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

Debate contribution by Ms Emma Sheerin on 23 March 2026.

MLA

Ms Emma Sheerin

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

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 5465747

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I congratulate my party colleague Declan McAleer and the team upstairs, particularly Bronwyn, for all the work that they have done to get the Bill to this stage. Contrary to what some others have said, I know that a significant amount of work has gone into the process, and I am delighted to see the Bill reaching Second Stage. I hope that it passes beyond that with the support of the House. I declare an interest as someone who has family members who farm in ANCs and would benefit from the payment. As I have said in the Chamber before, I am the daughter of a sheep farmer from the Sperrins. As such, some of the commentary that I have heard today has been very disappointing. I take some of that personally, being a farmer's daughter who has seen at first hand how hard those people work. At the very heart of the Bill is a concern about equality, so the remarks that were made about pitting one group of farmers against another were very unhelpful. I doubt that we would hear such a description were we to argue that any other disadvantaged group in society should receive support. You have to acknowledge that upland farmers battle the worst of all conditions: on the hills, there is a tougher climate, a shorter season and worse ground. As a result, farming there is more difficult. We talk a lot about deprivation and poverty in the North. We often look at that through an urban, or city, lens. There is no denying that some of our towns and cities see huge rates of deprivation. However, rural poverty is often hidden in plain sight, is not acknowledged and does not receive the attention that it deserves. There are probably a number of reasons for that, but I contend that one of those is that, an awful lot of the time, our rural populations, particularly our farming families from the uplands, put their heads down, get on with things and suffer in silence. They should not be punished for doing that; they should be supported. There is no doubt that there is hardship in our rural areas, and our hill farmers certainly know hardship. I know that at first hand, because, as I have said repeatedly, I was reared on a sheep farm on the hills. In recent times, we have had a number of agriculture debates in the Chamber in which we have heard DUP Members talk about farmers being custodians of the countryside. I am disappointed today, because it appears that the DUP does not stand with all farmers. I suppose that, deep down, I knew that. I notice that the Member opposite is tuttering again. She made barbed comments — I do not know what she was trying to imply — about Sinn Féin's poster campaign about this legislation. We have a long-drawn-out history in this place, and it is a fact that the majority of people who work in ANCs are of a nationalist persuasion, but farmers across the board would benefit from the payment. As somebody who was reared on a sheep farm, in a house with a strong non-sectarian ethos, I say that farmers work with one another regardless of religion, background, political outlook, constitutional ideas or anything else: that does not come into the equation. As somebody who was reared on a farm with neighbours of all religions and none marching us, I know that that is not considered. It is really disappointing that the DUP has taken such a position. The Member can reflect on her comments and the rationale for them. In County Derry, nearly 1,400 farms operate in ANCs, and those farmers need to be supported. It is not about creating wealth or supporting the landed gentry by any stretch of the imagination; it is about putting support into the pockets of people who work in difficult circumstances. Reference has been made to environmental concerns. It is not possible, on most of the ground in ANCs, to overstock the land; it is physically impossible, and there would be no return from it. It is in the farmer's interest to work in an environmentally friendly way, because doing anything else would not provide a profit. That said, most of the farms do not naturally turn a profit anyway, because of the harshness of the conditions. Most of the people have other jobs, and they farm for the love of the land. They should be supported to stay there to do that, because research tells us that, when livestock leaves such ground, biodiversity suffers. That has to be seriously considered, because the long-term impacts of a loss of support for those farmers will ultimately lead to a loss of stock in the highlands. We have seen that in other places, such as Scotland, and we have seen it here since the loss of the ANC payment. My colleague referred to that. We are talking about a group that has been the victim of policy directives down the generations. Several Members have referred to how the scheme would be funded, which is a matter for another stage in the legislative process, but it is important to note that, last year, the value of the Department's reduction in requirements was equal to what the scheme would probably cost. That should be considered. We see wastage across Departments, but, historically, DAERA in particular — again, I say this as a farmer's daughter who heard it at the coalface — has carried out unnecessary actions and inspections.

Yes, absolutely.

Any farmer could be reported multiple times in a year by somebody with a vendetta against them. Every one of those reports would incur an inspection, which would take the farmer away from their workplace for a day to go through a list of phoney complaints that, often, would have no basis in reality. My point is that this is a group of people who are already regulated to the nth degree.

Yes.

I accept that. My point is that, when you refer to — I take umbrage at how often farmers are referred to as though they want to pollute, cause damage and harm the land —

Well, that is the inference that I take from some of the concern about environmental regulation. This is a group of people who are already regulated, and they already face inspection if they breach a regulation in any way. I say that as somebody whose father, at this stage, has farmed for north of 50 years and has therefore experienced that at first hand. That is the point that I am making. Instead of meeting these people where they are and trying to support them in what they do, which benefits all of us, we sometimes treat them, in a lot of this, as if they have poor intentions at heart. That is not the case, and I appreciate your acknowledgement of that. I have found a lot of the debate quite disheartening. I feel that we need to be strong and steadfast in our support of all sectors of our workforce across the board, particularly our farmers, and to acknowledge that hill farmers are a disadvantaged group within that sector and are, as such, deserving of our support.

1,225 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