Debate contribution: North/South Bodies: Funding

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 27 May 2025.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

27 May 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

North/South Bodies: Funding

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4972587

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The debate up to this point has focused on whether we should accept additional funding from Dublin. I will focus some of my remarks on the money from our Budget that we already spend, and what we get in return. I will take Safefood as the first example. That is a body that we in Northern Ireland fund to the tune of £2 million a year, but it does not employ a single member of staff here in Northern Ireland. Despite what Ms McLaughlin said, no one in the Chamber represents people living in Cork. That is simply outrageous. The Health Minister recently made a statement to the House following the 26th North/South Ministerial Council meeting in the health and food safety format. We were told that child protection was one topic that was discussed, so I asked the Minister whether he raised the issue of the contribution of Irish institutions to child abuse redress in Northern Ireland. He said that that was a matter for the Executive Office, and washed his hands of it. Who sat beside him at that very meeting? Junior Minister Reilly, but she said nothing. That was a missed opportunity. The second body that I will look at is the Loughs Agency. Members have been at pains this afternoon to promote the activities that it carries out. I have submitted numerous questions to the Agriculture Minister — sorry, that was a slip of the tongue; he is no friend of agriculture. I should have said "Environment Minister". The answers confirm what many already suspected: that body is bloated, it duplicates and it is surplus to requirements. It currently employs 68 people, which is 15 more than its authorised complement. Of its employees, 21 are temporary, and three work on externally funded projects. Where is the accountability? In 2024 alone, nearly £1 million went on salaries for the conservation and protection directorate. Another £590,000 went on office costs. After spending that vast amount of money, what was the result? There were zero prosecutions for illegal netting in 2024. There were only three in 2023, and there was none in 2022. We are funding a fisheries enforcement regime with no active fishery to enforce. Worse than that, the functions that the agency claims to perform are already carried out elsewhere. On the Erne and the Blackwater, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) and the inland fisheries inspectorate do the job without the costly duplication. Pollution investigations are already done by the NIEA and the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI). Scientific advice is another one for AFBI. Aquaculture licensing is still handled by DAERA, not the Loughs Agency. Again, what are we paying for? Despite all its staff, the agency spent £172,000 on external PR and media contractors over the past three years. Why? It claims that it does not have in-house expertise. That begs the real question: why do we have a stand-alone agency that cannot even explain and promote itself?

Its science team cost £322,000 last year, yet that work could be done by existing public bodies. Its aquaculture directorate employs six people, but the Department retains the licensing role. It is not a structure with purpose; it is a structure without function. If the Loughs Agency were to cease to exist tomorrow, its core functions would continue without disruption.

We should not be afraid to ask whether the cross-border bodies are delivering for the people who fund them, and, when the answer is no, we should not be afraid to act. One cannot help but notice that, while the nationalist and republican alliance is happy, as usual, to push a motion like this one, it is not concerned about the fact that Intertrade UK operates without offices, an independent staff or even a budget. My goodness, that sums up how Stormont values unionist concerns.

639 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:37 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.

Challenge this classification