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 4489793
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question. Thus far, I have not talked about that, and it is an important opportunity to outline my views. It particularly relates to our future rural development policy and how we support rural communities. It is also mainstreamed to ensure that staff and advisers who engage in the time ahead are properly trained for their engagement with the farming community. In my time as Minister, I have seen a really committed community. I have seen many examples of good practice, but I also see examples of loneliness. I see examples of tough things happening on farms, and farmers often deal with those on their own or with just their husband or wife, which can be difficult. There are personal stories that I will not outline here today, but their challenges will remain with me for the rest of my life. I do this job because I want to change the situation. I want to give people the assurance that we have their backs, we want to support them, and we want to have a sustainable way forward. Mental health is a key motivator for doing that. That is why I am conscious of the words that I say and the interventions that I make. We need to be conscious that we support people and are aware of the challenges that they face. It will be a key issue for me over the time ahead, particularly the training for staff but also seeing how we can talk about the current issues in our rural community. Mental health is one massive issue. Perhaps we have not talked about it as much as we should, particularly among men. We need to break that taboo and have rational conversations around it. It would be good to work in partnership with organisations such as the Ulster Farmers' Union to see how we can chart our course forward.
Resilience is at the absolute core of what I have announced here today. We need to be clear that we have a strong, sustainable future ahead. That is not just in respect of government funding and policy. If you have a farm, you have a farm business, so you will potentially look to banks to borrow money, and the first thing that banks will see is whether you have resilience and long-term viability. That is something that I want to do. We need to have a scheme that allows farmers to withstand the shocks that come along. We also need to find ways that we can diversify and change. I have seen many good practices across Northern Ireland where farms that were once doing a different type of practice have changed in order to be resilient. That has allowed them to have security for the way ahead. Resilience totally underpins everything that I do. There are many examples of good practice around that, but we need to mainstream that good practice and find a way that we can communicate better to make farmers more aware of the practices that are required to give that resilience and long-term sustainability.
I thank the Member for his question. I answer questions because they are within my operational responsibility, but there are other areas that are not, and you would not expect me to answer those. I am aware of the issue that you outlined and have received press cuttings about it. Primarily, it is a Northern Ireland Water matter. If the Member writes to me, I will see what role the Environment Agency has in it.
As regards the situation at Lough Neagh, which we debated yesterday, we are aware that a significant proportion, though not all, of the issues — approximately 60% — are due to agricultural run-off. We need to find a way forward to ensure that there is better water quality. Let us be clear: the issues of water quality are not confined to Lough Neagh. What I have outlined today is a way forward through education, engagement and conditionality with regard to support and cross-compliance penalties to ensure that we encourage farm businesses to move towards more sustainable practices that ensure that our waterways are more sustainable. That is absolutely key. I know that many farmers already do that, but we need to bring others on the journey.
I am avoiding a silo approach. As I have outlined to the Member previously, the food strategy framework is a key aspect of that. It is an overarching, cross-cutting strategy. It is in its final form, and I will bring it to the Executive for approval in the short time ahead. It is key that we do that and understand the benefits around it. I am engaged with ministerial colleagues on those issues because the agriculture, farming, food and fisheries industries that I am talking about and that we have discussed in the Chamber are a key part of the economy. We also need to understand the benefit of that and work together on the issues. I know the challenges that are there, particularly with regard to migration. We also know the issues that have been raised with me time and time again around that. That is why I want to work in partnership, not just with my Executive colleagues but with the UK Government on the actions that they need to take.
I outlined my desire to address those concerns. What I see daily are farm businesses that are already engaging with an awful lot of the stuff that I have outlined. They are engaging in those schemes and do not see an issue, because they understand the importance of productivity and of long-term sustainability for their businesses. What I am talking about is occurring across the rest of the UK and the rest of Europe. It is not surprisingly new; it is stuff that is already going on. I am committed to keeping an eye on the situation and making sure that we have simple and accessible schemes. That is important.
Planning in Northern Ireland is a key issue. It sits primarily with the Minister for Infrastructure. Last week, we talked about planning with regard to climate action and the need to ensure that we can progress planning applications for renewables. I am keen to explore that with the Minister because, ultimately, the responsibility for that lies with him. We also need to ensure that planning is sustainable. That is one of the issues that we need to address with regard to Lough Neagh, because we need to ensure that planning policy protects water quality in Northern Ireland.
1,097 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 (0.86).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.61 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.12 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.12 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.08 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.07 |
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.