Debate contribution: Financial Support for Rural Communities in Mid Ulster
Debate contribution by Mr Keith Buchanan on .
- MLA
- Mr Keith Buchanan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 12 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Financial Support for Rural Communities in Mid Ulster
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4658845
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given that I represent a largely rural constituency, I make no apologies for highlighting the need to ensure that there is adequate financial support for rural communities in Mid Ulster. Many simply do not understand the needs of rural communities. They see country living as idyllic and think that it is for those with financial security. It is important to highlight the challenges facing many of our rural communities. It is imperative that the Government recognise that financial support is needed. It is important to help improve our rural communities to ensure that they are thriving, sustainable and inclusive places to live. A study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that people in rural areas typically need to spend 10% to 20% more on everyday requirements than those in urban areas. The more remote the area, the greater those additional costs. The biggest difference is the greater access to public transport in urban areas, whereas rural households depend more on cars. Domestic fuel costs are also higher in some rural areas because of older, less fuel-efficient housing and the lack of mains gas. The consequence of those higher costs is that families in rural areas need earnings well in excess of the minimum wage to afford the necessities of life, yet low pay is more common in rural areas than urban areas, creating a double disadvantage. There is an increased focus across government on improving regional balance, which is welcome. However, it could be argued that Departments should be delivering regionally anyway and that should not be seen as a replacement for rural development. Our rural communities have an intrinsic relationship with farming and farmers, who are seen as the custodians of the countryside. Farming is critical to the agri-food industry in our country. There are many agri-food industries in Mid Ulster from the large factories such as Dunman creamery and Karro — the "bacon factory", as it is known locally — that provide hundreds of jobs for local people to smaller food production companies such as the Big Pot Company and Cloughbane Farm Foods. Our farmers and producers are vital to the Northern Ireland economy. Indeed, I worked in that sector for over 22 years in an engineering department. You cannot mention Mid Ulster without mentioning engineering. Farmers also play an important role in protecting our environment and promoting biodiversity, but the farming community across Mid Ulster, Northern Ireland and, indeed, the UK feels that it has been badly let down. The autumn Budget delivered by Chancellor Rachel Reeves has undermined farm families and their business. The president of the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU), William Irvine said:
"This budget is a blow to our agriculture sector. The Chancellor has failed to grasp the essential role our farming community plays in the UK’s food security, rural economy, and environmental stewardship."
The weakening of agricultural relief will heap further pressure on the future of family farms. That will accelerate the breaking up of farms and drive more young people away from farming at a time when more of them are needed. That will affect our food security going forward. The DUP asks the Government to review that decision. Maybe the Minister will confirm what he can do or is doing to put pressure on the Labour Government to address the issue. Our farmers and the rural economy need our help and financial support. There is limited specific rural funding for communities in Mid Ulster. When Edwin Poots was the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, he took forward a rural policy framework in consultation with rural stakeholders that outlined a proposed new seven-year programme, but, to date, that has failed to materialise. Rural development is a proactive approach to working with rural communities to improve the social, economic and environmental development of rural areas. That is best served by engaging communities in a bottom-up approach, which the LEADER programme did.
The only specific funding that comes from DAERA into rural communities across Northern Ireland at present is under the tackling rural poverty and social isolation programme (TRPSI); the DAERA rural micro grant scheme, which, thankfully, was released yesterday and is up to £2,000; and the DAERA rural business development grant scheme, which is up to £4,999. Those are all welcome, but they are not a replacement for LEADER. I thank the Minister for releasing the funding streams again and acknowledge the benefit that they bring. The EU PEACE PLUS rural scheme has opened for applications and is currently under assessment. It is a regional programme with no specific ring-fencing of funds in Mid Ulster and is very much targeted at larger-scale organisations and statutory bodies. The rural community hall scheme that the previous Minister launched and completed supported 113 halls and communities. That created a major impact in rural communities. I urge the Minister to open the scheme again and follow on from the great work that was started. A few weeks ago, I highlighted the need for additional funding for local community groups and support services. Such groups are vital in rural areas. One group that needs support and sustained funding is our rural community transport providers, who do vital work transporting people in rural communities to hospital appointments when general public transport does not meet that need. I highlighted the figures that I received from the Northern Health and Social Care Trust, which showed that it had spent £2·3 million on private taxis and private ambulances in 2023-24. I urge the Minister of Health and the Minister for Infrastructure again to push forward with their officials to engage with community transport providers and others to investigate and identify the most practical way in which they can support delivery of their services, especially to the rural community. Rural community transport could be more beneficial to the public purse if those issues were looked at. Many in the Chamber live and work in rural constituencies. We want action to address the challenges and financial difficulties that our constituents face. I want to see delivery for our rural communities. It is essential that we continue to breathe new life into rural communities across Northern Ireland.
1,029 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: 0.03 (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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.88 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.11 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:33 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.