Debate contribution: The draft Farm Sustainability (Transitional Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025
Debate contribution by Miss Michelle McIlveen on .
- MLA
- Miss Michelle McIlveen
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 18 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- The draft Farm Sustainability (Transitional Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4806792
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I rise to speak on the SR that is before us. I am on the record in the Chamber highlighting — I have stood on my soapbox on a near-weekly basis in the Committee highlighting — how poorly we deal with scrutiny of statutory rules in this place. Subordinate — or secondary — legislation is hugely important in the delivery of measures that are permitted under primary legislation. However, the time given between the Department presenting to the Committee and the rules being laid in the Assembly does not permit the Committee the opportunity to call witnesses or stakeholders to inform them of the consequences of what the Committee is being asked to agree to. There is an assumption on the Minister's behalf and that of the Department that the Committee will just nod the SR through, and, no doubt, that will be the case for other Committees — I speak as someone who has worn many hats in this place. I made similar points during the debate on the prayer of annulment of the Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024. Surely on the basis that the Committee successfully overturned the Minister's decision to lay those in the Assembly Chamber, he would take more cognisance of the Committee's concerns. However, again, despite the Committee articulating concerns, there has been no such movement by the Minister on this legislation. From a Committee member's perspective, what we have is the Minister taking the date for the launch of the FSTP — 3 March 2025 — and working backwards, allowing the minimum amount of time for consideration. We were told in correspondence dated 14 February 2025 that, if the regulations were not approved, the opening of the basic payment scheme would be delayed and payments, which would normally be scheduled for September 2025, might not issue until late November. Therefore, ultimately, if, as a House, we want to do the right thing by some in the farming community, the rest — 24,000 farm businesses — will be penalised by those actions, all because the Minister provided an unrealistic timescale for scrutiny. That is if you consider a briefing and a few questions as scrutiny, and I do not. Mr Blair will, of course, contradict others in the Committee on that and insist that we were briefed back in May 2024. At that time, we had a high-level discussion, but we certainly did not have sight of the regulations that we are discussing today. As we all know, the devil is in the detail. On 30 January 2025, as the Chairman explained, we received a briefing on the sustainable agriculture programme and the details of the regulations. The highlights were the reinstatement of the "active farmer" definition into law and that 2025 would be the last year that new entrants and young farmers can obtain entitlements from the regional reserve. The new approach to generational renewal will be through the Farming for the Generations scheme, which will not have the financial incentive associated with the previous scheme. In its briefing paper to the Committee, the Department flagged that, in its equality-screening assessment, the closure of the young farmers' programme and the regional reserve would have an impact related to age, so the SR should be screened out with mitigations. However, given that the average age of a farmer in Northern Ireland is 59 and that 67% of farm businesses have a head of holding who is over the age of 55, it is imperative that a programme with an associated financial incentive be in place. Similarly, that should be the case for those coming into farming with no experience. Whilst the Minister will, of course, cite low numbers and the value-for-money argument, we have to remember that Northern Ireland is relatively small. We have a reliance on the agriculture sector, and, cumulatively, those numbers become important for sustainability. Also, the Department has to take some responsibility for the level of uptake, given the hurdles that it placed on the scheme, leading to those who may have had an interest not engaging. At the Committee, I was bold enough to ask that the Committee hear from young farmers and the UFU as stakeholders who will be impacted on directly by the change. It was not an unreasonable request given the significance of the legislation. There was, however, resistance to that. I am not sure whether there was a fear of hearing from those who would, potentially, be impacted on. Instead, we received an email from Wesley Aston, CEO of the UFU, on behalf of DAERA's agricultural policy stakeholder group. The email stated:
"APSG supports the draft affirmative SR. APSG stakeholders supported that both the young farmers' payment and the regional reserve should continue until 2025. The continuation of these schemes beyond 2025 was not an option".
It is interesting that Mr Aston stated that extending the schemes beyond 2025 was "not an option". In our briefing on 30 January, the Committee was told that not every stakeholder organisation gets what it wants but that we reach a consensus. At the Committee on Monday, the consensus was that we could not reach a consensus. It certainly makes me question the role of the APSG. Is it a co-design group? Does it debate the issues? Does it really consider options, or are final proposals placed before its members and it is merely a tick-box exercise on behalf of the Department? If the latter is the case, that worries me greatly. I say that given the discussions that we had at last week's Committee on the update that we received on the new farm sustainability standards. Whilst I was grateful for the clarification from officials that the policy was still under development, I am concerned that there appears to be no intention for those standards to be consulted on. Is that because the Department is satisfied that its managed discussions with the APSG and a select group of others is sufficient? In fact, in a later briefing, the RSPB voiced its concerns about the Department's view of what co-design was and what its experience had been. Further to that, will the Minister advise whether, if a member of the APSG has an alternative view — not necessarily on this issue but even in the future — they are permitted to articulate that view outside the APSG? If not, that is another major concern, given that the members are representative bodies in their own right. I have digressed slightly, but I will go back to the issue of young farmers. It is my understanding that young farmers form part of a subgroup of the APSG and that they were last consulted in April 2023. At that time, they were advised that the land mobility scheme was to end in August 2023, with an assurance that a new scheme would be operational in December 2023. That did not happen. We are told that Farming for the Generations will address many of the concerns that we have raised. However, without having a legislative basis at this stage, no one should be alarmed that we are sceptical. Too many times, promises are made and expectations are raised, only to remain unfulfilled. As a party, the DUP shares the concerns of other Members who have spoken: issues of access to entitlements for those wishing to start out on their own; and the challenge being placed on the 2,400 businesses that will be deemed ineligible for the new sustainability payment under the "active farmer" definition. The rationale for using 2020 and 2021, the COVID years, as was highlighted by a member of the Committee —.
I thank the Member for his intervention. I fully appreciate that the Executive's decision to formally treat resource DEL as earmarked for 2025-26 may put pressure on the Department to show taxpayers and the Executive that it can deliver change and value for money against the commitment to funding. However, the issue is whether we deliver that change and, if so, how we deliver it. Correspondence received from the Minister's private office, dated 14 February, following concerns raised by the Committee that there had been no change to the draft SR, stated:
"Members will be aware that, in accordance with the Northern Ireland Assembly legislation rules, a Committee cannot amend or adapt a statutory rule after it has been laid. It can only recommend that the Assembly supports or rejects the statutory rule as a whole".
With that being the case — indeed, fact — it is vital that Committee members are given the space, if required, to satisfy themselves of the merits or otherwise of the statutory rule. In the absence of that, I feel that the Department is taking advantage of the rules associated with this type of legislation. As I said at the start of my remarks, by doing the right thing for some in the farming community and by virtue of the timeline determined by the Minister in respect of these regulations, 24,000 other businesses will be impacted on, which is an unfair position to be placed in.
1,517 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Awaiting analysis
This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.