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

Debate contribution by Mr Declan McAleer on 4 February 2025.

MLA

Mr Declan McAleer

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

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 4779269

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Before I make my winding-up speech, I wish to make a few comments as Sinn Féin's agriculture spokesperson. Sinn Féin supports the motion to annul SR 2024/211, the Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 2024. As MLAs, it is our duty to ensure that the policies that we put in place are fair, reasonable and effective for those whom they affect. In this case, we feel that the proposed regulations do not address the significant concerns raised by the AERA Committee. First and foremost, the Committee's discussion on 28 November 2024 highlighted issues regarding penalties for minor breaches. The regulations propose penalties for even smaller, unintentional mistakes that could have severe consequences for farmers; indeed, the Committee Chair described a number of those. We feel that that approach is disproportionate and does not reflect the reality of farming operations. We feel that it is unfair to apply to minor breaches the same penalties as are applied for repeated and intentional non-compliance. We must have a system that differentiates clearly between minor and major infractions. Furthermore, despite the concerns that were raised in the Committee, it does not appear that the Department has considered those issues or adjusted the regulations. That is concerning, particularly given the significant impact that the penalties could have on our farming community. Many of us believe that we need a more tiered system of penalties that better aligns with the severity of the breach. We have already established substantial penalties for breaches, and additional punitive measures may serve only to harm farmers without addressing the root causes of non-compliance. I urge colleagues to support the annulment of the regulations and call for a more thoughtful and balanced approach that considers the realities faced by farmers. I will turn to my winding-up remarks in my role as Deputy Chair of the Committee. The Committee Chair, Robbie, mentioned the Committee's discussion on 28 November and highlighted the fact that, when officials briefed us, they linked the matter to water quality and environmental concerns. There was a robust discussion and Q&A at the Committee, and a range of views were expressed. Some felt that the measures were draconian, while others — one member in particular — felt that that was not the case. My writing is not very good. You were all talking too fast.

The majority of Committee members did not support the SR, and the Committee divided by one vote against six. The matter was considered again on 16 January, but we felt that no changes had been made to reflect the Committee's concerns. The Committee divided again by one vote against seven, and the majority of the Committee agreed to seek the annulment of the SR. In his capacity as UUP agriculture spokesperson, Robbie said that he understood the pressures facing farmers and referenced, for example, the inheritance tax changes and the Budget. He said that farmers:

"cannot be green if they are in the red"

and he felt that the Department should have amended the SR and not taken a broad-brush approach. He gave the example of a farmer who was fined 5% due to a tag issue despite the extenuating circumstances of a death in the family. Michelle McIlveen of the DUP highlighted the important role of the Committee in scrutinising secondary legislation. A lot of legislation is going through the Committee, and it is important that the Committee fulfils that vital scrutiny role. There is an onus on the Committee to do that in an open and effective manner. She said that the SR gave the Department the power to reduce a farmer's subsidy by up to 100% and that farms are also regulated by NIEA. Michelle also highlighted the additional pressures on farmers, citing the examples of bovine TB, bluetongue, ammonia, the Budget and, obviously, climate change legislation. John Blair of the Alliance Party said that there was a predictability about the debate. He said that there were regulations for farmers to adhere to standards on soil health, water quality and biodiversity and that the SR would return us to the pre-2022 position. He finds it hypocritical of some parties to say that they support saving Lough Neagh whilst opposing the measures, which could contribute to saving it. He feels that the Committee's decision was shameful and that the penalty should never have been relaxed. He urged Members to reconsider. Patsy McGlone of the SDLP said that the cross-compliance system fails farmers and the environment. He said that it delivers little for the environment whilst getting farmers' backs up. He highlighted the SDLP's preference for a tiered approach and the importance of having an independent EPA. He said that we needed to see plans to clear up waterways and mentioned that the decision was brought in during a period of Assembly collapse. He highlighted the fact that farmers are the custodians of the countryside and that we do not want to send a message from the Chamber that we are down on or against farmers because the overwhelming majority of farmers are environmentalists and good custodians of the countryside. Eóin Tennyson of the Alliance Party said that we have an opportunity today to do the bare minimum but we are failing. He said that we need consistency from parties in the Chamber. He said that the SR focuses on repeated negligent breaches, that the vast majority of farmers are good custodians of the environment and that we all need to step up and take the necessary action. Gerry Carroll said that he agrees with the Minister. He, too, is against the prayer of annulment, which, he says, suggests that most farmers are polluters. He made the point that small farmers are not to blame and that it is big industrial farmers who do most of the damage to the countryside. The Minister said that the cross-compliance regime had been in place since 2005 to set minimum standards on the environment and animal health and welfare that are vital for trade, disease control and human health. The Minister said that breaches result in a penalty. He highlighted the regime of negligence penalties as 1%, 3% and 5%, which double if the breach is repeated. He said that, in 2022, when there was no Assembly in place, the cap was set at 15%. He said that some breaches are of high-level severity and that it is not fair on the public and all the farmers who play by the rules. The Minister said that he watches the Committee. It is good that we have the Minister watching proceedings every week. The Minister said that he began the public consultation process in August and briefed the Committee in November, and that the SR is important to protect the environment and encourage responsible stewardship and for traceability and animal health. He said that we could not have our cake, which is saving Lough Neagh, and eat it, which is going against the SR through the prayer of annulment. That is the best summary that I can give.

1,173 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