Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I welcome Declan, who is here to brief us and to answer any questions that we might have.

Mr Declan McAleer (Northern Ireland Assembly): Thank you, Chair. Thank you everyone for the opportunity to come before the Committee today. It is an unusual experience. I will have more sympathy for witnesses in the future.

Do you want me to give an overview and some background to the Bill, and then I can take questions? Is that your preference?

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Yes, please.

Mr McAleer: Members, you will be aware that I introduced the private Member's Bill on 16 February 2026. The objectives of the Areas with Natural Constraints (Payments) Bill are to compensate farmers for all or part of the additional costs and income forgone due to production constraints in areas with natural constraints (ANCs); alleviate the burden of production costs in those difficult farming environments; address the reduction in agricultural opportunities for those farming in designated ANCs; and better promote equality of opportunity for farmers in those regions.

I have been working on the Bill for a number of years and engaged very closely with the Bill Office. I have listened very carefully to farmers, rural groups and industry stakeholders. A dominant theme for them is the desire for areas of natural constraint to be restored. The Department has not included the restoration of areas of natural constraint in the sustainable agriculture programme. That was the Department's decision, and I feel that it is regrettable. It is a payment that continues for farmers in Scotland and farmers in the South of Ireland. As a result of it not being included in the sustainable agriculture programme, I opted to go down the route of a private Member's Bill.

In the past decade, the output in areas of natural constraint has declined dramatically. In the past decade, there has been a 21% drop in the number of beef cattle in areas of natural constraint. The figures are stark. The number of beef cattle in the North of Ireland is at the lowest that it has been in the past 55 years. During the consultation on the ANCs Bill, it was pointed out by stakeholders and individuals that the ending of the ANC payment has partly contributed to that drop.

The ANCs are important for our red meat sector. According to the DAERA census of 2013, there are 213,000 beef cattle here in the North, of which 100,000 are in areas of natural constraint and 64,000 in disadvantaged areas (DAs). That gives a sense of how vital a breeding ground the ANCs are for our beef sector. The same is true of the sheep sector. There are 1·8 million sheep in the North, of which one million are in ANCs and 400,000 in DAs. That means that there are 1·4 million in those areas that are considered to be less favoured. Again, they are critical breeding areas for our red meat sector. Bearing in mind that we market the meat from our red meat sector as being from grass-fed, healthy and hardy stock, that is important. Last year alone, there was a 7% drop in the number of beef cattle in the North. If that trend continues, that is not sustainable. It contrasts with other sectors. Sheep also reduced by 7%, but, last year, poultry was up by 9%, pigs by 8% and dairy by 2%. Production in the areas that I am talking about is in the greatest decline.

There are also compelling environmental and ecological reasons to support farming in upland areas. The editorial of the 'Farm Week', last Thursday, made a strong case. It said that, since 2018, wildfires have increased dramatically in areas of natural constraint. The editorial made the point that the brush and scrub in those areas become tinder during dry seasons. If the land was grazed, there would not be as great a risk for wildfires. It would also have an effect on food production and conservation measures, and it would make those areas more accessible for people who want to access them. The editorial attributed the increase in wildfires to the decrease in the number of livestock and sheep in such areas as the Mournes and other places. Those of us who visited Glenwherry saw the importance of livestock and the environment working together. It is good for everyone.

During the consultation, farmers told me that they cannot switch to alternative enterprises; the land and terrain in areas of natural constraint are colder; and that the land is steep, stony and shallow so it is not possible to do as much in those areas as it is in other areas. The DAERA census also shows that there are only 10 cereal farmers in ANCs across the North. There is not much that you can do when it comes to protein crops or anything like that. Farmers cannot expand their businesses because most of them are in areas with natural constraints.

When it comes to financial pressures and structural challenges, the 2023-24 farm business data highlighted that the average loss for farmers in areas with natural constraints is £10,000 a year. If you take away the subsidy, that becomes £17,000 a year. Reinstating the ANC payment is about maintaining the livestock sector, encouraging biodiversity and, importantly, sustaining rural communities. We need that targeted support because breeding stocks will shrink and that will have a bigger impact on the wider red meat sector. I see that as a practical solution that restores a wee bit of certainty to farmers in upland areas.

When I have this time to brief the Committee, I should say, as I have said previously, that farming is an integrated ecosystem. It came out very clearly in the consultation that lowland finishers rely heavily on upland producers in that integrated ecosystem. If one part of the ecosystem is failing, that has a wider knock-on impact on the rest of the ecosystem and a huge impact for the wider red meat sector.

That is a quick run-through of some of the rationale and reasons behind introducing the Bill. I should say that, historically, there has been targeted support for severely disadvantaged areas under the British Agriculture Act 1947. That historical targeted support continues in Scotland, and there is support in the South of Ireland, but we do not have it here. I feel very strongly that that is a missing link in the sustainable agriculture programme. I should declare an interest as a very small-scale farmer. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): That was a substantive contribution. Thank you very much, Declan. A bit of work went into that. You are evidently passionate about it. I know that, in your constituency, you are surrounded by that challenge. We agree only the principles of a Bill at Second Stage. However, your Bill is enabling legislation, and the regulations will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. Therefore, questions will stray into the proposed regulations, if that is OK. Can you explain why you thought that that was the best way forward, rather than putting more detail in Bill?

Mr McAleer: Obviously, I have been engaging with the Bill Office on this for quite a while. You will be aware that the Speaker made the determination that private Members' Bills must be very narrow and defined in scope in order to have a chance of getting through the House in this mandate. Bearing in mind that we have only two years — one year, really — left in the mandate, in consultation with the Bill Office, officials believed that the most efficient and realistic way in which to get the Bill through the House in this mandate was to use the powers in schedule 6 of the Agriculture Act 2020 to get those powers going.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. The explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) gives us an approximate figure for what it has been assessed that it would cost. Is that a robust figure? Does it take into account where we are in 2026? It is around £11·4 million in the papers. What has gone into that figure, Declan? How was it established?

Mr McAleer: That figure is based on the 2018 scheme. There had been a scheme before that for which the quantum was higher. The 2018 scheme was, effectively, for the transitioning year while the previous scheme ended. Effectively, that was the most recent scheme that was on the books, so the most efficient way in which to get it going again was to get the statutory support around that scheme. I should say that, perhaps, one of the challenges back then was that, at that stage, it would have been two thirds EU-funded. I certainly do not want to open any debates around Brexit, but I should say that, whilst the EU funding is no longer there, the need for that funding in those areas with natural constraints remains and is growing.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): You mentioned Scotland and the Republic. Do you have any detailed figures for those schemes?

Mr McAleer: I do not have figures for the Scottish scheme at hand. I know that there are different rates in the South of Ireland, and the payment for the most marginal, hilly areas is €148 a hectare. That comes down to just over €100 at the next level, and there are three different categories. The quantums in the South are vastly more than what is being proposed here. From our perspective, this is a step in the right direction. I have engaged a lot with farmers through the consultation process. I spent Saturday morning at Omagh mart, meeting sheep farmers and speaking to them about the plans, which have been welcomed.

I should say that sheep farmers in particular feel let down by DAERA's decision-making in recent years. They have had their single farm payment cut by 17% to fund beef schemes and other schemes that they cannot access. I did not get a sense of anger or resignation, but I got a sense that they were being philosophical; their feeling was that, "They do not really want us". Those are the producers at the start of our food chain and of where we market the fantastic red meat sector that we have.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I echo that. When I was at the shows last year, it was the sheep farmers who were most vexed about the lack of support. In that vein, recognising that there are no specific assistance schemes for sheep farmers, were the Minister to bring forward a sheep-specific scheme, would that address much of what is captured in your Bill, or is your Bill designed to be broader?

Mr McAleer: The proposed scheme is an area-based scheme, which is to do with the fact that those farms are based in areas with natural constraints. It is colder and hillier, and you cannot do much on that land. In many cases, the land is situated in an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). Farmers are saying to me that they cannot push out their businesses and do any more because they are constrained. Their stocking density is also much lower. Those are farmers who have the least environmental footprint because they are in those areas and cannot stock that much. Their options are limited. Farmers tell me that, because it is colder, for example, it is not suitable to have pedigree cattle up there. They find it more difficult to bring cattle on to that land. There are only certain crops that you can grow. You cannot grow protein crops on that land. There are many physical and environmental constraints up there. If you are a farmer in an ANC, you face those constraints. Your winters are longer, and it is colder, and that brings greater feed costs and higher bills for building repairs.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): My final question is about the impact on current farm support payments. Could this proposal be financed through another avenue? The figure of £11·4 million, or whatever it is going to be, has to be found from somewhere. Is there a challenge for any other areas of farming where there may be a fear of losing out or because of the reshuffling of the money? Or are we talking about new money here, do you think?

Mr McAleer: I have tried so hard not to make this conversation about them and us, whether that be between farmers or between politicians, or about environmentalists versus farmers and agriculture. This is about all of us together. Very clearly, the farm sustainability payment is a safety net: that is how the Department describes it. That has been reduced by 17% in recent years. If you take threads out of that safety net and fray it, it is no longer a safety net. As the Bill's sponsor, I am opposed to any further reductions to the farm sustainability payment. The proposed scheme needs to be financed outside of that and separately.

The farm sustainability payment has been undermined enough, and it cannot be undermined any further.

If we had gone down the route of a full Bill, there would be a new ANC scheme and a debate on the finances. The Bill is about setting the legislative framework. The negotiation on the finances will come through the statutory regulations in the next mandate, and that will require a public consultation and oversight by the Committee and the Assembly. There can be no more diminution of the existing pot: it exists to sustain farmers during shocks. There are shocks caused by the climate, but there are also worldwide shocks, such as when Russia invaded Ukraine and the price of feed shot up overnight. In the past week or two, the war in Iran has meant that the price of fertiliser has shot up to about £450 a ton, which is an extra £100 a ton. Farmers are at the mercy of local elements but also of geopolitical events that are beyond their control. We need to keep the safety net there for them at all times to make sure that they do not fall through.

Ms Finnegan: Thanks a million for introducing the Bill and for the briefing today. From speaking to farmers in my area of Newry and Armagh, I know of the positive impact that it will have.

I will take you back slightly. Can you outline the necessity of the ANC scheme for farmers who operate in areas of natural constraint, particularly because of the additional cost and lower productivity of those farms?

Mr McAleer: As those farms are in areas of natural constraint, the density of the stock has to be lower; a lot of equipment cannot be used to work on the land; and farmers cannot expand their business. A lot of the farmers in areas of natural constraint have very small farms. According to the DAERA census, there are 9,945 farms in ANCs, of which 8,500 are very small farms, which means that they are under 10 hectares. When you do the maths, it will shake down to £260 for a 10-hectare farm; if you have a 3-hectare farm, it will be £72. It is not a lot of money, but it still helps the farmers to pay their bills. A lot of those farmers farm part-time, and they have to work outside the home as well. They are the farmers who go on to the farm at 5.00 am to do a bit of farming, then get into their van and head to Belfast or elsewhere, and come back to work on the farm in the evening. From the consultation process and chatting to people, I am increasingly picking up that those farmers are putting their income into the farm, and they are running it out of love and a sense of tradition. The farmers need the support. As I said, they are the people at the start of our red meat sector that we market our produce on. In the quantum of budgets, £11 million is not a massive amount of money, but it will make a difference and send out the right message to those farmers.

Ms Finnegan: You have answered my next question about the small, family-run farm businesses that run on very tight margins. Although the payment is small and a drop in the ocean compared with some schemes, it ensures that the farms remain viable and will continue to support the next generation.

You made another important point about grazing and how it can play a role in managing vegetation and reducing the risk of wildfires. Last week, the Minister agreed with me when I asked about that. Can you expand on how it will protect our ecosystem?

Mr McAleer: Yes. We saw that when we visited Glenwherry: you can harmonise your landscape with your animals to preserve and conserve the landscape. Land that is not grazed or is abandoned will ultimately die, and that is not good for biodiversity. Again, the point that came through in the consultation and in the 'Farm Week' editorial is that, if such areas become overgrown, particularly during dry times, they are more likely to succumb to wildfires. When we were at Glenwherry that day, we saw meadows that have been preserved for wader birds and native birds. You cannot just leave the uplands to the elements, because they will become overgrown, and that is not good for agricultural production or the environment.

Ms Finnegan: Thank you.

Mr Blair: Declan, thank you for your presentation. You have ably demonstrated the intent and principles of the Bill that are based on your concerns. However, I have a couple of questions, some of which touch on what has already been asked.

To clarify, the financial memorandum accompanying the Bill illustrates clearly that money for the payments will have to be found from existing departmental budgets, even though it states at the start that there will be "no direct financial effects". In that regard, is it the case that there is no new money, that money will have to be found from existing budgets and that, as such, the Bill may come up against some resistance or present some problems?

Mr McAleer: As I said, the Bill is about setting the legal framework for ANCs. There will be a separate process to sort out the finance. As I said, from my perspective, the current ring-fenced pot has diminished enough, and it cannot be diminished any more, because the safety net has to remain there. It will have to be looked at in the Department. When finance becomes available for it, we want to have the legal framework there so that there is no delay in paying that out to farmers. We therefore want to get this in place to begin with, John.

Mr Blair: I get what you are saying about the Department's having to establish frameworks and processes if and when this becomes law. Under "Commencement and short title", the Bill states:

Therefore, there is no allocated bedding-in period. Do you not accept that that may put additional pressures on the Department and, more specifically, on existing funding streams in-year, because it could come forward on an in-year basis without prior allocation or preparation?

Mr McAleer: Once Royal Assent has been granted, the regulation process will start. The payments will not just start after Royal Assent has been granted. The incoming Minister in the next mandate will begin the process of making the statutory regulations. The statutory regulations will be subject to a public consultation, so farmers, environmental groups and the public will have their say on them and on where the funding may come from. As I said, I am of the view that the funding to provide a safety net for the farming community will have to come from somewhere other than that already strained pot.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. Do members have any other questions?

Mr T Buchanan: Declan, I see exactly where you are coming from with your Bill. One issue creates a bit of a problem for me. For example, I could have 40 hectares or 50 hectares in an ANC, but maybe all that I need to get the entitlement is 10 ewes. Is that really viable? How do you square that, so that you are actually producing for what you are getting?

Mr McAleer: I do not want to jump too far forward into the regulations piece. However, this is effectively kick-starting again the 2018 scheme, which was directed towards active farmers. In the 2018 scheme, if you were an active farmer, you applied for the ANC payment as part of your single application form (SAF). You would list on your field data sheets your fields that were eligible for the ANC payment. This is geared towards active farmers; people who are actively farming the land. Does that answer your question, Tom?

Mr T Buchanan: Being an active farmer does not determine how much livestock you have to have in order to qualify for the payment. As you rightly said, on the hill ground, you cannot produce crops. In a real ANC, all that you can do is graze sheep or other animals. Take, for example, 40 hectares of land — that is not overly big — with only a handful of sheep on it. That is not being productive, in a sense, in accordance with what you are getting for that.

Mr McAleer: In the 2018 scheme, there was a minimum stocking density. I do not have the sheep detail here, but I know that it was 0·2 livestock units per hectare for cattle. You had to have breeding stock in your herd as well: heifers, cows, breeding ewes and goats. You had to have those in your herd because it was about trying to encourage production as well.

I suppose that the entry requirement — the gateway — to getting the ANC payment is your eligibility to be an active farmer under the farm sustainability payment rule, as it was under the old single farm payment regime.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Are you happy enough?

Mr T Buchanan: OK. Thank you, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. Thank you, members.

John is not here, although he will be back at 10.50 am. There are no further questions at this stage. The Second Stage debate is next week.

The Committee Clerk: Chair, we have to go and get John.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Yes, if we want to put it to a vote. We are not voting on whether we support it. It is about my comments and stuff. We can just reserve our position.

Miss McIlveen: Chair, if you do not mind, I do not think that it would be appropriate to put this to a vote.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): There is not a lot of detail. Well, there is detail, but there are probably more questions to be teased out. I am content to reflect what has been said and some of the details around the Bill. I am content to reserve my support until such times as the debate happens on Monday.

Mr McAleer: Folks, if you have any queries between now and Monday, drop me a message, and I will endeavour to get answers. I will do my best. Drop me a message if there is anything that, you think, could be of assistance to you in your deliberations on it.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): All right.

We should make sure that we have agreement here. I am happy enough to reserve the Committee's position on the Bill. Is that OK, members?

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Aoife, you raised a good point. You stole my thunder in the Chamber last week about the wildfires and the sheep. On that piece, Declan, you are 100% right: it is the early grazing, not the latter grazing, that keeps it down.

Mr McAleer: You will know that, Chair, from your fire service days.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I do. I was on Pigeon Top mountain. Is that down your way?

Mr McAleer: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I was there, 12 or 13 years ago, chasing a fire from one side of the mountain to the next.

The Committee agrees to reserve its position on this. We will see you in the Chamber next Monday for the debate.

The Committee Clerk: Chair, I want to alert you to a procedural matter: if you were taking a vote, Declan could, if he wished, revert to being a Committee member. You are not going to do that. I clarify that for any future vote.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK, members. Thank you very much.