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

Debate contribution by Mr Daniel McCrossan on 23 March 2026.

MLA

Mr Daniel McCrossan

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour 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 5465711

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Speaker. When we talk about areas with natural constraints (ANCs), we are talking about some of the most challenging land anywhere in this island: hills, uplands and marginal land, where farming is not just a job but an everyday way of life for so many people, particularly my constituents in West Tyrone. Those landscapes are not simply natural; they have been shaped, maintained and protected by generations of farmers. Those farmers go out in all weathers. They work early mornings and late nights in the wind, rain and cold — standard Irish weather — and keep going when others simply could not. Yet, too often, those farmers feel forgotten. Farming in those areas comes with real structural disadvantages, such as difficult terrain, poorer soils, harsher weather, higher costs and less access to markets. All of that adds up to one thing: lower incomes. That is a difficult reality for so many. There is an inequality here that needs to be addressed. The ANC payments were an important support mechanism for so many who relied on those payments but have not had the benefit of them in recent years. The removal of the previous ANC payments left a real gap in income, stability and confidence for so many of the farmers who were affected, so the principle behind the Bill, which seeks to restore that baseline support, is one that we support in principle. However, let me say this clearly: the Bill cannot be about just replacing the previous scheme that we lost in 2018. Through the Bill, we have an opportunity to do better. Previous schemes were often blunt. They were not always linked to outcomes, and they did not always encourage long-term sustainability or innovation. As the Bill progresses, we must strengthen it and ensure that future support improves farm incomes, builds resilience, rewards environmental delivery and supports innovation and diversification, because, if we are serious about the future of rural Ireland, we must be serious about getting that right. There are questions for Sinn Féin. There are questions around funding for the Bill, because it cannot just be about warm words; it must be about supporting farmers and ensuring that the funding is there to deliver what is intended by the Bill. I have a number of questions to ask the Member, and I make it clear that, in doing so, we widely support the intention of the Bill. Good intentions alone, however, are not enough. That is why there are questions for the Bill sponsor and, indeed, his party, which is in government, because it is their private Member's Bill, and it will require new and sustained financial investment that Members across the House have questioned. The obvious question is this: has the Sinn Féin Finance Minister committed to funding this important legislation? Have there been conversations with the Finance Minister about the Sinn Féin Member's Bill? Has any commitment been secured, or are we being asked to support a Bill for which the funding simply does not exist? It would be naïve — in fact, it would be foolish — to believe that no conversations have taken place in Sinn Féin on that. Surely Mr McAleer, a good constituency colleague of mine, did not just come out with the Bill, well-intentioned as it is. I assume that there was a conversation between him and the Sinn Féin Finance Minister about how it would be paid for. It would be reassuring if the Member could clarify that for the House in this debate. There is real concern about being seen to act rather than actually following through. In the past, some Bills have been not just about delivering a solution but about delivering headlines. We have seen where that leads. In fact, it is a topical point, given the business of the House this week, because we saw that with the hospital car parking legislation passed at the end of the previous mandate. In fact, it was passed on the final day of the mandate. It was celebrated and campaigned for, but, ultimately, the legislation was unfunded and unaffordable, according to the Minister for Health, so much so that we now face delaying its implementation again. I am concerned that that is the risk with this Bill: that we raise expectations among genuinely struggling farmers, only to leave them disappointed when the funding fails to materialise, and that would be a failure of the Assembly again for those relying on us to do something to support them. The position being taken by the DUP on the Bill is disappointing but not surprising, given that it was the DUP that removed the ANC scheme in 2018. It took targeted support away from farmers working the most marginal land — farmers who rely on that support not as a bonus by as a necessity. What has followed since? On those farms, beef cattle numbers have dropped by 21%, and, in the past year alone, we have seen a further fall of 5% in beef cattle and 7% in sheep. That is the real-world impact of decisions taken by this place. That is what happens when support is stripped away. I have to ask, therefore, what exactly is behind the DUP's position today? We see daily that the DUP supports farmers, but here we are talking about a vulnerable group in the farming community that is being directly affected by a decision taken by the DUP that the DUP is willing to double down on today. Indeed, my constituency colleague, Mr Buchanan, and, indeed, Mr McAleer, the proposer of the Bill, know full well how rural farmers in West Tyrone who are in these difficult situations are affected, because we hear from them every day. I heard my colleague Ms McIlveen say that Sinn Féin has politicised this issue. I would argue that both lead parties in government have politicised the issue, first by removing it in the way that it was removed and now by bringing it back without any formal financial commitment. They have turned what should have been practical support for struggling farms into a political decision and, ultimately, a ping-pong match. Today, we see the doubling down on that mistake, because the Bill is about one simple principle: do we support farmers in areas with natural constraints? The answer to that is yes or no, and that will be determined by the vote today. They are not the easiest or most profitable of farms but farms that are under the greatest pressure, keeping rural communities alive in the most challenging of conditions, yet, when given the opportunity to restore that support, the DUP is stepping back. For a party that so often claims to stand with rural Northern Ireland, this is a moment that exposes a serious gap between rhetoric and reality. You cannot remove a scheme, watch stock numbers decline and farmers struggle, see pressure increase on family farms and then oppose efforts to put that right. That is not leadership, and it is not acknowledging a serious problem. You have a choice today, and you should support the Bill to the next stage, where it can be shaped. We need to reflect on how it is that we are in this place. Harsh decisions have been made in the Assembly in relation to funding. When it comes to an election, we will see a load of these sweets appearing, dangled in front of the eyes of the electorate with no serious commitment to invest and no trace of the money. In fact, it is like walking into a car showroom and saying, "I think I'll drive away with that", but you have not got a pound to your name. There is a serious problem with that approach. The SDLP takes a different approach. We recognise that farmers are not the problem; they are part of the solution. They are central to food production, environmental stewardship, biodiversity, water quality and carbon management. However, none of that happens without viable farm businesses or if farmers are pushed to the brink. The Alliance Party's position on the Bill tells us a lot, and none of it is reassuring for the farming community. Before the legislation even has a chance to be properly scrutinised, before it has gone to Committee formally, before any amendments can be proposed, Alliance is preparing to vote it down. Not to improve or shape it but to block it — and, let us be honest, with the DUP, it probably has a chance of doing that today. The argument that Alliance is putting forward does not stack up. It says that it has concerns about funding, delivery and the detail, but that is exactly what Committee Stage is for. That is what the scrutiny process is for. Second Stage is about one simple question: do we support farmers in areas of natural constraint, yes or no? That is the key question today. The Bill can be shaped, added to and amended. By opposing the Bill now, Alliance is effectively saying no, and it is saying no to the very farmers who need support the most: hill farmers, upland farmers and family farms working some of the most difficult land anywhere in these islands. They are not profitable businesses; they are the most vulnerable. They are essential to sustaining rural communities. However, what makes it worse is the contradiction at the heart of Alliance's approach today. It is quick to support more environmental regulation and to increase expectations on farmers, but, when it comes to providing financial support to help farmers meet those expectations, it steps back and sits down. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot pile pressure on farmers on one hand and then oppose targeted support on the other. That is not balanced. It is not equality; it is not fair; and it is very one-sided.

I will not. The Member was not generous in giving way earlier, so I am not going to bother. It feeds a growing concern across rural Northern Ireland. Alliance understands policy on paper, apparently, but it does not understand farming in practice. Anyone who speaks to farmers knows that support for areas with natural constraints is not a luxury. For many farmers, it is the difference between survival and going under, so let us be clear: Alliance can dress it up as caution if it likes, but it is a political choice. It could support the Bill today —.

I will not. It could support the Bill today in principle, improve it and ensure that it is properly funded. Indeed, Mr McAleer could have a conversation with the Finance Minister to secure the funding for his Sinn Féin Bill. In doing so — by working together collectively in that aim — you could send a clear message to the farming community that, when crunch comes to crunch, we are on its side. We support the Bill because it recognises disadvantage, acknowledges the value of upland farming and begins to address the real need. However, we will work to improve the Bill to ensure that it delivers not just income support but a sustainable future. Ultimately, it is about three things: viable farm businesses; resilient rural communities; and landscapes that continue to deliver for generations to come. Our farmers are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for fairness and recognition. They are asking for support that reflects the reality of the work that they do every day. I believe that the Bill, with its good intention, is a step in that direction, but it must be backed with funding. It must be strengthened, and it must deliver. We will support the Bill if Sinn Féin puts its money where its mouth is and invests.

1,964 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:07 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