Debate contribution: Farmers' Basic Payment Scheme
Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .
- MLA
- Mr Robbie Butler
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 7 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Farmers' Basic Payment Scheme
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4579742
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thanks for your clarity, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, as to how the motion and the amendments will be taken and how we will vote on that. I welcome the motion from the Sinn Féin Member and the amendments that have been tabled. They are all pitching in the right direction, which is in support and recognition of the hard work that our farmers do. The issue touches not only on the heart of rural communities but what I consider to be the backbone of our economy. We are here to address the uncertainty surrounding the future of agricultural funding, following the end of the CAP single farm payments and the looming conclusion of the basic payment scheme in 2024. Let us first acknowledge the tremendous value that the CAP payments provided. They ensured that our farms, particularly small family farms, remained financially viable. They also promoted environmentally sustainable farming practices, allowing our farmers to adopt greener technologies and to protect our rural landscapes. That support system, which was in place for decades, not only helped our farmers but had ripple effects throughout rural communities and the economy. Now, however, our farming community stands at a critical juncture, with the loss of £300 million annually from the basic payment scheme and the uncertainty of what may follow hanging over the agriculture sector, and the tension is palpable. It is not just about numbers: that uncertainty fuels stress and anxiety, contributing to a mental health crisis amongst farmers and their families. The weight of not knowing how they will make ends meet or how they can plan for the future takes a significant toll on their well-being. In response, we support the call for increased farm support and development funding. Specifically, we need to adjust the annual ring-fenced allocation for agricultural funding from £324·9 million to around £390 million, reflecting the effects of inflation, and that has been picked up on by a number of Members already. Farmers are already operating in increasingly competitive global markets, and it is essential that they have the resources that are needed to remain viable and competitive. Moreover, we must commit to long-term sustainable funding. That is why we must develop a more robust funding strategy that adjusts annually for inflation. We cannot afford to revisit this crisis of uncertainty every few years. Northern Ireland's agri-food sector, which plays a vital role in feeding our communities and supporting rural economies, needs a stable and predictable funding model. As we look at the volatility of global food and energy markets, investing in local food production and sustainable farming practices becomes even more critical. A failure to invest in those areas will jeopardise our food security and increase our reliance on costly imports. Our long-term resilience depends on empowering our farmers with the resources that they need to innovate, thrive and provide locally. In addition, I urge us to increase investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency in the agriculture sector. Agriculture can and should be part of the solution to our energy challenge. Only by supporting farmers in adopting renewable energy sources can we reduce energy costs and contribute to a greener economy. The impact of this issue, however, extends beyond the farms. Thousands of supply-chain companies across Northern Ireland depend on the spending power of our farmers. Those businesses provide essential services from machinery suppliers to food processors. Many of them are located in rural areas where alternative employment opportunities are limited or, indeed, non-existent. Any reduction in future agriculture budgets would have a significant ripple effect, threatening the livelihoods of countless rural businesses and families. The socio-economic impact of underfunding our farmers would be devastating to the broader rural economy. Those farmers and supply chain businesses are the lifeblood of rural Northern Ireland, and their success is linked directly to the prosperity of our rural communities. Any reduction in support would endanger the upstream benefits that those businesses provide: jobs, economic activity and social stability. We must protect the livelihoods of rural communities by increasing agriculture funding, thereby ensuring the continued economic vitality of our rural areas.
Let us not forget, as I mentioned, the mental health toll that uncertainty brings. Farmers already face incredible pressures: weather, fluctuating markets and rising costs. The added uncertainty over future funding compounds the stress, leading to increased anxiety, depression and, sometimes, worse. The Assembly has a duty to mitigate that stress by providing clarity, stability and support for our farming community. We must now focus on securing the future of our farmers, rural businesses and food security. We must secure the funding necessary to ensure that our farmers remain competitive, environmentally sustainable and resilient to the challenges ahead.
780 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: 0.02 (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 (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.66 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.29 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:23 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.