Debate contribution: Areas with Natural Constraints (Payments) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Miss Michelle McIlveen on 23 March 2026.

MLA

Miss Michelle McIlveen

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

23 March 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Areas with Natural Constraints (Payments) Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5465326

Read the official Assembly record

Text

We are at a stage of the mandate similar to the situation in 2021, when Members brought forward poorly drafted pieces of legislation that were often vanity projects and raised expectations of change in the public sphere. In their eagerness to please, Members and parties in the House, who, frankly, should know better, rush through the Lobbies to approve legislation that has unintended consequences and, importantly, no business case, which means no budget. Do Members need to be reminded of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 or, indeed, the Hospital Parking Charges Act (Northern Ireland) 2002? Of course not. Tomorrow, the Minister of Health will move the Consideration Stage of the Hospital Parking Charges Bill to defer its introduction again. Why? It is because the Department of Health cannot afford to fund it. In Westminster, if a private Member's Bill proposes spending public money on something not previously approved by Parliament, a money resolution must be agreed to. Perhaps a version of that needs to be considered by the Assembly moving forward; in fact, it is essential that such a mechanism be introduced. I speak on behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party to oppose the Second Stage of the Areas with Natural Constraints (Payments) Bill. That is not because we do not want to support growth in agriculture or provide financial aid to farmers; rather, it is because we feel that the Bill does not deliver either and could adversely impact on both. It has been 10 years since we had a substantive debate on an ANC scheme. That came after the actions of the now First Minister. As we know, when she was Agriculture Minister, she continued with the ANC scheme, contrary to the advice of her officials. It did not meet the requirements of 'Managing Public Money', and a ministerial direction was given to proceed. When she acted to extend those payments, she did not do so permanently, because the business case did not support that, so should we really be surprised that Sinn Féin has introduced a Bill that would not deliver value for money? In fact, if enacted, any new scheme would not restrict support to the businesses that last received the grant when the old ANC scheme closed in 2018; it would be much more expensive. At the end of 2016, when I was AERA Minister, I announced a one-year transitional scheme: the 2018 ANC scheme that is referenced in the Bill. At that time, there were budgetary pressures, and it was a challenge to fund the scheme. Fast-forward 10 years, and we can only dream of having those types of budgetary pressures. We were also working in an entirely different context for farm support. It is clear that much of the public support for the Bill that has been voiced to date is predicated on an expectation of additional funding that is not grounded in fact. While the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) appears to support the reinstatement of the payment, it has stated a clear caveat:

"provided that it is funded through additional resources that are separate from existing direct agriculture support funding."

Indeed, when the sponsor of the Bill came to the AERA Committee last Monday, he said that the ANC scheme should not come out of the earmarked Department of Agriculture budget: if it is not to come from there, where will it come from? Let me be clear: there is no reference to ANCs in the Sinn Féin draft Budget. Those playing fast and loose with the truth on the issue are promising a false dawn for the farms affected and wrongly downplaying the concerns of those in lowland areas, who rightly fear for the future of their direct support payments. Not only would a mandatory ANC scheme have to be funded from within the existing Agriculture budget, reducing financial support for other farm businesses under the farm sustainability payment, but that disparity in treatment would deepen, as there is a proposal in the PMB to link ANCs payments to inflation. That link is not afforded to any other element of the sustainable agriculture programme. In essence, what is proposed is a hierarchy in agriculture, and where is the fairness in that? Is it Sinn Féin policy to move money from suckler cow and sheep farmers in lowland areas to large landowners in severely disadvantaged areas? It is also important to address the misconception that farms in seriously disadvantaged areas are deprived of financial support or have found themselves in a worse situation than was previously the case. Since the ending of ANC payments, I understand, there has been no significant change to agriculture in LFAs relative to lowland areas in Northern Ireland either in livestock numbers or, indeed, in farmed areas. The move to a flat-rate, land-based payment has, in fact, seen more funding under the basic payment scheme moved from lowland areas and DAs to SDA land types, more than compensating for the loss of the old ANC scheme.

I thank the Member for his intervention, but we know that businesses can also access support through the beef sustainability package and the Farming with Nature package. Between 2018 and 2020, only 705 of the 4,256 farm businesses in receipt of support through the environmental farming scheme (EFS) were exclusively in lowland areas, so how does that fit with the narrative that those in SDAs struggle to access funding streams? Rather than seeing further regressive area-based payments that are not linked to productivity, we want to see programmes focused on efficiency and resilience in order to support profitable and sustainable agricultural activity across Northern Ireland. We support the need for a designated sheep scheme, for example, which would have a significantly positive impact on SDAs, where over half our sheep are located. Those farmers already contribute significantly to the environment and to rural communities, providing employment on farms and across the supply chain. The sector is also a multiplier for the Northern Ireland economy more generally. We want to see tailored support, building on previous work by the Northern Ireland sheep task force, to safeguard those family farms for the next generation, but that also means providing them with help to invest in infrastructure, equipment and technology, which will increase productivity and lead to improved animal health and welfare.

Next Tuesday night marks the closure of the first year of the suckler cow payment scheme. For the first time in 20 years, farmers throughout Northern Ireland will receive £100 per eligible cow as a direct payment. Surely, if Sinn Féin really wanted to maintain cow numbers, it would lobby for that payment to be increased. However, over the past few weeks, Sinn Féin has politicised the issue in carefully selected constituencies through posters and leaflets, so let us have a quick look at how Sinn Féin really supports farmers. Sinn Féin continues to refuse to engage in a conversation to amend climate change targets that directly impact on our farming community, placing on it unrealistic net zero targets. What about the farmers in West Tyrone, where farms are directly impacted by the A5? In the current mandate, those farmers have been treated shamefully by Sinn Féin. Their land was illegally vested, literally ploughed through and completely destroyed. Farmers throughout West Tyrone still have no certainty about the future of their land whilst the Department for Infrastructure, run by Sinn Féin, continues to progress shambolically with that project. It is absolutely disgraceful. Reintroducing ANC support without additional funding would redistribute already limited support in the sector, create inequality between farm types and undermine confidence in the sustainable agriculture programme. It risks setting farm businesses against one another, in effect robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I am coming to a conclusion. Taking the Bill through to Committee Stage would not change that fundamental flaw, as the Committee has no role in allocating budget and certainly has no business raising unrealistic expectations. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to work at pace to introduce a targeted package of support that is fair, effective and sustainable.

1,343 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:06 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