Debate contribution: Agriculture Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Miss Michelle McIlveen on .
- MLA
- Miss Michelle McIlveen
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 3 December 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Agriculture Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4690901
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Like other Members, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Agriculture Bill. Setting aside my concerns about the imprecision of the Bill's title, which, hopefully, will be revisited as it is misleading, the DUP supports the intention behind the Bill, which aims to ensure that a locally accountable Minister can bring forward proposals for and changes to the funding of the fruit and vegetables and mushroom sectors in Northern Ireland. As the UK moves forward post Brexit, it is vital that the support mechanisms for those sectors are carefully restructured to ensure continued growth and competitiveness. However, while we acknowledge the need for flexibility, we emphasise that that must not come at the cost of financial stability or long-term sectoral growth. The transition to a discretionary model, as proposed in the Bill, offers an opportunity for innovation and tailored support to address the specific needs of the fruit and vegetables sector. It is essential, however, that the new model is not seen purely as a means to cut costs or reduce funding for critical sectors. The support provided must be viewed as a means to enhance long-term support for affected sectors, allowing them to invest in the industry and foster growth, competitiveness and sustainability. The farm business improvement scheme has played a crucial role in reducing barriers to market entry, helping farmers and producers to meet required standards and access vital environmental and climate change support. As we consider future models of support, we must ensure that the core principles of the current system — supporting sustainable farming practices and climate change mitigation — are preserved. As other Members have said, the mushroom industry, which accounts for 40% of Northern Ireland's horticultural output and contributes approximately £64 million annually to the local economy, is a key pillar of the sector, with 700 people employed directly in mushroom production and over 300 in the supply chain. The sector's continued success is vital for economic growth and food security in Northern Ireland. As we have discussed in Committee and in the Chamber, access to labour is vital for that sector, with 95% of those employed in it coming from outside the United Kingdom. Mushroom growers have expressed concerns about an uneven playing field between Northern Ireland and other jurisdictions, particularly regarding issues such as access to seasonal workers and financial support for innovations such as automation and energy efficiency. Those concerns highlight the need for a funding model that not only provides fairness but ensures that the industry can compete on an equal footing. Simply maintaining statutory obligations that are not finely tuned to local sectoral needs will not effectively address those challenges. A more adaptable and responsive model is needed, one that understands the specific dynamics of the mushroom industry and supports its unique challenges. Whilst the proposed Bill provides greater flexibility, it is crucial that the Department outlines a clear pathway for the sector's development. As the Chair highlighted, the move from a 4·1% flat funding model to discretionary support raises significant concerns about the potential shift towards a competitive grant system, which could create uncertainty and insecurity for growers. Growers require clarity on future funding arrangements to enable them to plan effectively and make the necessary investments in their businesses. As the current producer organisation scheme is set to end in 2025, there is a pressing need for a statement of intent from the Minister on how future support will be structured. The future of Northern Ireland's fruit and vegetables sector, including mushroom production, depends on a fair, flexible and secure funding model. The Minister needs to take the opportunity presented by the Bill to demonstrate a clear vision for the sector's growth, provide certainty for growers and enable them to plan for the future. Mushroom growers, along with other horticultural producers, deserve a sustainable framework that will support their vital contribution to food security, environmental sustainability and economic growth. The Minister needs to provide clarity on proposals for the development of the sector alongside the progression of the Bill, which will, hopefully, help to dispel fears within the sector. Will the Minister consult further with stakeholders in the near future on further proposals for the sector? In his response, perhaps the Minister could provide details of the next steps, including a timeline. On the principles of the Bill, as outlined today, we are content to support the Bill at Second Stage. We look forward to scrutinising it and to hearing from stakeholders at Committee Stage.
748 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 (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
- 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 | 0.03 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.38 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.34 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.28 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:42 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.