Debate contribution: On-farm Investment

Debate contribution by Mr Patsy McGlone on 17 June 2024.

MLA

Mr Patsy McGlone

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

17 June 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

On-farm Investment

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4496302

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the motion, and I agree that investment in new and replacement farm buildings is essential in improving agriculture's environmental footprint. However, any valid concerns that the proposers of the motion may have about farm investment and farm income can be lost in their complaint about environmental regulations. Let us be very clear: investment in farms cannot be done regardless of the wider environmental cost. We have seen the effects of policy being adopted where increased productivity is prioritised over concerns about the environment. The steady and sharp rise recorded in the levels of nitrates in Lough Neagh since 2017 has been directly attributed to the adoption of the Executive's Going for Growth strategy. The strategy was developed under the stewardship of a Sinn Féin Agriculture Minister and continued by a DUP Minister. That strategy was adopted despite the fact that Northern Ireland was already exceeding safe ammonia thresholds, and the link between ammonia emissions and water quality is absolutely clear. The British Government have established an international commitment to reduce ammonia emissions by 8% in 2020 and 16% in 2030 compared with 2005 levels. However, here, instead of a reduction, unfortunately, we saw an increase in ammonia emissions of over 11% from 2005 to 2021. Those of us who were at the Committee saw the implications and ramifications of that. We heard that from NIEA. The PAC heard recently that, where a proposal comes from a developer — a farmer — that establishes betterment in environmental quality, that can be taken into consideration. I make it very clear that I accept that fully. We should all aim for that. Almost all the legally protected sites in the North are experiencing levels of ammonia, air pollution and nitrogen deposits that are known to be harmful to the habitats. The Minister and the Executive have a legal and moral obligation to protect those sites. We have known about the problem with ammonia emissions here for some time, and we have known that the approach being taken to address the problem is flawed. The then Minister for Infrastructure, Nichola Mallon, said:

"This has inevitably introduced both confusion and delay into the planning system and created difficulty for planning authorities seeking to make well-informed, lawful planning determinations."

When a new, delayed ammonia strategy eventually went out for public consultation, the DUP had already collapsed the Executive. That is why DAERA officials were left to make the decision that the proposers of the motion are complaining about. The Department introduced an interim approach to dealing with planning applications in a legally compliant way, using site-specific advice. We have to get to the point where that site-specific advice is proven to give a betterment. Those are the situations that we need to see emerging now. Any new ammonia strategy will also need to be legally compliant, otherwise it raises major issues for the Department. I would welcome clarification from the Minister on that. It raises issues for not only the Department but any approvals granted that the Office for Environmental Protection subsequently finds to be illegal. I certainly do not want to be, in a few years, having to represent constituents who are found to have had buildings erected that are non-compliant. That is certainly not where I want to be. It was outlined to us that DAERA's decision had to be made because of the threat of legal action that was hanging over the Department by the independent Office for Environmental Protection. I do not know how much it would have cost had the Department not taken action. Again, those of us who are concerned about public funds, including those of us who sat through the renewable heat incentive (RHI) inquiry, certainly do not want to see money being spent recklessly or fines being incurred that will then be passed on to other people who got planning permissions based on a decision that the Office for Environmental Protection subsequently found to be wrong. I agree that investment in and replacement of farm buildings are essential in improving agriculture's environmental footprint and that, where or if a mechanism can be established to show how betterment has been achieved — either collectively, through a number of applications, or individually — that process definitely has to be looked at again. The motion, in effect, seeks —

— to instruct the Minister to ignore environmental regulations in order to fast-track that investment, which is not the proper way forward. I would welcome clarification from those who tabled the motion —

— of what they seek to achieve by that.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:42 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