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

Debate contribution by Ms Claire Sugden on 23 March 2026.

MLA

Ms Claire Sugden

Party at the time

Independent

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 5465798

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I support the Second Stage of the Bill, primarily because it speaks directly to a large part of my East Londonderry constituency. Just over half of the land in my constituency is classified as being within an area with natural constraints. That means that a significant number of farms operate on land that is inherently more difficult to work, costlier to maintain and, in many cases, less productive. That is through no fault of the farmer, which, for me, is the core of the debate. Those farms are not struggling because of poor management or lack of effort; they are struggling because of natural limits such as poor soil, steep ground, shorter growing seasons and longer winters that shape what is possible on that land. Therefore, when we talk about support, we are not talking about propping up inefficiency; we are talking about recognising a structural reality. Once you accept that, the question that we pose today becomes straightforward. We recognise that some land is harder to farm than other land. Should there be targeted support to reflect that? In a region of the United Kingdom where agriculture is one of the main industries, that is a valid question. There is a strong case, given that the pressures in those areas are not theoretical but are being felt. They are being felt on the land, as it is worked every day, and they are being felt as people try to put food on the table. Those pressures are being felt by people in their day-to-day lives. Hill farmers and sheep farmers are under particular strain. Livestock numbers are declining, and, in some cases, tightening margins are no longer sustainable. We see that. I am not a farmer, but I can see that. When that pressure builds, it does not stay contained within individual farms. As I said, it affects the wider agricultural system, and, in Northern Ireland, that means that it affects Northern Ireland. Upland farms feed on lowland production. They supply breeding and finishing stock and support the red meat sector as a whole. When activity reduces at the top of the chain, the effects are felt further down. It also affects rural communities. How often do we hear about the pressures that face rural communities? I live in a rural community and see the pressures every day. Farms in such areas are often central to local economic activity, so, when they come under strain and pressure, it impacts not just on the farm business but on the wider network of suppliers, services and families who depend on it. There is a longer-term risk that we should not ignore. If farming becomes unviable in those areas, land will not simply pause and wait. We risk gradual withdrawal, the loss of livestock, the loss of skills and knowledge over time and a shift in how that land is used or, in some cases, not used. Once that happens, it is difficult to reverse. There is also a land management dimension. Active grazing plays a role in maintaining upland landscapes. It helps to manage vegetation and contributes to keeping land in a condition that is workable, productive and balanced. When that activity declines, there are consequences, as we have seen in recent years, for how the land behaves. The issue also matters for economic, social and environmental reasons. The debate sits in a clear context. Support for areas of natural constraint is not new; it has existed before. It was removed for reasons that were set out at the time. I do not particularly understand those reasons, but they were to do with funding and the impact that redistributing support would have across the wider sector. I appreciate that margins and budgets are tight, but the Government need to do more than just meet their bottom line. They need to recognise that they are there to serve the public, and farming is a big part of that. As I set out, it is a big part of our agriculture. I am not naive enough to think that that money exists, but we need to find the money, which we will do by investing to save and making efficiencies. The next debate is about inefficiencies in government: we need to look at that seriously and start to put our money where it will have real value. As others have said, no policy should set one group of farmers against another, undermine confidence in the wider support framework or create new problems while trying to solve an existing one. We have seen that happen since the support was removed a number of years ago. However, we also have to be honest about what has happened since. The context today is different from that when we previously talked about the issue. Costs have increased, and returns, particularly in sectors such as sheep farming, have not kept pace. There are clear gaps in the current support structures for upland and constrained land farming. Therefore, the question is not about whether those earlier concerns existed; it is about whether, in the current context, doing nothing is still the right approach, because, as we see, doing nothing has consequences, too. Other Members have talked about that in other aspects of farming.

Absolutely, because, as I outlined, we will lose skills, lose that land and have fires. We already see the consequences of doing nothing playing out. This private Member's Bill has come about as a result of need. It does not exist just because of the Member's whims, or I certainly hope not. It comes from the needs of farmers and the pressures that they face. It is our job, as the Assembly and the institutions of Northern Ireland, to respond to that. It is a fair ask, and it is disappointing that there are some in the House who will not even let it get to the exploration stage at Committee and to Consideration Stage. That is what this process is about. It puts the issue into the public conversation and allows the public to grasp what needs to happen. We can then assess the feedback and see whether we want to take the Bill through every stage. I do not really understand the point of shutting it down at the principle stage. I understand why the Bill has been introduced. It is not just because of the points that the Member has put across; it is because farmers tell us that they need something. We have an opportunity to support them. It is not insurmountable, because such support has existed before. If the only reason that we did not have it before is cost, we need to look at our other budgeting and costs throughout government and see where things are strategic and viable. When it comes to this issue, there has proven to be a need, and I certainly encourage the Minister and his successors — we do not know who they will be — to look at the issue. I appreciate that we are talking about this in the context of the current Budget, but, by the time that this becomes law and is implemented, we will be into a new mandate, and there will be a new Executive with their own priorities. This is about trying to set the direction of travel to support those who most need it. The case for support is also being made by farmers. I understand the argument that targeted support should be considered again, and it is important to be clear about what the Bill does. It does not set out every detail of the future scheme, as others have alluded to. It does not answer every question about eligibility or design and does not resolve the funding issue, but it sets out a clear principle, which, at this stage — Second Stage — is what it is about: farmers operating in areas of natural constraint should have access to targeted support. That, essentially, is what we are agreeing on today. Do we want to support farmers who struggle because of the land that they farm? I think that the answer is yes. If we vote otherwise, what are we saying?

That does not mean ignoring the difficult questions, however. Rather, it means dealing with them properly and having the big conversation about funding. Someone suggested that around £11 million is required. That is not a small figure, but, in the context of our overall public spending, it is not beyond consideration either, particularly given the consequences that we are witnessing. We are not just about the bottom line but about services for the public. That needs to be included in the conversation as well. As I said, we need to consider the cost of inaction and of the continued decline in livestock numbers. What is the cost if land falls out of active management? What is the cost to rural communities if farms become unsustainable? Those are real costs, and they do not always fit in a neat budget line. At the same time, we need to be careful, because support in one area cannot come at the expense of creating pressure somewhere else. Support has to be fair across the sector, workable in practice and sustainable in the long term. Those are not reasons to reject the idea but, rather, to get it right. We can do that during the Bill's next legislative stages. The worst outcome would be to ignore the problem entirely. We have a choice in the Chamber either to ignore the problem or to address it in a way that potentially creates a solution for farmers. The Bill is an attempt to respond to a real and growing issue. It reflects the reality of farming in constrained areas. It reflects the pressures that those farmers are facing. It reflects the need to look again at whether our current approach is enough. I do not believe that it is. I am therefore content to support the Bill's passing Second Stage.

1,669 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