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

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on 23 March 2026.

MLA

Mr Gerry Carroll

Party at the time

People Before Profit Alliance

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 5465796

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Mr Speaker, apologies for missing my question during Question Time. It will, I hope, never happen again. I will speak briefly in support of the Bill. It is not a catch-all Bill, which the Member recognises, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. I met the RSPB today about the Bill. I encourage Members to also meet and talk to it about its views on the Bill and how it can be strengthened. It was a very illuminating conversation. I heard some of the earlier conversation and debate. I have some sympathy with the argument that just giving money to farmers, regardless of what they do with it on the land that they own, may not be the best use of public money. I have some sympathy with that. It has the potential of discrediting green and nature-friendly initiatives in a general sense. Therefore, from my perspective, I am exploring an amendment that ties nature-restorative practices to the payment scheme. I hope that the Member can come back on whether he supports that or has considered that point of view. It has been said that farmers are the best custodians of the land: we should look at that to see what we can do to support them to maintain that role and to introduce good practices. Many hill farmers and low-level farmers live in poverty. My understanding is that 50% of the priority habitat areas are in hill farming areas. How can the Bill be used to support farmers to re-wet bogland to act as a carbon sequester? How can it be used to ensure that heather is maintained at environmentally friendly levels to stop fires spreading on hills? How can it be used to ensure that other measures are taken? The argument around financial prudence does not add up. We are in a biodiversity crisis. Lough Neagh is being strangled and killed, and we have the dumping of waste in Belfast lough, so time is of the essence. Hill farmers can play an important role in restoring nature. I ask the Member to expand on what conversations he has had with the Finance Minister. I hope that he has been talking to him and pushing for support. I have some suggestions for the Finance Minister, if he is listening. Every year, £80 million in industrial derating goes out to large corporations, and a huge chunk of that payment goes to global corporations, such as Moy Park, Coco-Cola and Caterpillar, which have terrible human rights records and are terrible for the environment. That is around £15 million, at least, that could be got from those companies directly. The income and revenue of the largest companies are almost £2 billion. Rather than celebrating and cheering that, the Finance Minister and all Executive parties should chase that money down, regulate it, tax it through the rates system and put it into these types of processes and procedures. There are also the record surpluses in the South of Ireland and Britain. There is a state surplus of €25 billion in the South and £30 billion in Britain, and we are saying that we cannot afford £11 million to £15 million a year. Are we serious? I hope that the Bill passes. Obviously, it needs to be amended. I have a lot of respect for the Member for South Antrim, but I do not understand the Alliance argument that it will not vote for the Bill to proceed. I do not understand the logic. It may be about protecting its Minister — it is not the only party that is guilty of doing that. The Bill needs to be amended and strengthened, so it has to go to the next stage. I do not want to be pre-emptive, because I do not know how the vote will go, but, if it passes, it looks as if it might be the smaller parties and the independent Member who will have got it over the line. Hopefully, it will pass.

667 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:08 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