Debate contribution: Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024: Prayer of Annulment
Debate contribution by Mr Patsy McGlone on .
- MLA
- Mr Patsy McGlone
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour 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 4779144
Read the official Assembly record
Text
So had you. Well, that is grand. You can start away. Cross-compliance has ultimately proven ineffective in addressing pollution problems. Three cases of breaches have been brought forward. Each year, as little as 1% of farms are inspected, with the majority of breaches associated with improper record-keeping. Even before the previous Minister changed the penalty regime, it was clear that cross-compliance was failing to address some of the biggest challenges resulting from agriculture production. To hang your hat entirely on that as something that will address pollution problems is entirely wrong. That is not me saying that. In the 20 years since the inception of cross-compliance, there has been little evidence that it has actually worked, and the Minister will know that. Why? Those are the findings of the European Court of Auditors, the European Environment Agency and the Institute for European Environmental Policy. They looked at this to see whether it actually works. We need a system of farm regulation that helps to uphold environmental health and animal welfare standards while bringing farmers on a journey to improve compliance, but cross-compliance, as I have outlined and as the experts have said, is not working. Rather than debate the minutiae of a failed penalty regime that has delivered little for the environment while putting farmers' backs up, we need to move to a new system and bring forward proposals. In fact, I sat through this at the Committee, and those of us who are acquainted with the issues — the Minister had the opportunity to look at this on a couple of occasions — suggested a tiered approach whereby those involved in flagrant breaches of environmental, food or animal welfare standards would be penalised. There was absolutely no doubt about that. It was suggested that, in the interim, if it insists on continuing with cross-compliance, the Department at least look at taking a tiered approach to penalties. Issues were, however, raised about people being opposed to the measures and taking an anti-environment approach. We have said it here and debated the matter ad nauseam: when will we have an independent environmental protection agency, as agreed in 'New Decade, New Approach'?
I will let you in in a moment, John. The Minister claims to be making polluters pay — water quality and Lough Neagh have been referred to already — but we are yet to see key plans for cleaning up our waterways. The river basin management plan and the nutrient action plan are years late. I am not laying the blame for all of that at the Minister's door. People crashed the Assembly on a number of occasions, so the responsibility lies with them. Those plans are years late, however. As it stands, the Minister's agriculture portfolio will include introducing a new set of farm sustainability standards, but we have yet to see what they will look like. We need more detail. To what extent will the standards be enforced? How will they help the Department improve compliance? I say advisedly, Minister, that we could learn lessons from what has been implemented in Scotland, where a well-resourced, advice-led approach has improved rates of compliance with farming rules and regulations. There has been broadscale support and buy-in from the farming community, while, here, we are fiddling with a system that has never worked.
I hear what the Minister says, and I hope that he was listening earlier. With the best will in the world, I was giving him advice on these matters. I thank him for his intervention. John, you wanted to intervene.
592 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: 0.04 (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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.95 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.05 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.97 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.