Debate contribution: Farmers' Basic Payment Scheme
Debate contribution by Mr Tom Buchanan on .
- MLA
- Mr Tom Buchanan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 7 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Farmers' Basic Payment Scheme
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4579789
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The amendment has been well articulated by my colleague Michelle McIlveen. I thank all who took part in the debate: those who brought the motion, and the SDLP for bringing the other amendment. It is something that has obviously united everyone in the Chamber. This is an issue that lies at the heart of everyone in the House, and therefore we need to support it as best we possibly can. I come from the rural constituency of West Tyrone, which consists largely of agriculture enterprise. Many of the farm businesses are small, family-run farms. No one can overestimate the economic benefit that those small farm holdings have brought to rural communities. Of course, there is a little concern about farms perhaps being left as unsustainable by the new A5 road that will be coming through. With some of the Ministers, we will have to look at proper funding packages for those farmers in order to allow them to redevelop and rebuild their farm holdings when they lose their land for that road to be built. Single farm payments have been critical in supporting our agriculture industry, especially our smaller farms, to be financially viable and environmentally sustainable. That is why, in the previous Westminster term, our party secured a guarantee from the Government that the level of annual support provided for direct farm payments would be maintained at pre-2020 levels for the duration of that Parliament. However, it is clear that simply maintaining the level of direct support available at 2020 levels, ignoring the impact of inflation, is no longer sustainable. Others around the Chamber have mentioned that today. We must ensure that future allocations are future-proofed so that our farm businesses are protected and treated equitably. The Labour Government must continue to value primary production and make food security a national asset by providing an increased multi-year, ring-fenced farm support and development programme budget. Given increased costs of production, many smaller farm holdings are struggling financially, with some paying off debt that has been accumulated over the past few years due to profit loss in their business. Safeguarding direct farm support should be the central tenet of the Government's policy on promoting food production and food security. However, it should not be the only priority; creating the proper conditions for on-farm investment in more sustainable and productive technologies and buildings must also be a priority. I will mention some of the comments that have been made in the debate. The proposer of the motion spoke about the single farm payment and the multiplier effect and increased spending power that that has in rural communities. He said that it is central to sustaining growth and that there is a need for a robust and long-term commitment to agriculture. That is exactly what we need: a robust and long-term commitment to our agriculture sector. The proposer of amendment No 1 tabled that amendment because of concern about pillar 2 not being mentioned in the motion and because of the importance of rural development funding to rural communities. My colleague Michelle McIlveen spoke of the various policies that are now in the mix. Of course, policies relating to the agriculture and farming industry are increasing. All the new policies that are coming in, and where it will end, can sometimes be a bit of a concern. She said that the Minister could do more on ammonia, planning and TB. The Minister mentioned the action that he plans to take on those issues. Robbie Butler spoke about farming being at the heart of the rural community. He said that it stands at a critical junction, with anxiety and mental health issues among farmers increasing, and that long-term, sustainable funding is required.
With that, I will have to leave it as my time has gone.
637 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.94 | 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 | 0.82 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.14 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.