Debate contribution: Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024: Prayer of Annulment

Debate contribution by Mr John Blair on 4 February 2025.

MLA

Mr John Blair

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

4 February 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Committee Business

Heading

Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024: Prayer of Annulment

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4779132

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for his intervention. I can confirm that I am not aware of any such correspondence. If Members permit, I will now make progress. As I said, this is returning to a position that existed in 2022. We must understand the purpose of the regulations. They were established not as punitive measures but as essential guidelines to ensure that farmers adhere to standards that protect our environment and maintain the integrity of our food systems. By establishing clear compliance requirements, we encourage our farmers to adopt practices that enhance soil health, improve water quality and promote biodiversity. It is crucial to recognise that those standards benefit farmers and the environment. We also need to recognise that the measures proposed by the Minister are not new or draconian. The Minister's proposals simply take us back to where we were before the relaxation in 2022 of penalties for repeated breaches. These matters relate directly to the environmental reputation of this place and its products. No attempt to suggest otherwise should be accepted. The parties advocating for the annulment regularly claim, in the Chamber and outside, to protect the environment. For example, they call on the AERA Minister to save Lough Neagh, yet, when it comes to voting on policies that prevent pollution entering Lough Neagh and harming it, they oppose those measures, arguing that they would be too burdensome for farmers. That is absolutely ridiculous and, frankly, shameful. Let us be clear: farmers who conduct good practice — there are many of them — deserve our support, and I hope that they have it, but those who pollute, from all sectors, need to face penalties. Perhaps surprisingly, given the context of today's debate, in May 2024, all parties on Belfast City Council excluding, in fairness, the DUP, backed a motion advocating for stricter penalties for recurring instances of agricultural pollution. There you have it: in a debating chamber just down the road, the SDLP, the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin criticised the reduction in penalties by the previous Minister, but, in this place and on the AERA Committee, it appears that they do not want to do anything about it. It is also a matter of major concern to me that the Committee has sought to minimise and trivialise potential penalties relating to late or non-returned paperwork, as well as tags for livestock and cattle. Those are no trivialities. They are serious matters that relate to food security and traceability. Parties opposing these measures must now justify their change in stance on environmental protection to their constituents and to the global community, which is becoming increasingly concerned about the impacts of climate change and pollution. Parties have publicly pledged to tackle the persistent environmental crisis, which remains unresolved. The decision by the Committee is — I will repeat it — shameful, and Committee members ought to feel embarrassed. It is perfectly clear that, on this occasion, only Alliance is asserting that enough is enough. These penalties should never have been relaxed in 2022. It was a poor decision by the previous Minister, who showed, on that occasion, a lack of concern for the future. As Minister Muir continues to work towards addressing past mistakes, it is clear that only Alliance is committed to tackling the environmental challenges for real and tackling those that will impact on future generations, perhaps very negatively. Allowing non-compliance to go unchecked could lead to increased pollution of our waterways, detrimental effects on public health and irreparable damage to our ecosystems. There is no point in prioritising short-term gains that may harm our environment and jeopardise our long-term agricultural viability. Indeed, we must support a vision for farming that respects and preserves our natural resources for future generations. Therefore, as I have made clear, I am utterly dismayed that we are here discussing a prayer of annulment. You would have to be living under a rock not to recognise the extent and urgency of environmental issues. It is vital that every possible measure be taken to reverse the decline of our waterways, our natural environment and biodiversity. As with the measure that we are debating today, our actions will determine the health of our environment for years to come. I urge all Members to reconsider their positions and reflect on the far-reaching implication of these decisions. We have the opportunity today to support a framework that promotes responsible agricultural practices and paves the way for a sustainable future, and I hope that we take that opportunity.

Will the Member give way?

So had I.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:51 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