Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I welcome Mark Allen from the Research and Information Service (RaISe) to brief the Committee and answer any questions that we might have. This starts the oral evidence session process for our Committee Stage. Thank you, Mark.

Mr Mark Allen (RaISe): Thank you, Chair and members. This is the first time in my 16 years here that I have actually done a private Member's Bill that has got to this stage. You will forgive my formality — I suppose that it is difficult when a Committee member is also the sponsor — because I will refer to "the sponsor" throughout. It is not as though I do not know the sponsor; I am just simply trying to approach it in the way in which I normally would.

I should also say at the outset that there is a companion research paper. Our initial intention had been that my colleague Nathan Mulholland would join me today, because his paper actually looks in greater detail at the potential costs of the Bill. Unfortunately, Nathan is in Paris at an OECD event. Before you assume that there is much glamour there, I am told that it is 40°C and there is no air conditioning in his hotel, so I think that he would quite happily be here. I think that his plan is to join you at a later date to go into greater detail.

Without further ado, I will make a bit of progress. The specific aim of the Areas with Natural Constraints (Payments) Bill is to reintroduce targeted financial support for farmers who operate in disadvantaged areas, particularly uplands and marginal land, in Northern Ireland. The Bill is made up of two clauses. Essentially, it requires DAERA to bring forward regulations within 12 months of assent to enable the paying of areas of natural constraint (ANC) payments to entitled persons. The Bill specifies that those payments must be at least equal to the 2018 ANC scheme payment levels and that they must increase annually in line with the price index. It is important to say that it is enabling legislation that establishes the requirement for payments but leaves much of the detail to future regulations.

By way of context for the Bill and the environment in which it seeks to operate, less favoured areas (LFA) and ANC are a significant structural issue for the agriculture sector in Northern Ireland. Around 69% of our agricultural land is classified as disadvantaged or, more specifically, less favoured. Again, I know that I am talking to people who know this, but, just for the record, land that is classed as LFA is made up of disadvantaged areas (DA) and severely disadvantaged areas (SDA).

If we look at what activity actually goes on in SDA in Northern Ireland specifically, because those are the areas that the 2018 regulations and scheme focused on, we see that they account for 38% of our farms and 35% of our agricultural workforce. We should recognise the fact that those farms face natural constraints, such as poor soil, steep terrain and high rainfall, which effectively mean that those farms have higher production costs and very often have fewer opportunities to diversify. SDA farms are central to beef and sheep production in Northern Ireland. Such production is predominant in SDAs, with 46% of total NI beef production and 56% of total sheep production. Those are not insignificant numbers.

Our beef and sheep sectors remain heavily reliant on public funding support. There is no disaggregated data for SDA. Farm business income data for LFA is SDA plus DA — I realise that there are a lot of acronyms. I will take the most recent data, which is for 2022-23. If you take away the direct support that beef and sheep farms in LFA have, you see that those farms show a farm business income of minus £10,629. That highlights how reliant they are on direct support.

I looked at the activity that goes on in SDA farms and land according to DAERA's annual statistical review of Northern Ireland agriculture for 2018 to 2024. It is on page 204 of your packs. While dairy cow numbers in SDA have remained steady, there has been a reduction in beef cow and breeding ewe numbers over that period, since the previous scheme came to an end.

I turn now to some background on support. Previously, farmers in LFA in Northern Ireland received support under various EU schemes. The most recent schemes were run under the common agricultural policy (CAP) pillar 2 as part of the Northern Ireland rural development programme. The first scheme that came through that route was the less-favoured area compensatory allowance (LFACA). That allowance supported farms and land in DA and SDA. However, a change in EU law, in 2013, meant the introduction of a new acronym — ANC: area of natural constraint. That effectively saw the former Department of Agriculture and Rural Development faced with having to make a change to where it could provide support. The decision was made, at that point, that the new ANC scheme would focus exclusively on SDA land. Pages 242 to 249 of your packs give an overview of the scale and location of SDA-designated land within each county in Northern Ireland. That is based on the 2016 data. It will be useful in giving you a perspective on the areas that we are talking about.

It is also important to say that LFACA and ANC support were funded by a combination of national and EU money. The 2016 ANC scheme, for example, had around 10,000 applications claiming for approximately 350,000 hectares. It had a budget of £20 million and was made up of 60% EU funding and 40% national funding. The last ANC scheme ended in 2018, and no direct replacement has been introduced. Since 2018, AERA Ministers have opposed reinstating ANC payments, citing limited evidence of a decline in farming activity and concerns around value for money. It is also worth noting that the last two schemes that operated, in 2016 and 2018 respectively, went ahead on ministerial direction due to value-for-money concerns. That is Audit Office information. It is not in the links.

Since 2018, there have been two key policy developments, which are relevant here, as well. The UK completed its exit from the EU, and the UK Agriculture Act 2020 came into force in response to the UK's requiring a means to manage agricultural support after leaving the EU. This Bill is coming forward under powers in Part 1 of schedule 6 to the Agriculture Act 2020. The other significant development since 2018 has been DAERA's efforts to develop its new sustainable agriculture programme (SAP). A lot of programmes and schemes are in place. I have set those out in table 3, which you will find in your papers, and you will see a wide range of supports. You are well aware of them, you have heard about them and have had regulations for them before you in this mandate. It is significant that there is no dedicated ANC or SDA support.

It should also be stated that none of the supports that I have set out in table 3 is inflation-linked. They are all, in effect, flat payments. That is one of the distinctions here. DAERA has made a commitment to develop a specific support for the sheep sector, but we still have no detail on what that will entail.

Table 4 sets out the situation regarding ANC payments and support in the neighbouring jurisdictions of GB and Ireland. The headline is that only Ireland and Scotland continue to have support. In Ireland, the figure amounts to €250 million annually, but it is important to remember that that will be co-financed; it is not all national money. Scotland operates its broadly comparable less-favoured areas support scheme (LFASS), which has an annual budget of about £65·5 million. In the table, I have set out some of the criteria that it applies. I will not have time to go into that now; the important thing to say is that, in line with Northern Ireland, neither England nor Wales has that support at present.

I turn to the public consultation on the Bill. There were 431 completed responses submitted, which broke down as follows: 78 individual submissions; a petition that was signed by 353 individuals; and one submission that was emailed by a farming group. On the basis of the responses, the Bill has received strong public support, with 88·6% of respondents fully supporting the proposals. Respondents highlighted a range of issues, including the financial pressures on upland farms, concerns around mental health and the risks of land abandonment and environmental decline. When we look at the consultation responses in the round, we see a clear perception that ANC payments were essential to sustain farming systems and rural communities on the land that we referenced, namely SDA.

I now turn to some of the potential issues or areas for consideration, beginning with questions around the public consultation exercise and results. Whilst the results clearly show strong overall support for the Bill, with around 88% of respondents being fully supportive, there are some important limitations in the data. First, a significant proportion of responses came from a petition signed by 353 individuals, comprising roughly 82% of the total responses. When I looked at what was available, the content of the petition was unclear, which made it difficult to assess how strongly it supports the Bill's specific details. Secondly, it could be argued that there is limited transparency around other submissions, including the identity and representation of the contributing farming group: how many members were on it, and was it an individual submission or was it representative of the entire membership? Finally, there could be a bit more detail around how many respondents opposed the Bill and why they did so, and, most significantly, why some respondents believed that the costs of introducing the Bill might outweigh the benefits. In summary, whilst the consultation indicates strong support, further clarification and deeper analysis would improve confidence in the findings.

Explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) issues are outlined in your pack. The memorandum states that the Bill has no direct financial impact, as costs will arise later through the regulations required to implement the scheme. That raises an issue: it could be argued that, although the Bill may not directly allocate funding, the regulations that it mandates will clearly have financial consequences, and those are not yet fully detailed.

There is also an assumption that any future scheme would apply an active farmer requirement similar to that in the 2018 scheme. That is set out in the EFM but is not in the Bill text, and that could create some uncertainty around eligibility.

In addition, the EFM suggests that administrative costs would be minimal, but it provides no evidence or supporting data for that claim. I realise that that is hard to do, because it is in the Department's gift.

Finally, there is limited detail on the costs of enforcement and compliance and on the likelihood of recovering costs from penalties or offences. Those are some potential questions. Will DAERA aim to complete a more extensive and detailed financial impact component when they are required to bring forward regulations, should the Bill receive Royal Assent and become an Act? The EFM's reference to its being "anticipated" that beneficiaries to a reintroduced ANC scheme would have to be "active farmers" is potentially significant, as it is not included in the Bill. Is the Bill sponsor committed to including that requirement in the Bill? I have put that as a question, because it may bring clarity.

The EFM also suggests that the costs of administering the proposed scheme would be minimal, but, as I said, the evidential basis for that is unclear. Does the Bill sponsor have any such data, and are they prepared to publish or share it? Perhaps more significantly, does DAERA hold programme-specific administrative cost data for the previous ANC support scheme in 2018, and what does that show? Building on that, it is also useful to ask about the evidential basis for assessing the risk of fully recovering costs. Again, that is probably a question for DAERA: does it hold programme-specific cost recovery from convictions data for the previous ANC support scheme, and what does that show?

I turn now to interpretations in the Bill. A key issue could be the lack of clarity around the legal and policy basis for future ANC payments. The Bill, as I set out, relies on powers in the Agriculture Act 2020, which, in turn, references earlier EU legislation, particularly the rural development regulation, which is EU regulation No 1305/2013. However, the Bill does not explicitly state whether key provisions of that EU framework, especially those that define eligible areas, payment limits and rules such as degressivity, will apply to any future scheme. That could potentially create uncertainty around whether DAERA would be bound by those existing rules or have greater flexibility in designing any future scheme. There is also a risk that changes to or a removal of underlying EU legislation could affect the legal basis of the scheme in the future if that issue is not clearly addressed in the Bill. In addition, the Bill does not reference key provisions that define how areas of natural constraint are identified, which may limit clarity around the eligibility of land.

There are a couple of questions on that. If article 31 of the EU rural development regulation is foundational for the Bill, does that suggest that the minimum and maximum payment rates that it sets out fit with the Bill sponsor's aspirations and, as such, would be binding for DAERA? How would a reliance on article 31 of the EU rural development regulation be impacted on by the revocation, amendment or replacement of either the regulation as a whole or article 31 specifically? Would provision need to be built into the Bill to take account of any such changes? Could a failure to do so mean that the Bill and any associated regulations would have no basis in law and that, as such, DAERA would not be bound to deliver an ANC scheme? Could the failure to include a reference to the role of article 32 of the rural development regulation in clause 1 of the Bill limit DAERA or enable it to designate or redesignate areas of natural constraint? In summary, could the interpretations in the Bill as introduced be expanded upon or better defined in order to enable the Bill provisions to continue to be valid in the context of any potential changes to EU legislation, more specifically articles 31 and 32 and Annexes II and III of EU regulation No 1305/2013?

I turn now to the definition of ANC land. A key issue is that the Bill does not clearly define what land qualifies as an area of natural constraint. Whilst it may be inferred that the intention is to follow the previous approach, namely limiting eligibility to severely disadvantaged areas, that is not explicitly stated in the Bill. Under the previous ANC scheme in 2018, only SDA land was eligible. That was based on detailed mapping and specific eligibility criteria, such as minimum land area and forage requirements. That raises a number of questions. Is it the intention of the Bill sponsor that, in line with the 2018 regulations and as suggested in the EFM, only land in SDAs would be eligible for renewed ANC support? Is the Bill sponsor similarly committed to the land eligibility provisions relating to the size of holding and qualifying forage area as set out in the 2018 regulations? Is there a need for the Bill — most likely in clause 1 — to provide more detail on specific eligibility for the proposed ANC support scheme? Is there any additional need for the Bill to specify how DAERA would identify qualifying land? Is the 2016 mapping exercise still valid? Would there be a need for DAERA to, for example, undertake a new mapping exercise? Finally, what impact would the exclusion of DA land from a new ANC support scheme have on farms in those areas? Would it adversely disadvantage farmers with DA land?

I will move to eligibility of claimants. A key issue is that the Bill does not clearly define who would be eligible to receive ANC payments. Whilst the accompanying explanatory and financial memorandum suggests that recipients would need to be active farmers, that requirement is not included in the text of the Bill. Under the 2018 scheme, as I said, eligibility was clearly defined. Regulation 4 of the Areas of Natural Constraint Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2018 included a number of additional eligibility criteria that supplemented the active farmer criteria. That leads to these questions. Is it the Bill sponsor's intention to seek continued adherence to the 2018 claimant eligibility criteria, and, if that is the case, is there a need for that to be explicitly stated in the Bill? Could a failure to specify claimant eligibility in the Bill enable DAERA to utilise more or less restrictive criteria than those utilised in the 2018 regulations? That could adversely impact on the number of farmers who might be eligible — it could be a positive thing or a bad thing.

I will turn to the scale and value of payments. Nathan's paper will deal with this in more detail, but I will give you an abridged version. A key issue is the uncertainty around the overall cost of reintroducing the scheme. The only real benchmark that we have is the 2018 scheme, which cost approximately £8·8 million. That cost was met through co-financing, which I referenced previously, with 27% — £2·37 million — being national funding and the remaining 73% — £6·42 million — coming from the EU. DAERA data also reveals that there were approximately 8,000 beneficiaries of ANC support in the final year of the scheme in 2018. If payments were reinstated today and uprated for inflation, the total cost could rise to around £12 million to £13 million per year, depending on the price index used. It also needs to be restated that, unlike the EU ANC scheme, there appears to be no potential for EU co-financing, so costs would potentially need to be fully met locally.

Two important challenges arise from that. First, the Bill requires payments to be linked to an annual price index, but it does not specify which index should be used. That could potentially create variability in costs and could allow flexibility but also uncertainty in how payments are calculated. Part of the challenge is due to the fact that there are a number of price indices utilised and recognised by the Office for National Statistics. Consumer prices indices technical guidance, which I have cited in the paper, lists a number of indices, and I have set that out for you in the paper. There is the consumer prices index, including owner-occupier housing costs; the consumer prices index; the retail prices index; and the household costs indices.

As set out in section 2.2 of the paper, the proposed annual increase in ANC payments by at least the percentage increase in the prices index for that year would make any new ANC scheme unique in agricultural support at this time. If you want to look at the differential impacts for the different indexes that I referenced, table 11 sets out data that we have used with an adjustment — uplift data — under each of the various indices. That shows you how there could be variation on both an individual payment per hectare rate and in overall payment, or the overall value of the scheme.

In light of that, it is unclear whether DAERA can afford that level of spending under the existing sustainable agriculture programme budget, especially given wider financial pressures. The Department of Finance's draft multi-annual Budget confirms the specific ring-fenced commitment to the tune of £332·5 million for agriculture, agri-environment, fisheries and rural development up until the end of 2029, and that is a positive given the pressures that other Departments are under.

However, at the time of writing, we do not know the complete and specific breakdown of the allocation to each of the constituent support areas in the sustainable agriculture programme. Additionally, and as highlighted previously, the issue is particularly pertinent in relation to specific support for the sheep sector, which is a highly significant sector in the previously designated ANC. However, we do not know what the value of the programme will be and what impact it will have on the overall budget.

It should be noted that DAERA, along with all the other Departments, is facing considerable pressure. The 2025-26 Executive Budget document included the following assessment of the outcome for DAERA:

There are a few questions. Would DAERA be able to afford a reintroduced ANC scheme under the SAP? If DAERA was compelled to run and fund a renewed ANC scheme, how would it specifically fund such a scheme? Would or could additional moneys be found, or would it be funded by making reductions to other sustainable agriculture programme supports? When will DAERA be in a position to detail the full financial support allocations under the sustainable agriculture programme? We are told that there will be a specific sheep support scheme forthcoming. When will the details, including the specific funding support available and the associated costs, be announced? There is one question for the Bill sponsor: is it his intention that a reintroduced ANC payment would continue to be degressive in nature, in line with the 2018 regulations and as required by article 31 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013? Is there a need for the Bill to prescribe a specific prices index for the calculation of any potential ANC payment in order to bring surety for DAERA and potential beneficiaries alike? Building on that issue, which specific price index should be utilised? Finally, is it sustainable for any reintroduced ANC scheme to be subject to annual increases in value whilst other agriculture support schemes' budgets remain static?

I turn now to section 7.7, which is about the Bill's interaction with other support. A key issue is that the Bill provides no detail on whether farmers receiving ANC payments would also be eligible for other support under the sustainable agriculture programme. That is important because farmers currently rely on a range of schemes, including the farm sustainability payment and other sector-specific supports, including those for the beef sector. The absence of detail raises two key uncertainties. First, it is unclear what the Bill sponsor intends: are ANC payments meant to complement existing schemes or act as a partial replacement? Secondly, if DAERA was required to implement the scheme, it is unclear whether it would choose to restrict access to other payments for ANC beneficiaries, as has been done in other programmes. There is recent precedent. The current Farming with Nature Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025, for example, showed that DAERA could limit support. Regulation 4(b) excluded farm businesses with an active environmental farming scheme agreement in place from benefiting from Farming with Nature transitional support between 2025 and 2027.

There are two questions here. First, what is the Bill sponsor's aspiration or intention for ANC support beneficiaries in terms of accessing additional sustainable agriculture programme supports, and would being an ANC support beneficiary result in restricted access to other supports? Secondly, what would DAERA's aspiration or intention be if it had to introduce an ANC support scheme, and would it seek to limit access for ANC support beneficiaries to other support schemes?

Section 7.8 deals with the lack of detail on regulation content. A key issue with the Bill is that it provides very limited detail on what the future regulations will contain. Whilst the Bill requires DAERA to introduce ANC payments, it specifies only a small number of elements, such as maintaining at least 2018 payment levels and linking payments to a price index. Beyond that, most of the scheme design is left undefined. That means that the Bill is essentially an enabling framework, giving DAERA broad discretion to decide who qualifies, what land is eligible and how payments are structured. Whilst that flexibility may be beneficial, it creates risks. DAERA could introduce restrictive eligibility criteria or limit access to schemes in ways not anticipated by the Bill sponsor. For example, a failure to specify that being an ANC beneficiary would not restrict access to other sources of support under the sustainable agriculture programme could theoretically enable DAERA to discourage or limit access to any ANC scheme that it brought forward. There is also little clarity about whether the regulations would include conditions seen in previous schemes, such as environmental requirements or penalties.

Three key questions arise from that. Would there be merit in providing further detail in clause 1 of the Bill about the requirements for ANC eligibility and stipulating the inclusion of the same in the regulations that DAERA will bring forward? Could that also potentially include conditions for environmental improvement? That issue featured at Second Stage. Could such detail include similar data to that set out in table 12 of the paper and as it relates to claimant and land eligibility and the active farmer references? What would the regulations that DAERA would be required to bring forward contain in relation to areas such as offences and penalties? Is it the Bill sponsor's intent that the provisions would be the same as those found in the Areas of Natural Constraint Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2018?

Section 7.9 deals with Assembly approval. The Bill does not explicitly identify the form of Assembly approval that the regulations that DAERA would be required to bring forward upon the Bill receiving Royal Assent would be subject to. It should, however, be noted that the Bill is being brought forward under provisions under part 1 of schedule 6 to the Agriculture Act 2020. Paragraph 2(3) of part 1 of schedule 6 to that Act makes it clear that regulations under that paragraph are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Based on that information, would there be value in confirming and restating in the text of the Bill that any new ANC payments regulations made under the auspices of the Bill, then Act, would indeed be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure?

Section 7.10 deals with the need for additional regulations, and it relates to an issue that was raised by the Minister at the Bill's Second Stage. A key concern is whether the Bill on its own will be sufficient to enable ANC payments to be made in practice. The AERA Minister indicated that additional regulations may be required to restore or replicate the powers that will be needed before any ANC payment regulations can take effect. The issue seems to relate to the fact that the power to make payments under an ANC scheme was originally provided for by articles 48 and 49 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, which set the rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the common agricultural policy. As part of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU process, EU regulation 1307/2013 was incorporated into UK domestic law by the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, which applied across the UK. However, articles 48 and 49 of EU regulation 1307/2013 were omitted from UK statute by the adoption of the Rules for Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020, which applies across the UK.

The key question is whether DAERA definitely needs to bring forward additional regulations to restore the powers omitted by the Rules for Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020 as they relate to ANC payments? Would a failure to do so mean that any ANC payment requirements emerging from the Bill could not happen? Should the requirement for additional specific regulations to be made to restore powers be proven, should that be added to the Bill? If additional regulations were required to do so, how long would it take DAERA to develop them and to bring them forward for Assembly approval? What would be the costs of developing additional regulations if they were required? Could any such regulation development process run in tandem with the specific development of ANC regulations, or would it need to precede or come after such a process?

Section 7.11 is about the open-ended nature of the Bill and review. The Bill as introduced does not specify whether ANC payments are intended to be temporary or ongoing. While it may be assumed that the intention is to establish a long-term commitment, that is not explicitly stated in the legislation. As a result, DAERA could technically meet the Bill's requirements by introducing a single, time-limited set of regulations. In addition, the Bill contains no requirement for a review of the Act or the regulations that would be made under it, which means that there would be no formal mechanism to assess whether the scheme remains effective, affordable or aligned with wider agricultural policy over time.

A few key questions arise from that. What is the Bill sponsor's stance on the proposed support scheme payments? Are they advocating an open-ended commitment to such a scheme? If the Bill sponsor intends an open-ended commitment, does that need to be incorporated into the wording in the Bill? If the requirement for review was added to the Bill's provisions, what would be an appropriate review period, and would that be an ongoing commitment?

My final point relates to regulatory impact assessment. There is no requirement for Members to conduct a regulatory impact assessment as part of the Member's Bill process. That means that the Bill sponsor has met the requirements as set out in the handbook for Members' Bills in this mandate. I commend the Bill sponsor for including a rudimentary assessment of equality impacts and human rights issues at paragraphs 25 and 26 of the explanatory and financial memorandum despite there not being a requirement. However, is there merit in exploring whether the Bill sponsor gave more detailed consideration to any potential equality or rural impacts during the Bill's development? Part of the challenge is that potential impacts could possibly be easier to assess through scrutiny of the specific details around how ANC support would be targeted in the resulting regulations.

I have four questions to finish. Did the Bill sponsor conduct any more detailed equality or rural impact assessments as part of the Bill's development, and, if so, what conclusions were drawn? If no formal regulatory impact assessment components were completed to date, should or will any potential regulations resulting from the Bill becoming an Act be subject to detailed consideration by DAERA? Would any regulatory impact assessment completed by DAERA consider the impacts on farmers and farmland that did not meet potential ANC eligibility requirements? Will DAERA be in a position to complete any required regulatory impact assessment work prior to the introduction of the regulations within the required 12 months after the Bill's provisions commence?

It is clear that the Bill as introduced seeks to address what appears to be a gap in agricultural support policy since 2018, and it has strong backing from stakeholders. However, there are questions around affordability, policy design and detail, implementation, long-term sustainability and interaction with other farm supports. While the Bill sets a clear direction, its effectiveness will, ultimately, depend heavily on the detail of the regulations that follow.

I am happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you very much. I appreciate that work. For full disclosure for anybody who is watching, Declan declared an interest in that he is the private Member who was referred to in much of that briefing.

Mark, in your briefing, you covered the fact that there are other schemes. You may not be aware that the Minister is developing the Farming with Nature Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026. The Committee has already been curious about that and posed a question about its possible effect on areas of natural constraint. You were perhaps alluding not to that specifically but to those types of events. In your analysis of the Republic and of Scotland in particular — in England and Wales, there is universal provision of support for farmers and there are no specifics — what have they done there? I believe that Scotland's is to be reviewed in 2026.

Mr Allen: It is, yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Have there been any derogation carve-outs or in what way do the multiplicity of schemes have an impact in those areas for similar areas of natural constraint?

Mr Allen: In Scotland, the investment is significant at £65 million a year. Quite a bit of work has been done through the farmers' unions in GB, with specific reference — more so to Wales and England — to the fact that marginal land and agriculture in the uplands face considerable challenges. That work in those jurisdictions is being done almost to lobby for specific support. To date, that has not happened, but, from what I have read, the mood in Scotland is similar. It is quite hard to get the full detail of what the impacts are, but the debate is definitely live as to why, in many people's eyes, that needs to continue.

The other thing to think about the LFASS is that it is not just uplands; it is highlands and islands. Particularly in the Scottish example, in the island economies, it is not just marginal land; it is incredibly isolated. Budgetary pressures may well have an impact, but there is maybe more willingness in Scotland to continue that type of support model given the reliance on it by crofters and others.

In Ireland, the commitment is there. It is significant and is really just continuity of the ANC scheme.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Does the ANC scheme provision exclude people from any other payment or support? That is my point.

Mr Allen: Not that I can see. Effectively, if you go back to our old schemes, you could be a beneficiary of multiple supports. It is partly due to the architecture as well. As members who were here at that time will know, we had pillar 1 and pillar 2. Effectively, the ANC scheme and its predecessor were rural development supports under pillar 2, so a farmer could avail themselves of support under pillar 1 and pillar 2. There were some questions over a number of years about land eligibility and whether you could claim from multiple schemes for the same land parcel. In broad terms, you were not excluded from availing yourself of a menu of support.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Something that jumped out at me when I read the report was the "degressivity", if I am saying that correctly. Obviously, that was part of the scheme previously.

Mr Allen: It was.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): The high-level figure is completely different. In Scotland, it looks as though it is 10,000 hectares before it kicks in, and I think that it was 200 hectares here. I get that there is a bit of topography and geography involved.

Mr Allen: There can be issues in that regard. I referred specifically to the EU regulation because it is the foundation of the provision. Degressivity is built in; it has to happen. What that means for a programme is a question for Declan. As you said, the figure that we have is from 2018. Will that continue to be valid? Will it be moved up or down? What impact would a lower threshold or a higher threshold have on the overall budget? Those are questions that the Department will have to grapple with as and when it is required to make regulations.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I remind members that we are with Mark today. My mind is going to Declan. We will get a chance to quiz him in the future.

The other one that popped out to me —

Mr McCrossan: Do it today.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): — it is captured in the report as well — is the stocking levels and how those are managed and mitigated. I imagine that there is an upper threshold. That is one of the reasons why it exists, by the way. I get that there are constraints with the topography, the geography and the land, and, obviously, the scheme has to have its own regulatory aspects, too.

Mr Allen: Yes. It could be fair or unfair. I asked in the briefing whether the Bill could be more explicit about the regulations that it wishes to follow. If it is broadly in line with the 2018 ones, those include provisions. It is about not just being an active farmer but how you farm and the level of stocking that you have to hold. At Second Stage, a number of Members, including the Minister, made reference to looking for additional criteria in relation to, for example, environmental impact or benefit. Those are questions almost for the regulation, but, at this point, even though it is a Bill, they merit further consideration of what they might mean, because that has a significant bearing on eligibility and, as a result — if there is a greater or smaller number of people eligible — the budget.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): The paper states:

and

Have you come across any rationale to explain why the AERA Minister does not wish to include ANC payments?

Mr Allen: Minister Muir and his predecessor Minister Poots — there is also a former Minister on the Committee — cited value for money and budgetary challenges as the major reasons. As I said, the 2016 and 2018 schemes had to go ahead under ministerial direction. Minister Muir has been consistent in saying that the financial pressure is what alarms him.

There is a wider question: if a farmer were able to avail themselves of sheep support and beef support in unison, would those replace what, effectively, would have been an ANC scheme? That is a question above my pay grade, but it is part of the debate about the appropriate model of support. Tied to that is the question that I emphasised: if you were a recipient of ANC support, would that exclude you from either sheep support or beef support, or could DAERA decide to do that?

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): The sheep task force has been quite explicit since its inception about the lack of a support scheme specifically for sheep.

Mr Allen: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. Thank you very much for that.

Declan, do you have any questions for Mark? [Laughter.]

Mr McAleer: I welcome this. This is the benefit of Committee: this type of scrutiny has thrown up all those questions that will help me, along with my researcher and policy people, to address some of those, Mark, as we move through the Committee Stage and then to the Consideration Stage.

I had always said that England did not have it, but I note in your paper that England does have a moorland grazing support scheme. What shape does that take, Mark?

Mr Allen: Off the top of my head, Declan, I cannot remember. I looked at it before. It is part of their overall package, but, effectively, you can get a payment per hectarage if you have met specific criteria for upland or moorland. I can come back to you on that with more detail; but, yes, it is there. I cannot remember the term; I am trying to find it in the paper. It is part of the environmental schemes that they have. It is the sustainable farming incentive. You can almost put together a menu or a package of measures that you want to apply for under that. That includes specific ones where you can secure a payment if you have land that qualifies. Moderate livestock grazing on moorland is £20 per hectare for 3 years; and low livestock grazing on moorland is £53 per hectare for 3 years. The £20 one, particularly, is coming back into the territory where our previous ANC scheme was.

Mr McAleer: Leaving aside the terminology, to all intents and purposes, Scotland, the South of Ireland and England have some sort of a scheme to support farmers on marginal land, but the North does not.

Mr Allen: At this point, yes. The English one is more nuanced in the sense that it is not a dedicated —.

Mr McAleer: Is it area based?

Mr Allen: It is area based, and you can have those measures within it. As I said, in Wales and England, there is considerable debate around whether the existing supports for uplands and marginal land are sufficient.

Mr McAleer: In broad terms, my objective was always to attempt to move our farmers on to some sort of an equal footing — a level playing field — with farmers in other parts of Ireland and, indeed, parts of the UK. By not having that type of support, that is not the case.

Mr Allen: As you said, the most directly comparable are Scotland and down South. The South's has just continued, and Scotland's is really the legacy scheme from ANC.

Mr McAleer: That is great. Thanks, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): No problem. Thank you very much, Declan.

Members, do you have any questions for Mark?

Mr McCrossan: We will get into it.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We have a comprehensive paper here. There is a lot of detail in it. John, do you have any questions for Mark?

Mr Blair: Not at this point.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): It is a detailed paper. I am sure that it will form a significant part of our deliberations. We reserve the right to haul you back here, Mark — I mean, invite you back.

Mr McAleer: I want to thank Mark for the paper. It is really detailed. I have printed it out. It will be covered in thumb marks and bits and pieces over the course of the next while.

Mr Allen: Thank you for that. As I said, Nathan is open and can talk more on some of the specifics around finance, but thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We really do appreciate it.

I seek the Committee's agreement that we will write to Declan. Declan has indicated that he has printed it out. We will write to Declan and request answers to the queries that have been raised and highlighted. We would like that by next week, Declan. [Laughter.]

That would be a challenge, even for someone with a large team of people.

Are members content with that approach?

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you.

Mr McAleer: Thank you, Chair.

Mr McCrossan: he speaks to the Finance Minister. No pressure, Declan.

Mr Allen: Thank you, Chair.

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