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 5043503

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Committee Chair and members for their contributions in the debate. I want to say to John that he has been in our thoughts and prayers, following the passing of his dad. John, you spoke very courageously at the funeral, and I am so proud of you. We are thinking of you and your family, especially your mum and sister. Before I close the debate, I will respond to a few of the issues that were raised by Members. It is important and only right and proper that I do so. The first is about future support for the mushroom industry. Much of what was said today was about concerns about making support discretionary and about long-term support for the mushroom industry. I, again, acknowledge the concerns raised around that, because the mushroom industry is an important part of our agri-food sector in Northern Ireland. The AERA Committee heard how the mushroom industry, a key beneficiary of the FVAS over many years, is at a disadvantage because the rules have not stood still elsewhere. The Bill is essential to ensure that there is scope to make changes to and improve the scheme. Similarly, the Bill will give powers to amend legacy EU rules on agri-food promotions, should it be necessary to use them.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 I reiterate that today. 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.

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.

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 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. 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. I again thank Members for their contributions and for their support for the Bill. 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.

1,301 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