Debate contribution: Farm Support and Development Programme
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 14 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Ministerial Statements
- Heading
- Farm Support and Development Programme
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4489755
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Everyone is being creative with their questions. Sometimes, there are three or four in one. The Principal Deputy Speaker is showing amazing patience. I will start with the role of women in agriculture. The legacy report that the Committee produced in the last mandate was increasingly useful. I followed up on it on my recent visit to Brussels to see what they are doing across Europe on the issue. It is something that I want to look at for this but also with regard to a rural development policy. We need to refresh our rural development policy to reflect the realities of today. I see significant issues with the role of women in rural communities that we need to address, particularly, for example, childcare. We need to work at that. On the deadline for the single farm payment, the carry-across and details around that, I am happy to have a meeting afterwards with one of my officials. I will get clarification to the Member on that, hopefully, today or tomorrow. The first element of the question was about pitting agriculture and the environment against each other: it is a false narrative. We cannot have economically sustainable farming that is not environmentally sustainable, and I am clear about that. I do not intend to feed into that narrative, because it is absolutely false and is based on the wrong premise. I have a clear vision for the future of the farming community in Northern Ireland. It is a positive vision. I know that there are challenges, but, if we work together, we can overcome those challenges and deliver a secure future for people. I am conscious that we are talking about people's livelihoods. It is a generational thing: families are invested in their farming enterprise. I want to support those businesses so that, in the time ahead, we can provide them with security and can all have something that we can be proud of in Northern Ireland.
I thank the Member for his question. I am conscious of the issues that he has raised about small farm businesses and how we support them. I will write to the Member with the details of the evaluation that was done. We have to be clear about this: we have to have a scheme that is fit for purpose and meets the business case requirements of Treasury and the Department of Finance. That is what I have to do. I also want to see whether there is a way — I have engaged with the Finance Minister on this and will continue to do so — of looking at funding through a different lens. Currently, we look at it just through the lens of pounds, shillings and pence, but we need to look at the benefits that it gives. I am also doing that. I will write to the Member on the details of the issue that he raised. It is valuable that he raised it.
I thank the Member for her question. I want to get lots more young people involved in farming. It is a challenge — it is the challenge, if you will pardon the pun, of our generation — to get younger people involved. It is important that the message that we and I, as the Minister, send from here is a positive one on the future for agriculture and farming in Northern Ireland. If we are to get young people involved, a negative message will not attract them, so we need to set up a positive vision for the future. I am determined to do that day after day. The young farmers' payment scheme provides an annual top-up of the basic payment scheme for farmers who meet the eligibility requirements. The scheme is open for applications, and the last year to apply for it is 2025. The new farm support and development programme has a farming for the generations programme to encourage longer-term planning for farm businesses. A farming for the generations pilot scheme, which is planned to commence in autumn 2024, will support farm businesses in planning for a timely and orderly transition to a new generation. The future of the current farmers' payment will be considered in the context of the farming for the generations programme. Let us be clear: the future for farming is positive. Let us, all together, encourage more younger people to participate.
I thank the Member for her question. Yes, the food strategy framework is very much in final draft form, and I hope to bring it to the Executive soon. It will align closely with the programme. There are other issues in it that we need to address, such as food poverty. It is a shame that people in our country experience food poverty, and the food strategy framework will relate to that. I am very much looking forward to launching it. It is a cross-cutting strategy, which is why it needs to go to the Executive. In the time ahead, hopefully, we can show, through the interventions that the Executive and I make, that we are making a positive difference to people's lives in Northern Ireland.
I will set out a bit of background on the issue around ammonia. The Office for Environmental Protection, which was discussed yesterday during the debate on environmental governance, took, in the absence of Ministers, what was essentially a judicial review against my Department with regard to ammonia. The permanent secretary at the time responded to that within the powers available to her, and I fully support her response and actions around that. In Northern Ireland, we need to safeguard our environment, and we need to ensure that, going forward, our environment is sustainable. That is why we are in the situation that we are now in. To deal with ammonia, I want to chart a course forward that protects our environment but allows our farm businesses to operate sustainably. The draft ammonia strategy, which proposes measures to reduce ammonia emissions, underwent public consultation from 4 January to 3 March 2023 and attracted a high level of interest across all stakeholder groups. Responses to the consultation are being used to inform a reworked draft ammonia strategy. Additional scientific modelling, statistical analysis and supply chain consideration is being undertaken to optimise design of the key proposed mandatory measures on the use of low-emission slurry-spreading equipment. A high-level report and a draft summary report on the responses to the consultation on the draft ammonia strategy have been published. A reworked strategy will be developed by autumn this year. I am keen to see that we get movement on this, but we need to make sure that whatever we do is science-led and evidence-led, and that is what I am guided by in my role as Minister. I get the concerns about the issue, Mr Buckley —
I am giving you an answer — but I cannot subvert process or ignore the science and evidence around the issues.
I thank the Member for his question. I will give you a practical example of that. When I was doing farm visits on Friday in the upper Bann catchment area with the Rivers Trust and the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), I saw clearly what the benefits are. The farmer had participated in the scheme. He had the information presented on maps that he had available on a computer and had printed off. He was able to identify the areas where there were issues with water gathering and how we manage that but also where to grow crops and how to manage the farm more effectively. That was allowing the business to be more productive while managing water quality in our riverways, and that catchment area leads into Lough Neagh. There is a practical benefit where data, knowledge and evidence are power to allow us to make the change. My colleagues across the rest of the UK and Ireland have been speaking to me about the scheme and saying that they see it as a model that can be rolled out in areas in their jurisdiction. That is one of many examples of stuff that has been going on. Hopefully, we can pull together and profile much more across Northern Ireland.
You are OK. I am trying to address that issue, but it is important that I am guided by the science and evidence. It is important that the industry is successful, but it is also important that it is sustainable. Producers and consumers look to the product to make sure that it is made in a manner that safeguards our environment, and I am very aware of that. We cannot, on one hand, debate motions time after time in this place about the environment and Lough Neagh but, on the other hand, say, "Cast aside the evidence and science and just rock on". We cannot do that. We have to be guided by the evidence and science and find a sustainable way forward. I am committed to engaging with relevant stakeholders on the issue, but I am also prepared to make sure that I do things correctly, and that is what I have committed to do as Minister. I am not short-circuiting processes or the evidence and science that is presented to me, because, if I do that, the first thing that will happen is that I will end up in court.
1,562 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: 0.04 (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 (0.85).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.87 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.09 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:22 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.