Debate contribution: Agriculture Bill: Final Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on 30 June 2025.

MLA

Mr Andrew Muir

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

30 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Agriculture Bill: Final Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5043473

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

I am pleased that the Bill, which will provide for changes to two legacy EU support schemes, namely the fruit and vegetables aid scheme (FVAS) and the agri-food information and promotions scheme, has reached its Final Stage. Before I speak to the Bill, I thank the Chairperson and members of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee for their detailed scrutiny of the Bill. I also thank the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), legal advisers and Assembly staff, as well as officials in my Department, for their work in getting this small but technical Bill to this stage. Finally, my thanks go to the stakeholders who invested time to respond to the consultation, provide evidence to the Committee and, more generally, feed into the Department's review of the fruit and veg aid scheme. I am grateful to the Committee for testing the Bill so rigorously, as is its duty. I welcome the Committee's support for the Bill, but I am aware that some issues were raised during its scrutiny. I will come to those in a moment; it is important that I do so. However, if I may, I will begin with a little context and say a few brief words about why the Agriculture Bill was brought to the Assembly. The fruit and veg aid scheme is a legacy of EU membership. It stems from EU law that applied to all member states, including the UK, when aid was provided to EU beneficiaries to meet EU policies and priorities. That legislation was converted into UK law and amended to operate in the UK context as assimilated law. Farmers and growers can come together to form a producer organisation (PO) to strengthen their position in a supply chain and increase their competitiveness. While POs may form in a range of sectors and gain the advantages from doing so, the horticulture sector can also avail itself of funding support thanks to the fruit and veg aid scheme. Importantly, prior to Brexit, the EU funded all claims that met the legislative requirements. Given that agricultural support is devolved, each part of the UK is responsible for funding in its own jurisdiction. That obligation has, since Brexit, fallen on DAERA for POs with a head office here. That is a legacy of EU membership. Furthermore, while some changes were made to the legislation that governs the scheme when it was transferred into UK law, they simply made the legislation operable outside the EU. A lack of power to amend the scheme to align with Northern Ireland's specific policy priorities is a further legacy issue. The Bill therefore seeks to deal with those legacies by making fruit and veg aid funding discretionary and providing the scope to amend the law governing that scheme as well as governing agri-food promotions. That will allow changes to align to policy development now that the UK is no longer a member of the European Union. With respect to the first matter — discretion — DAERA grant funding is normally provided in accordance with the Department's strategic priorities, subject to suitable legal authority and appropriate business case. However, in the case of fruit and veg aid, that cannot be the case, given that the current obligation is to fund all eligible claims from producer organisations with a head office here. As I said, that is a legacy of the legislation that stemmed from the EU when the EU provided the funding. The Bill therefore removes the requirement for all eligible claims to be funded so that my Department to continue to support the horticulture sector on a discretionary, case-by-case basis. The AERA Committee heard from the mushroom industry that it was concerned that making aid discretionary was a signal that the scheme would be closed here. The mushroom industry highlighted the importance of the scheme to it and, importantly, called for it to continue after the end of the current operational programming period. I acknowledge those concerns, which some Members raised during the Bill's passage. Since the Bill's introduction, however, I have been clear that I have no plans to close the scheme, and nothing in the Bill signalled that that was the case. That is different from the situation in England, where legislation has been in place for some time to stop English POs submitting further operational programmes for approval after 2025, or, indeed, in Wales, where the Welsh Government are consulting on a plan to close the scheme there. I confirmed in March that the fruit and veg aid scheme was to continue here after the end of the current year, just as stakeholders had asked for in the consultation on the Bill. That will mean DAERA supporting POs with a head office in Northern Ireland as they undertake a new three-year operational programme, which is to commence in January 2026. I am pleased to confirm that officials are working with stakeholders to facilitate that programme within the timeline set out in existing legislation. I welcome the acknowledgement of Members and, in recent correspondence, representatives of the mushroom industry of the potential budgetary implications of leaving things as they are under the legacy legislation. Simply put, as it stands, there is no effective cap on the funding that my Department can be asked for to support the scheme. I have no control over the level of funding that POs may look for in the future, as it relates to their business plans, and I have no control over the number of POs that may set up an office in Northern Ireland. Without the Bill, there is a risk that my Department will be liable to provide funding that will benefit non-Northern Ireland-based growers. That could happen if they are members of a PO with a head office here or if, at a later stage, they join a PO that is based here. I cannot stop that happening without the powers in the Bill. Joining a PO here could be attractive to the UK horticulture sector, given the closure of the scheme elsewhere. I am therefore grateful to Members for their support of clause 1 at Consideration Stage, and I am confident that Members will wish to support me in making sure that Northern Ireland funding is used for the benefit of local growers by supporting the Bill today. To do otherwise would mean that any extra money required would come from the budget earmarked for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development. That would inevitably impact on other sectors, and there would be no scope for me to make policy choices or to bring any forth for Members' consideration. It is a legacy of EU membership, but it is not sustainable in a domestic context. As I said, the Bill does not close the scheme, nor is it a policy signal that the scheme is to end. To close the scheme fully would require using the powers in the Bill, with the adequate safeguard that that would require the Assembly's approval. That is likely to be acceptable to the Assembly only when an appropriate successor scheme has been designed. I am pleased that the AERA Committee and the mushroom industry have been reassured enough to support the Bill thus far. I turn briefly to recommendations in the Committee report, as this is the first chance that I have had to acknowledge them. The first recommendation relates to the nature of the Bill. It is not unusual for an enabling Bill to contain limited policy detail, as such Bills provide scope for future decisions arising from policy development to be reflected in subordinate legislation, often made over many years. For example, DAERA is relying on powers in the Agriculture Act (Northern Ireland) 1949 for its current sustainable agriculture programme schemes, the details of which could not have been foreseen in 1949. That said, we are not starting with a blank page with the Bill. The powers are to amend existing legislation, as set out in the evidence, and changes to the existing rules could include simplification or alignment with rules elsewhere to help ensure a level playing field for our growers and their competitors. Those are issues, however, that can be developed, consulted on and brought forward for the Assembly's consideration only once the powers are in place, which is a point that I made at Consideration Stage. There will then be scope to use the powers to make further changes over time in line with developing policy. Nevertheless, I will take cognisance of the recommendation in bringing forward future proposals for primary legislation. I am content to accept the general principle behind the Committee recommendations on supporting innovation and new technology and helping local growers remain competitive. DAERA proposes a suite of innovation schemes, including the pilot innovation driver and support scheme, which is to be targeted specifically at the horticulture sector. That scheme should be open from spring 2026. Furthermore, the food and veg aid scheme itself provides support for new technologies, and the Bill's powers could provide for more favourable funding levels.

That is one of the key reasons for seeking the powers. Of course, making any changes relies on having not only the powers to do so, which the Bill provides, but the budget available to fund them.

With respect to horticulture policy and support more widely, the report makes recommendations linked to matters that are being considered as part of the review of fruit and veg aid, including how the legacy scheme fits with DAERA's strategic priorities and support for the sector. The review has also examined why the PO model has mainly been of interest to only one subsector here. The key reason is the reluctance of some to collaborate, which has been recognised and addressed by other policy measures, including the horticulture pilot schemes and the forthcoming supply chain measures. However, the making of any changes to the PO model is a reserved matter for Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Ministers. The Committee heard from the mushroom industry that supporting smaller producers is a strength of the fruit and veg aid scheme. That is a key driver in the development of the pilot horticulture proposals. I therefore support those recommendations. Of course, the enabling powers in the Bill are essential to ensure that the scheme rules reflect developing policy and respond to issues raised about the scheme during the current review. I envisage incremental changes being made in parallel with the development of future support and ongoing policy development. Finally, the Committee recommends that a balance be sought between a range of beneficiaries in developing future agri-food promotion schemes. I am content that that matter will be considered as part of wider policy developments under the food strategy framework. The Bill's powers, of course, provide scope to amend legacy legislation, which would otherwise not be possible. I again thank the Chairperson and members of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee and others for their input on the matter and to the debate today. As I said, I understand the motivation behind the concerns raised during the Bill's passage, and I am pleased to be able to provide Members with the necessary reassurance.

1,869 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:06 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