Debate contribution: Fishing Industry: Ardglass
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 26 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Fishing Industry: Ardglass
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4677701
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for South Down Mrs Mason for bringing the matter to the Floor of the House this afternoon by way of an Adjournment debate. I also thank the fishermen in the Gallery for making the journey to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I appreciate their making that journey and giving their time to hear us discuss what are critical issues in South Down and more broadly in our fishing industry in Northern Ireland. I will attempt to address as many of the issues that Members have raised during the debate as I can, and I will respond to those to the best of my ability. Members will be aware that, in the early days of the mandate, the Member for Strangford Miss McIlveen brought a motion to the Assembly on the fishing industry and, in particular, capital investment. During that debate, I gave a commitment to work with the sea fishing sector. Further to that, I visited the harbours in Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel. On the harbour development programme, when I visited Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie earlier this year, I recognised the need for further investment in ports, despite the extremely challenging budget position. Unfortunately, the budget allocated to my Department for this financial year was significantly less than the bids, and priority had to be given to meeting statutory obligations. Consequently, there was, unfortunately, no additional budget to take forward new work such as the harbour development programme, where, due to recent inflationary pressures, the projected cost of delivery has increased from £98 million to £143 million. I have asked my officials to consider alternative options that provide investment on a scale that is affordable and enables the harbours to be modernised. That would include installing the infrastructure that will be needed to support the decarbonisation of the fishing sector and ensure that harbours are resilient to the impacts of climate change. Further to that point and the point that Michelle McIlveen raised about future funding through different streams around the areas that she outlined, I will consider that and take it back after this debate because it is a useful contribution towards the challenges that we face. I will actively take that forward with officials. On labour shortages, I recognise that Northern Ireland's catching and processing sectors have faced several challenges in recent years, one of which has been securing labour. Industry representatives have indicated that they rely heavily on the employment of non-EU workers and the skilled worker visa. I have been contacted by Northern Ireland fishing sector representatives on several occasions about the current impact and potential further impacts of the skilled worker visa policy on the Northern Ireland fish catching and processing industries. I am aware of the Seafish economic impact assessment report on the impact that the proposed increase to the skilled worker visa salary threshold could have on the UK seafood sector and on Northern Ireland in particular. It is particularly concerning that nephrops fishing is the most adversely affected, as it is the most economically important fishing sector in Northern Ireland, worth around £20 million in landings. It could have a major economic impact on coastal communities dependent on the fishing industry, including job losses and reduced income. Some of those communities rely heavily on the fishing industry for employment; indeed, the fishing industry is part of the community. I have written to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to reiterate the issues being faced across the agri-food sector in Northern Ireland in relation to immigration policy. A response was received from the Secretary of State on 29 October this year in which Mr Reed rejected the policy changes put forward for consideration. I will continue to press the Home Secretary and other relevant Ministers to review the current policy, and my officials will continue to liaise with Home Office and Border Force officials to discuss flexibility and alternatives to current migration policy. Access-to-labour challenges are being faced by sectors across the economy in Northern Ireland, and so it has been agreed that my officials will work in collaboration with Department for the Economy officials to develop an immigration policy position for the Executive to consider. I have corresponded with the Economy Minister on that, and it is an important step forward. It is important to emphasise that the challenges are the result of policies of the UK Government and that we must explore alternative solutions that are within our devolved powers. I am committed to working with the fishing industry to develop alternative workforce solutions for the fisheries sector that are aligned with the draft Programme for Government and provide opportunities to grow a globally competitive and sustainable economy. I talked earlier about the suggestions that were helpfully raised by Michelle McIlveen. I will now address coastal state negotiations and Irish Sea herring. The annual coastal state fisheries negotiations are currently taking place. For Irish Sea herring in 2025, I have been informed that International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) advice provides two options for headline advice. One is a precautionary approach of zero catch advice, and the other is using the maximum sustainable yield approach. My officials have reviewed the herring advice with the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) and are engaging with the Northern Ireland fishing sector and DEFRA. The Irish Sea herring fishery has a good reputation for sustainability. It is a very important fishery for the local economy. I am seeking a position in the current EU-UK coastal negotiations to ensure that the stock is fished at a sustainable level, whilst minimising the economic impact on Northern Ireland fishers and local seafood processors based in Ardglass and other fishery harbours. The Isle of Man was talked about during the Adjournment debate. I note that the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture in the Isle of Man has recently introduced spatial management measures in some of its waters to deliver co-benefits in sustainable fisheries, blue carbon research and marine conservation. I am aware of the closure of bottom-towed fishing methods in Isle of Man territorial waters and the potential impact that it is having on our nephrops fleet, many of which fish out of Ardglass. In that regard, I have met the Minister responsible for fisheries in the Isle of Man to highlight the issues for our fleet and to encourage collaboration in managing areas of mutual interest in the Irish Sea. Officials from my Department and industry representatives have lobbied the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture in the Isle of Man. The outcome of the consultation was to reduce the size of the Isle of Man closed areas and reduce the impact on the Northern Ireland fleet. The impact of the closures is still being monitored. To conclude, I thank Members for their contributions and Mrs Mason for securing the Adjournment debate. When I took up my ministerial post in February this year, I said that I would not shy away from my responsibilities to assist the industry in tackling key issues that may prevent a more economically and environmentally resilient industry from developing over time and being one that we should be proud of. Some of the issues raised today are the responsibility of the UK Government, and I will continue to take every opportunity to ensure that consideration is given to our fishing industry. For the issues that I have responsibility for, I am committed to working with the industry to develop solutions that will make our fishing industry globally competitive and sustainable. I recognise that it will take significant time, investment and commitment and will mean working in partnership to make the adjustments that are needed. I wish to see delivery for the industry in Ardglass and, indeed, across all our fishing ports and harbours in Northern Ireland. Two issues were raised in the debate. The first was about the circular economy, which Robbie Butler raised, and I got that presentation when I was in Kilkeel. There are real opportunities around that, and I was really encouraged to see that. I think that the Committee has also been briefed on that. The other issue was about the desire to move forward from the Adjournment debate and how we do that. We need to move forward together; that is critical. I am happy to agree to the request from Miss McIlveen to have a meeting with fishers in the new year, if that is OK. We can turn the focus to be entirely on solutions, because we need to be solutions-focused to give people hope for the future. I thank everyone for their contributions today. Hopefully, collectively, we can work together to create a better outcome for the people of Northern Ireland, because that, I think, is why we are all here.
1,467 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.91 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.09 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:36 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.