Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): For the record, I will run through the history of our consideration of these matters. We were briefed on the draft statutory rule (SR) by DAERA officials at our meeting on 30 January, when we heard that the draft SR updates the draft regulations discussed with the Committee on 23 May 2024. The Department advised that the updates reflect policy decisions since then and take on board some of the views of the Committee at the time and the sustainable agriculture programme (SAP). Therefore, the draft SR includes more than was included in the briefing on 23 May.

At the meeting in May, the Committee received an oral briefing that included reference to the farm sustainability transition payment (FSTP) replacing the current basic payment scheme (BPS) and being intended to provide a smooth transition from the BPS to the implementation of the farm sustainability payment (FSP) in 2026.

The Committee heard that the FSTP required farm businesses to declare a minimum of 5 hectares of eligible land. Members were concerned about the impact of that on around 1,400 small farm businesses of 3 hectares and under and their geographical spread. That matter has now been satisfactorily concluded.

At the meeting on 30 January, we agreed to write to stakeholders listed on the agricultural policy stakeholder group (APSG) giving them the opportunity to respond to the Committee with their views on the draft SR, with the offer of giving an oral briefing to the Committee. The letters were issued. Four responses have been received from groups that are part of the APSG, and those state that they support the SR. The Committee also considered the overarching response from the APSG, dated 4 February, confirming that all its member groups support the draft affirmative SR.

At our meeting last week, on 6 February, the majority of the Committee agreed to write to the Minister to request that he not move the motion on 11 February as we did not have the revised SR. The majority of the Committee also agreed to write to the Minister calling for the continuation of the young farmers' payment (YFP) and the regional reserve (RR) until the farming for the generations scheme is introduced. All members agreed to write to the Minister to obtain full details of the progress of the development of the farming for the generations scheme, including details of the scheme, milestones of development, dates and timelines.

On Monday 10 February, the Deputy Chair and I met the Minister to discuss the Committee's concerns and request that he not move the motion on Tuesday. The main points discussed are covered in the note of that meeting and in the Minister's follow-up letter, which I referred to in the list of papers for this item. We also requested a further departmental oral briefing today to assist in allaying any concerns. However, due to the main official's being unavailable, we have the Minister's follow-up letter. In it, the Minister has covered the rationale for planning to close the young farmers' payments and regional reserve. That was discussed at the informal meeting on Monday. Those are legacy schemes. Currently, business case cover is in place for them until the end of the 2025 scheme to support transition to replacement schemes. The Minister stated that, on a value-for-money basis, their continuation is extremely difficult to justify beyond 2025.

The policy intent of the YFP scheme and the regional reserve was to increase the number of young farmers in the industry who were head of holding. However, data from the farm structure survey shows that, in 2010, prior to the YFP and RR schemes' introduction, 53% of farm managers in NI were aged 55 years or over and 22% were aged 44 years or younger. By 2023, the percentage of farm managers over 55 years of age had increased to 58%, while the percentage of those aged under 44 years had remained static at 22%. Therefore, the Minister's interpretation is that the schemes have made no difference to the age structure of the head of holding on NI farms and have not delivered generational renewal.

Yesterday, the Examiner of Statutory Rules confirmed to the Clerk that she will include the draft regulations in her next issued report on Friday 14 February 2025. However, given that we have to consider them today and that the debate is on Tuesday, she has prioritised the draft regulations, laid on 7 February 2025, and has confirmed for us that they are not required to be drawn to the special attention of the Assembly under Standing Order 43(6).

Members, do you have any further comments to make on the Minister's letter or any other matter to do with the draft SR?

Mr McAleer: Yes, Chair. What has happened is that there has been no change since the SL1 was introduced to the Committee. Despite the meetings and conversations that we have had, nothing has changed. Obviously, it is important that we register — certainly, I do so on behalf of my party — our serious concern that we are being asked to support the removal of important support schemes without any clarity or timeline on their replacement, which is the farming for the generations scheme.

One issue that we have is that, potentially, removing new entrants and the options for entitlements to the regional reserve will disadvantage people who are new to farming. If you are a young farmer in a family, you may have the option to inherit entitlements from your father, grandfather, grandmother or whomever, but, if you are brand new to farming, this will take away that option.

We have just heard from Jason Foy, who said that 930,000 hectares are claimed for in the North, so, obviously, there are 930,000 entitlements across the North. If we move forward without a regional reserve and there are no new entitlements coming forward and if, by the natural course of things, entitlements that are currently there start to expire, will we reach a situation where we have 930,000 hectares in the North but do not have 930,000 single farm payment entitlements? How can people farm if there are not enough entitlements to match the amount of land? It is regrettable that we have not seen any change, despite concerns having been flagged.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): To be fair, you were at pains to point that out at the meeting with the Minister the other day.

Are there any other comments?

Miss McIlveen: Yes. I raised the issue of young farmers. I am concerned about that issue and about the fact that it has been a couple of weeks since I asked that the Young Farmers' Clubs of Ulster come up so that we could have a conversation with them, and that has not happened. The Department has not had the same amount of consultation with that group as with others. It is my understanding that it has been some time since officials from the Department met it directly. Everything is being filtered through the other group that has been put together. Declan is right that there has been no change, despite the fact that concerns have been raised over a period in excess of two weeks.

The other thing that I am keen to hear from the Department on is the cliff edge. We are told that, if we do not agree to the regulations, farmers will not get paid. I would like some clarity on the implications of the regulations not being agreed. I am not sure whether we can get that information before the end of today's Committee meeting; it may need to be sent to Committee members before the end of the week.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): That is probably a more achievable ask, but I think that it is a fair —.

Miss McIlveen: I would just like to know the implications, because I feel that we are being rushed into a lot of this. Once we agree to the regulations, that will start the train running. A lot of other regs will come to the Committee that are associated directly with these ones. That is a big responsibility on us.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): There is no doubt that there is a big responsibility around this one. As Declan pointed out, it is basically closed to new entrants, because it is the same as buying a licence.

Another issue that you raised with the Minister was that the value of those entitlements is dictated by the holder, which could be a further barrier to new entrants. The Minister was at pains to point out that a big part of the work that he has done on this is for regeneration and renewal. I have no doubt that that is absolutely a big priority for him.

Mr McAleer: I should have mentioned that. That was a point that I highlighted to the Minister: if new entrants are not able to get new entitlements from the regional reserve, they will have to get them from other farmers. There is no uniform rate for entitlements; they vary wildly.

I will reiterate my party's position: we believe that the young farmers' payment scheme, the regional reserve and the option for new entitlements should continue at least until we have seen the shape of what is to replace them.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Yes. Well, obviously, the Committee can take a position.

Mr Blair: I have a couple of points to make. First, I understand Declan's point, which he has raised consistently, but I see this slightly differently. My pack shows me that there are clear value-for-money issues. Separately, my pack tells me that, generally speaking, only five people a year avail themselves of that opportunity compared with, according to the pack, 120 people who applied to the pilot of the farming for the generations scheme. There is a major disparity in the levels of interest, and I assume that that would translate to a disparity in uptake. I am not content to delay further on something that has already been clarified and presented to us through a number of notes and, most specifically, in the Committee pack.

Secondly, another issue appears to have arisen. If we are to proceed on that, I will need to hear it read out, and I will need to hear how it will be recorded. I am concerned that, every time this comes to us, we find new issues, even though there have been opportunities in recent weeks to relay those to the Department to have them clarified.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Could you be more specific about what you believe the new issue to be?

Mr Blair: I do not know. I thought that one was discussed there. I am asking for clarification. Is clarification being sought on another addition? I want to get that read out, too, if that is OK.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I am not sure that there is. To be fair to the Committee, if evidence arises and comes to a member at any stage, it is incumbent on them to raise it before the SR is made.

Mr Blair: I need to know what it is before I agree to it.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Yes.

The Committee Clerk: The question is this: if the regulations were not agreed, what would be the impact on farmers' payments? Have I got all that?

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Yes. That is in the brief. As mentioned in the briefings, there is time pressure to get it done, because there could be a delay in the payments and the raft of payments that come behind that. It is not a new question. It is a question that has driven the discussion and given it energy. The Department and the Minister have given evidence to us about the need to do this within that time frame.

Mr Irwin: There is also the issue of the 4,000 farmers who will be deemed "inactive". There will be a short window for those who are transferring entitlements. There will be a lot of entitlements around spring next year, not this year. It will create an issue. There will definitely be those who will want to challenge the fact that they are deemed to be inactive. It will be an issue.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. We will get to a point in today's session when I will ask the Committee whether we support the SR. However, evidently, there are queries and questions that members would like to urgently refer to the Department to get the detail. There is some time pressure, whether or not it is just as serious as suggested in the Minister and the Department's evidence. I do not think that the Committee wants to deliberately delay things, but, at the same time, we want some clarification of a number of items and issues.

The first relates to Declan's point, which was raised with the Minister. The Minister did not kick it out, by the way. It was about the continuation of the young farmers' payment scheme so that there is no gap between the two schemes, which, I think, is reasonable. Are members content for that to be a question that we seek clarification on?

Mr McAleer: As well as the regional reserve.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Yes. In what way do you want to put that?

Mr McAleer: In a way that says that we want the regional reserve and the young farmers' payment scheme to continue until the new policy kicks in.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Michelle, you had a point that you wanted clarification on.

Miss McIlveen: My point is about the impact of not agreeing to the regulations. I know that is not as necessary today as it will be for the debate in the Chamber, but we need to have that information to hand so that we know what the consequences of any actions are.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Were there any other queries or questions about what we are seeking from the Minister and the Department on that? Clerk, are you content that you have captured that?

The Committee Clerk: Give me two seconds, please, Chair.

Yes. John Blair raised the value-for-money issues and the number of families applying to the pilot scheme. He was not content to delay further. William raised the issue that 4,000 farmers will be deemed to be inactive. Was there a question for the Department about that?

Mr Irwin: The question is about the fact that there is a very short window for those people to move their entitlements on. The Department answered that by saying that much more land is coming into the frame, meaning that land that was ineligible will then be eligible. The Department thought that there would be time to transfer entitlements, but it is an issue. There will be some challenge when it comes to the issue of who is inactive. It will not be as straightforward as the Department thinks.

Mr T Buchanan: I suppose that the issue is whether the Department is taking into consideration the time frame involved in someone appealing a decision and, if they lose the appeal, transferring entitlements after that. That is the issue.

The Committee Clerk: Will we try to get those answers before Tuesday?

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We have enough there. We will seek those answers. The debate will be on 18 February, which is next week. As Chair, obviously, I have to reflect the position of the Committee in the debate.

Is the Committee in a position to support the draft SR on 18 February? I will reflect the issues discussed at the Committee in my speech.

Mr McAleer: Must we have a Committee position? Can we defer until we get the clarification?

The Committee Clerk: That position can be recorded in the minutes.

Ms Murphy: If we get a response over the weekend, can the Committee meet on Monday?

The Committee Clerk: I cannot answer that question right now. We are out of the Building, and I do not have Wi-Fi here. If you wish, we will do our level best to meet before the plenary sitting on Monday.

Mr McAleer: It is hard to make a decision until we get the advice on those questions.

The Committee Clerk: Chair, all that you are asking the Committee to do is to decide whether you should support the SR on behalf of the Committee

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): It is not necessary. In the previous mandate, the Education Committee Chair, Chris Lyttle, was in favour of the Integrated Education Bill, but he said that a range of views had been reflected and that the Committee had not come to a position on it. In the debate, you are allowed to make your points. As a proactive Committee, it is incumbent on us, if we get the information, to come to a position. I am happy to reflect that position, but it is also appropriate for me to say there was no consensus and that the Committee had tried to get more information.

Miss McIlveen: It is unfortunate that we do not have a representative from the Department here. I understand that there can be diary conflicts and so on. However, given the fact that this is urgent legislation for the Department, someone could have been here to give some kind of direction on the tail ends of information that we require.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I absolutely agree. I said that it would work a lot better if someone could come to the Committee to give the departmental perspective. It was, however, made plain — the senior official was there — that the senior official did not have diary capacity. We asked whether someone else could attend, and the Department said that it would look at it, but, evidently, it could not do that.

Mr McGlone: Sorry, Robbie. Can you clarify that? What could the Department not do?

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): It could not provide someone to give an in-person briefing today. To be fair, the Department briefed the Committee at the start of the process, but the technical changes should have been a good enough reason to send someone in.

The Committee Clerk: The key official is out of the country, but that does not answer your question.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): There are other people attached.

Mr Irwin: I suspect that the Department knows more about the young farmers' payment and the regional reserve than it has told the Committee. The regional reserve was open to abuse.

Mr Blair: Chair, we need to be careful about some of that terminology. It should be made clear that some of us might not have needed another briefing, so it should not be reflected that all of us wanted that.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): John's point is absolutely right.

Mr Blair: I have heard it before, and I am aware of the stakeholder group positions, which I have heard a number of times and discussed at the Committee. I do not need any further clarification of any of that. My views should be reflected as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We have agreed on the letter and a series of questions that we will seek an urgent response to. If members are minded and if it is useful, I am more than happy to convene a brief one-agenda-item meeting on Monday. Will members remain vigilant over the weekend to any communications that might come through? We will fire something out and ask whether, on the back of that, you want to have a meeting. I will make myself available.

Mr Blair: As long as there is a mechanism for anyone who cannot attend the meeting. Will a clarification be sent by email of an agreed position or otherwise, rather than an agreed position being declared when someone who would not have agreed could not be there?

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Yes, 100%. Are members content?

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you so much.