing to the absence of an Executive. From watching the Committee's proceedings, I am aware that it was waiting for correspondence from the Department on the definition of a "new business".”
“One of the main Civil Service accommodation areas is at Rathgael House in Bangor. Has consideration been given to relocating to Bangor town centre to aid the regeneration of that town centre?”
“Households across Northern Ireland are facing real dire pressures as a result of the rising cost of living. What efforts has the Minister made to engage with Treasury to encourage it to abandon the increase in National Insurance payments and to uplift benefits in line with inflation as it currently stands?”
“This is probably the Minister's last Question Time, so I will say that, whilst we have had our differences, it has always been a pleasure to work with the Minister. <BR /> <BR />Minister, during your tenure as Infrastructure Minister, you announced an independent investigation of the procurement of road surfacing contracts, which are a key element in road safety. Will the outcome of that investigation be reported before the end of the mandate?”
“I thank the Minister for her statement on capital projects. On 20 December last year, I wrote to the Minister about the restrictions on the borrowing powers of Sullivan Upper School, Holywood, and other similar voluntary grammar and grant-maintained integrated schools in Northern Ireland, and the impact that that will have on their delivery of major capital projects. When can I expect a reply to that letter?”
“As others said, the list reflects that which was received from DCMS following liaison with the royal household. The Alliance Party will support the change today, as we did the previous update following the very sad passing of the Duke of Edinburgh. The Alliance Party's support for designated days is well known and is a long-established party policy. We have written to DCMS to request that the anniversary of the Battle of the Somme be considered as a designated day. There was unanimity in City Hall to fly the Union flag to mark the Battle of the Somme and not to fly the flag on the Duke of York's birthday. We hope that there can be some consensus today on what has been tabled.”
“That is why we moved the amendments, and it is vital that they are implemented. Clarity is required from the Minister. <BR /> <BR />In closing, I did not think that we would reach this point with the Bill, but I am glad that we have. I put on record my thanks, particularly to the DAERA officials, who I know have spent a significant amount of time on drafting the legislation, to officials in the Bill Office in the Assembly and to officials in the Assembly generally. We have reached this point, and hopefully the Assembly can move on and agree the Bill at Final Stage.”
“It is our understanding that that delegation of powers is required in order to ensure that clauses 12 to 21 are fully operable. As the Minister did not move amendment Nos 57 and 58, we are concerned about the operation of those clauses. <BR /> <BR />Sectoral plans and associated targets were added to the Bill at Consideration Stage by the Alliance Party after drafting by the Assembly Bill Office. Those clauses, once drafted and proposed, were then passed with the support of the majority of the House. I would be interested to learn from the Minister why he did not move the correcting amendments and how that impacts on the sectoral plans and associated targets that were inserted at Consideration Stage. If we are to achieve the targets that are set out in the Bill, the action from different sectors is crucial.”
“on the planet. We need to live up to that challenge. The challenge presented to Northern Ireland is real, and we must meet it. We owe it to future generations to step up and take actions to avert a climate catastrophe. <BR /> <BR />I will turn to the implementation of clauses 12 to 21 of the Bill as it was amended at Consideration Stage. My colleague John Blair wrote to the Minister on Friday asking what considerations he and his Department had given to the implementation of those clauses. Amendment Nos 57 and 58, which were tabled at Further Consideration Stage, corrected serious technical defects in clauses 12 to 21. In its report to DAERA, the Office of the Legislative Counsel stated that a subsidiary power of the Department is required.”
“We have reservations, and it is important to outline those today, as my colleague John Blair has done. It is also important to put on record our commitment to bringing forward a private Member's Bill in the next mandate to deliver the real ambition required to deal with the climate crisis that we now face. <BR /> <BR />The Alliance Party, as my colleague John Blair outlined, is disappointed that the Bill was watered down at Further Consideration Stage by excluding methane. Last week, only a few months after the UN Secretary-General said that the IPCC report was nothing less than "a code red for humanity", the IPCC reported that there was:”
“It is important to note that it has been a long and tortuous road to this point, but we have reached it. It is also important to note that, although the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill that we are debating at Final Stage takes forward a key New Decade, New Approach commitment, we are still, two years later, waiting for the delivery of an independent environmental protection agency. The Climate Change (No. 2) Bill is, if anything, just one action as part of a wider programme of work that needs to be taken forward. It is only a starting point. <BR /> <BR />The Alliance Party will vote in support of the Bill at Final Stage because, as the proverb goes, better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without. This Bill ain't no diamond, but, on the whole, the Alliance Party is of the view that it is better to have something than nothing.”
“<BR /> <BR />In conclusion, it is absolutely, completely and utterly vital that we pass this Bill today. Essentially, it is about being able to run payroll and deliver core public services, but it is not the panacea that we need. We need an Executive and a three-year Budget, and that can be resolved very quickly if the DUP decides to go back into the Executive and to put people in Northern Ireland ahead of its own party political interests.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am increasingly worried that we are running out of road in relation to the options for the Executive Ministers to take action on this. There seems to be more of an idea that you can run an Executive through exchange of correspondence. We need an Executive that can meet together, and I am very conscious that, for the next financial year, there is £300 million that will sit idle. I would be interested to know the Finance Minister's view on why that sits idle. Is it as a result of the 1998 Act and the legal obligations associated with that? That £300 million could help people in real, dire need at this time and could also tackle waiting lists in our health and social care system. I would like clarity about why that £300 million will sit idle. The legal reasons for that are important.”
“Alongside that, we have the continuing climate crisis that faces Northern Ireland. Hopefully, we will be able to move forward with legislation on that, but that is a continuing thing that requires an Executive to be in place. <BR /> <BR />Whilst this is the Final Stage debate of this Bill, at previous stages of this Budget Bill and during yesterday's debate on the draft Budget which was previously presented, I have found a real sense of frustration when some parties seem to say that their collapse is better than someone else's collapse. Collapsing the Assembly is bad. It is not forgivable. We need an Assembly and an Executive in place delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. To be honest, any parties that walk away from that need to take responsibility for their actions associated with that.”
“We must have an Executive, because Northern Ireland is facing a significant crisis. If there were ever a time that we needed an Executive in Northern Ireland, it is now. We are facing a cost-of-living crisis that is completely and utterly crippling households across Northern Ireland. I have people contacting me who are absolutely aghast at the prices that they are being quoted for home heating oil. People who are in work are struggling to pay bills because of the crippling costs that are coming through to them. Moreover, the health and social care system is under an immense amount of strain. We heard reports yesterday that the Ulster Hospital is yet again under an immense amount of strain. There is a real need to have a functioning Executive to provide leadership and deliver the resources required to our health and social care system.”
“It is important that we consider the Bill at its Final Stage today. I hope that the House does not divide. It is completely and utterly crucial that we allow the Bill to pass so that it becomes law. Like the Member who spoke previously, I have sincere worries that this is one of the last actions, if not the last action, that we could be taking on budgetary matters in the Assembly, largely because of the selfish actions of the DUP, which has put its party political fortunes ahead of the people of Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Although it is described as a Budget Bill, it is not the Budget in the traditional sense. It should be encapsulated in an overarching three-year Budget for Northern Ireland, but that is nowhere within reach, because we do not have an Executive to agree it.”
“I thank the Minister for outlining that. I have read the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and it is explicit that a Budget must be agreed by the Executive. Is it not really disingenuous to tell the people that it can be otherwise?”
“The draft Budget also needs to tackle the cost of division, which costs over £1 million a day, yet the draft Budget did not outline what to do about that or about the increasing cost-of-living crisis that households across Northern Ireland face. <BR /> <BR />The three-year Budget was a golden opportunity to address those issues, transformation in our health service and the climate crisis. We have been robbed of that opportunity. The Assembly and the people of Northern Ireland have been robbed of that opportunity. People tell us that we can still agree a Budget without an Executive, so what is the point of the First Minister's resignation? It is only a stunt, and it is hurting the people of Northern Ireland. We should be able to agree a Budget and implement it for Northern Ireland.”
“I understand that the timescales associated with the Budget are down to the Treasury. It is important to put on record that the timescales for the Treasury to confirm the envelope for the three-year Budget for Northern Ireland were late in the day, and that has inhibited a lot of what we seek to achieve. <BR /> <BR />There is a precedent for agreeing a Budget in advance of a mandate. A Member of the House, the current Chair of the Justice Committee, brought forward a one-year Budget for 2016-17. We should have an Executive and the ability to agree a Budget, taking into account the criticisms that I have outlined and the Budget envelope that Westminster has given us. <BR /> <BR />A 2% pay rise was predicated on the draft Budget. We all know what the rate of inflation is. We all know what the challenges will be on pay.”
“As a party, we are keen on investment in health and social care but in the context that we should tackle the causes and symptoms of ill health. Preventative healthcare should be a cross-departmental responsibility. That is lacking in the draft Budget and needs to be brought forward and tied to the transformation programme. Specific funds should be set aside to allow that transformation. <BR /> <BR />The recent Fiscal Council report makes it clear that there should be linkages to the Programme for Government. However, the report also states:”
“Page 41 outlines that. It is in clear detail what exactly the draft Budget was about. It was very clear that the Department of Justice was one of the key losers. Yes, my party agreed that the Budget should go forward to consultation, but our views were very clear. There is an awful lot of smoke and mirrors in the draft Budget proposals.”
“That is the story that was told about the Budget. <BR /> <BR />On page 40, it stated that "specific allocations" were made. Then, on page 41, it stated that "general allocations" were made. The clear statement from the Fiscal Council was:”
“The Alliance Party agreed in the Executive for a consultation to proceed on the draft Budget. We had serious concerns about it, but we agreed that it was important to proceed and allow a consultation to take place as the necessary next step to allow a Budget to be agreed, whatever it may be. <BR /> <BR />As I said, the Fiscal Council's report was extremely useful, particularly page 39, where it stated:”
“The previous Member rightly spoke about the Fiscal Council's reports and analysis of it. I am, however, very aware that this is somewhat of an academic debate, because there is no Executive at present to agree any draft Budget to make it into a finalised Budget. In the Minister's response, I would like him to bring clarity to the suggestion that has been circulated that a Budget can be agreed without an Executive. My reading of the legislation is very clear that a Budget cannot be agreed without an Executive, and, frankly, some of the comments are quite difficult to take. People criticise and decry the lack of a Budget, yet they are the impediments to us being able to agree that. <BR /> <BR />I am disappointed that the Minister pulled the consultation on the draft Budget. That was an opportunity for people to give their feedback on it.”
“I welcome the Finance Committee tabling today's motion. I understand that the motion is:”
“It is important to welcome the scheme and also to highlight the issue of those who are excluded because of lack of cooperation from HMRC. What is the Minister doing to promote and provide grant support for energy efficiency in people's homes? It is a key action that we need to take to support people in the cost-of-living crisis.”
“I thank the Minister and her officials for their work on the legislation, especially given its accelerated passage and the turnaround that was required as a result of the late correspondence from the Department for Transport at the end of last year. As I have previously stated, there are many other Brexit-related issues that we will have to navigate. It is vital that we work together to navigate our way around those as a result of EU exit. The cross-party consensus on the Bill is welcome, and I hope that future Brexit-related legislative debate can be as respectful and productive.”
“I am pleased to see the Bill back in the Chamber for its Final Stage today. I welcome the positive influence that the Bill will have on people's lives across Northern Ireland, especially in light of the worrying sharp rise in the cost of living. Had the Bill not been introduced, we would have been complicit in a further financial burden being placed on households with rising car insurance prices. It is not lost on me that approval from the Executive was obtained in their dying days; if it were being sought now, we would not be able to get it. <BR /> <BR />We must do all that we can to tackle the cost of living crisis.”
“<BR /> <BR />Alliance supports the technical amendments that have been tabled to the Bill. We support clauses 1 and 11 and are minded not to support clause 5. Defamation law is another area where Northern Ireland is falling behind in relation to reform, and I welcome the Bill sponsor bringing forward the private Member's Bill. It is important that we act now to ensure freedom of speech and bring to an end far-fetched and amplified defamation claims.”
“Open justice is, of course, extremely important to our society. In this instance, however, it must be recognised that the virtues of jury trials do not translate to complex defamation cases. <BR /> <BR />It is also noted from the evidence that they provided to the Committee that lawyers remain fairly neutral on the clause. They did not highlight any major concerns. <BR /> <BR />The clause brings Northern Ireland in line with the rest of the UK on the presumption of a jury trial in defamation cases. The Republic of Ireland's reform of defamation laws will also see juries abolished for High Court cases. If the clause does not stand part of the Bill and the Bill proceeds — I hope that it does — we will be the only place in these islands that has not updated that aspect of our legislation.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I welcome that, but the legislation is about improving the position in relation to jury trials for the reasons that I am setting out. <BR /> <BR />We know that the presumption of a jury trial in a defamation case raises the cost and complexity of that case. It also disproportionately discriminates against defendants. Dr Mark Hanna, a lecturer at Queen's University's School of Law who has undertaken research on defamation law reform in Northern Ireland, gave written evidence to the Finance Committee and touched on that issue. He wrote:”
“The 2016 Scott report detailed that, because of the lack of change with regard to jury trials in defamation cases, the presumption of a jury trial continues to have a profound impact on the development of law here.”
“It does not remove the question of a jury trial entirely, as a court can order that a jury trial take place. It is also my understanding that a judge would retain discretion to order a jury trial if it is considered appropriate. In 2014, the Law Commission of Northern Ireland warned that the presumption of jury trials in defamation cases in Northern Ireland was exaggerating the costs of defamation cases in this jurisdiction, with that acting as a deterrent for defendants and enticing them to settle out of court. The Law Commission also noted that few cases reach full trial and that, in recent years, an increasing proportion of those cases have been tried by the judge alone. In fact, from 2014 to 2020, there were 140 defamation claims in Northern Ireland, but only 17 of them resulted in a judgement.”
“Alliance believes that it is only right that a platform is provided for discourse, but consideration must be given to how it does not become a platform for fake news and abusive content. Whilst the Bill is not the correct vehicle for doing that, organisations need to step up their game on that. There is a real risk that the clause could have the unintended consequence of reducing the liability of social media operators even further than the urgent need for improved reform in legislation on online safety and standards. To that end, the Alliance Party is minded to support the Committee's intention to oppose clause 5. <BR /> <BR />Lastly, clause 11, which is on trial without a jury, removes libel and slander from the list of proceedings where the right to a jury prevails.”
“I am more than aware of the need for action on online safety and on holding people to account for statements that are posted online, particularly on social media. I do not, however, think that the clause is the correct way to address that. The Bill has allowed online safety, bullying, defamation and harassment to come to the forefront of our legislative process, and I welcome that. An online harms Bill that can strike a better balance between the right to free speech and preventing vile attacks on others on social media platforms should be a priority for all legislators. Far too many people in this place know all too well the horrific experience of being attacked online with vile and hate-filled comments that are often posted by strangers and anonymous trolls.”
“<BR /> <BR />Committee evidence also highlighted that, in England and Wales, regulations on the issue have not been effective and that some companies are not even adhering to them. The lack of clarity on website operators means that not only would the big names of Facebook and Twitter, for example, be impacted by the clause but local newspapers with online comment sections would be subject to the legislation and could face huge moderation costs. Comments in newspapers and online platforms allow for discussion and debate while being platforms for free speech. Whilst I understand the sincere intention behind the clause, its ramifications could cause more problems than are solved. <BR /> <BR />It has been noted that there is a real possibility of conflict between the clause and anticipated online safety legislation at Westminster.”
“Another concern that I have about the Bill and the clause is the possibility of a website operator being required to disclose the identity of a whistle-blower when they are the source of a post on a website. From watching Finance Committee evidence sessions again, it is clear to me that departmental officials have serious reservations about the clause and the ramifications that it may have. Much of the discussion about online safety is outside the scope of the Bill, so it does not fit into the Department of Finance's remit. The onus to create regulations for the framework is on the Department of Finance; however, there is uncertainty about whether the Department has the finance or resource to undertake that huge piece of work.”
“The term "Operators of websites" has not been defined, and the clause also provides an exemption from liability for operators of websites. That means that that specific defence could be used by social networks that host content alongside providing a platform that allows for mass publication. The exemption that is provided by the clause has been defined as being far beyond the defences that exist under European Union e-commerce rules.”
“This clause seeks to achieve a fairer balance between both parties in defamation cases and to move towards an objective, fact-sensitive approach that will be firmed up through case law. Alliance supports clause 1 and will vote to ensure that it remains part of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Clause 5, "Operators of websites", creates a new defence where a defamation action has been brought against a website operator.”
“In Ireland, it has been recommended that an anti-SLAPP — strategic lawsuits against public participation — mechanism be put in place to tackle the issue of groundless and exaggerated lawsuits being filed by wealthy individuals against a weaker party to silence and intimidate with legal defence costs. It is vital that we take action now to tackle that problem in any way that we can. <BR /> <BR />An early decision by the courts in respect of the merits of a defamation action, as determined by clause 1, would limit court time and costs, allowing for better access to courts for ordinary people who have limited means to seek protection or appropriate redress. As my colleague Mr O'Toole, who is no longer in the Chamber, asked at Second Stage, where is the evidence that this change in England and Wales:”
“We owe that to local news outlets and journalists with limited financial resources who are faced with daunting legal action by those with the finance to access skilful lawyers. Other news outlets and journalists across the UK do not face that extent of coercion, as they benefit from the serious harm protection. The Committee even heard evidence that suggested that a satellite television broadcast was discouraged from being shown in the whole of the UK because of the current defamation laws in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />I am very conscious of developments in the Republic of Ireland and of the fact that it is in the process of reviewing its defamation laws.”
“This clause is one of a range of measures that aim to strengthen the environment for open and robust scientific debate and professional journalism in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Although there is no Alliance Party member of the Finance Committee, we have been following the Bill closely. In evidence, the National Union of Journalists detailed how, in Northern Ireland, a number of very wealthy people have been able to bring defamation claims against people whose stories were not deemed to have caused serious harm. Those wealthy people knew, however, that a specific journalist's publisher could not afford to defend them. That chilling effect is widely known across Northern Ireland, and clause 1 presents an opportunity to try to put an end to it.”
“However, after drawing on the views of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill and the balance of opinions received to the consultation on the Bill, that bar was raised to "serious harm", meaning that a statement must have caused or have been likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant. The serious harm requirement aims to discourage insubstantial claims from being made, plus ensuring that claimants can take effective action to protect their reputation when it has been seriously harmed. <BR /> <BR />Clause 1 does not seek to limit the number of genuine defamation cases that are brought forward; it merely seeks to reform the law so that unfounded actions for defamation do not succeed.”
“I will speak as finance spokesperson for the Alliance Party. I note that many of the amendments that have been tabled are largely technical. I will therefore speak to three of the clauses. <BR /> <BR />First, I will speak to clause 1, "Serious harm". The Bill is largely a copy of the Defamation Act 2013, with some slight adjustments to reflect the fact that we are no longer a member of the European Union. When that Bill was debated in the House of Commons, it was noted that the consultation on the draft Bill had originally sought views on the test of "substantial harm".”
“I am very conscious of the impact that that will have, particularly on district councils, which collect the majority of their revenue through the district rate. They also rely on grants and revenue streams from central government, and, obviously, there will be uncertainty in that context. It is important that we agree the order to give certainty to our finances. It is also important that we freeze the regional rate and give those well-deserved reliefs to people across Northern Ireland.”
“I also welcome freezing the regional rate in the context of Northern Ireland having what I understand to be the highest business rates in the whole of the UK and of the cost-of-living crisis that families and households across Northern Ireland are facing. <BR /> <BR />We are making the order in the context of Reval2023. It is important that that is undertaken and brought into effect. Whilst there have been reliefs over the last two years and reliefs are planned in the next financial year, it is important that we re-evaluate the net annual values (NAVs) for our non-domestic properties. <BR /> <BR />We are also making the order in the context of there being no agreed three-year Budget.”