Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): I welcome the following Young Farmers' Clubs of Ulster (YFCU) representatives to the meeting: Kristina Fleming, YFCU president; Harry Chambers, YFCU area and committee chair; Daniel Sloane, YFCU committee vice chair; and Roberta Simmons, YFCU membership and development manager. It is good to see you this morning.

You have submitted a briefing paper. We ask you for a short briefing statement, and then we will open to questions.

Ms Kristina Fleming (Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster): Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. We were going to introduce ourselves, but you have done that for us, so that is perfect. Thank you.

I will give a bit of introduction. The Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster welcomes the opportunity to provide evidence to the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs on the Areas with Natural Constraints (Payments) Bill. The Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster supports the principle of providing targeted support to farmers operating in areas affected by natural constraints. Our primary concern is the long-term viability of farming businesses in those areas and what that means for the next generation of farmers. The Bill is therefore of particular interest to the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster because the future of farming in areas of natural constraint (ANC) is directly connected to farm succession, generational renewal and the ability of young people to establish sustainable farm businesses.

The Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster supports the principle behind the Bill of recognising the additional costs and income associated with farming in areas affected by natural constraints. Farmers operating in those areas can face structural disadvantages arising from factors that include poorer or less productive soils; difficult terrain and steep gradients; adverse weather conditions; shorter growing seasons and longer winters; higher production costs; and limited opportunities to change their enterprise or diversify in any way. Those constraints are fundamentally different from normal fluctuations in farm income. They are characteristics of the land itself and cannot necessarily be overcome by simply changing the farming system. The Young Farmers' Clubs of Ulster believes that a properly designed ANC scheme can help to address those structural disadvantages and contribute to maintaining viable agricultural businesses in areas where farming is more challenging.

I will hand over to my colleagues, who will give you a wee snippet each, if that is OK.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): We have the document in front of us, so, if you each provide a summary, we can have more time for you to give evidence and answer questions, if that is possible.

Ms Fleming: Yes, of course.

Mr Harry Chambers (Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster): In the interests of farm succession and family business decision-making, a young person taking over a farm needs to be confident that the business can generate sustainable income and meet the costs associated with machinery, livestock, buildings, land, borrowing and ongoing investments. Where a farm is subject to natural constraints, the successor cannot simply move the holding from one farm to another; they are more or less stuck with the ground that they have. It is impossible to move a hill farm to grade A arable land, for example, so you have to work with what you have. You cannot put heavy Holstein milk cows on hill ground; you have to work with significantly less income from the likes of hill sheep or circular farming, which does not provide the same income as dairy farming.

When it comes to environmental and rural value, so much income comes from hill farms into the local community, where so much help comes from farming families. Any future ANC scheme should be designed so that farmers are appropriately supported while contributing to positive environmental schemes.

I will hand over to Daniel to pick up from there.

Mr Daniel Sloane (Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster): I will say something about funding and scheme design. The Young Farmers' Clubs of Ulster recognises that the Bill raises important questions regarding future funding, eligibility and environmental requirements and how we go about implementing those. The YFCU's position is that we support the principle of restoring targeted ANC support to farmers who operate under genuine natural constraints. We believe, however, that such support must come from new and additional funding and should not be delivered through further reductions in or redistribution of existing direct support payments. Therefore, we believe that any future ANC support should be sustainably and additionally funded, recognising the particular challenges faced by farmers who operate in areas affected by natural constraints.

Turning to the question of eligibility, the YFCU supports the introduction of a minimum stocking requirement in order to ensure that ANC payments are targeted towards active farmers who are genuinely farming in ANC areas. The YFCU does not support the addition of further environmental measures that would be closely linked to the ANC support scheme.

In summary, on funding and scheme design, any funding should be additional, targeted, transparent, practical, predictable, multi-year — given sustainability and succession planning — proportionate and administratively workable. We have outlined a number of recommendations in the paper that you have in front of you, so I will not read them all out individually.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you very much for that outline.

You touched on farm inheritance and succession. What are the fundamental issues surrounding farm inheritance in areas with natural constraints? Have you noticed that succession is statistically worse in those areas?

Ms Roberta Simmons (Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster): We have five key messages that we want to deliver this morning. It is about viability, not simply another payment. Our concern is about whether ANC farms can remain viable businesses for the next generation. That is important because, if there is nothing to entice the next generation to come forward, the industry will go down. Natural constraints are structural; the disadvantage is attached to the land. As my colleagues said, farmers cannot necessarily overcome that by changing their enterprise or moving to different lands. They are stuck with what they have, so there has to be something there to support them. Succession matters. If a business cannot support the next farmer, succession becomes more difficult, so there needs to be something to support them.

The environment and farming can work together, and we support a proportionate environmental outcome alongside support for viable farm businesses. We want a sensible, sustainable scheme at the end of the day. We support a targeted, transparent and multi-year scheme, but it has to be value for money as well. In principle, we support it, if it is properly targeted, sustainably funded, environmentally credible and designed with the future of the next generation in mind. That is what we want.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you very much. If additional funding is not available for the ANC scheme, will you still support its introduction funded through a reallocation of existing funding and agricultural supports?

Ms Simmons: Our answer to that has to be no. Funding cannot be redistributed; it has to be a different pot of money.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): OK. Thank you.

Mr McAleer: Thanks very much for taking the time out of your day to come here. I am sure that you are busy with other things. We appreciate your taking time to be here.

One thing that, I think, Daniel mentioned was that the scheme needs to be administratively workable: are you thinking that, if it comes to pass, it should be part of the single application? Are you thinking along those lines?

Mr Sloane: It is really that we do not want the scheme to be a burden on the people who apply. We do not want it to be another process that they have to go through, so, yes, if it can become part of a process that is already there and does not take any more time to do, that would be good. We would not like to see the administration for it become a separate issue.

Mr McAleer: The previous ANC scheme, in 2018, had a minimum stocking requirement and a requirement to have breeding stock. It was connected to production. You seem to want the support to continue to be targeted towards people who are actively involved in productive agriculture.

Mr Sloane: We support the minimum stocking requirement for the scheme. It means that the funding will go to the people whom it will genuinely make a difference to and who will make the best use of the money.

Mr McAleer: I fully agree with that, because the figures for beef and lamb production in ANCs have fallen off a cliff in the past 10 years. There has been a 21% drop in beef production alone in the past 10 years.

We will move to the Bill's Consideration Stage once we have done the Committee report. If, when you go away and think through this again, you have any amendments or additions that, you think, would strengthen the Bill, they would be welcome.

The Bill is enabling legislation that requires the Assembly, in the new mandate, to develop regulations. Those regulations will also be subject to public consultation and agreement by the Assembly as to exactly what shape a new ANC scheme will take with regard to things such as stocking requirements, how the funding might be paid out and where the money might come from. I will not put you in the position of having to suggest amendments, but, if you think that the Bill could be improved in some way or there is something that you would like to see in the regulations that the Department will present to us to shape the Bill's implementation, if we are lucky enough to see it passed, as the Bill sponsor, I would be happy to hear your thinking.

Ms Fleming: Absolutely. We would very much welcome that; thank you. The average age of a farmer is 61, and we who are here are more senior members of our organisation, but this affects the members who are coming on in the organisation. They are the next generation and the people whom this will affect, because, in the farm succession, they will be taking on the farms. It will very much affect them. Our members are the people whom it affects, so our views are relevant, and we would love to feed into that.

Mr McAleer: Thank you again for coming here.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): I commend you for being here. You are the future of farming. You are doing great work, and the Committee recognises that. It is important to hear your voice, as we have heard the voices of other groups that have given evidence, so we appreciate that.

Mr Blair: I thank all of you for being here and for your submission. I will ask a question about your submission, but, before I do, I will set the scene. You will be aware that the Bill does not have an environmental component. Declan knows that I have been critical of that; we have had conversations about it, and I hope that there will be progress. There is in your submission what is almost a request not to include such a component. The backdrop to that is this: separate from whatever the relationships are in the room and whatever influences there are on politics through structures such as ours, there is massive public concern about rivers running into our lakes, such as Lough Neagh, and turning them green, with the decline of nature and the threat to natural species that that brings. Everyone knows the scale of the damage that is done in that regard by waste water infrastructure, agricultural run-off and other sector-related matters. With that stark backdrop, do you understand why I have a bit of a problem when I read words such as:

That makes stark reading for me. It suggests that there are already enough environmental schemes, that we do not want or need any more and that any new schemes that come forward should not include such measures. Do you understand that a considerable section of public opinion would have a problem with that?

Ms Simmons: We also have to take into consideration the fact that the run-offs and the other problems with Lough Neagh and whatever else are not solely down to agriculture.

Mr Blair: I did not say that they were.

Ms Simmons: Farmers are the custodians of the countryside. They do a lot behind the scenes, a lot of good work for the environment that probably goes unseen. We are not saying in our briefing that we do not care about the environment — we care about it very much, and we will carry that through — but the problems cannot be blamed solely on the agriculture sector or the industry.

Mr Blair: Whenever there is a conversation about the environment, we always end up talking about blame; I am trying to shape a conversation that is constructive and productive. I have not at any stage suggested that any sector is solely responsible for environmental damage. Hansard will clearly show that, as it has done on previous occasions.

The science shows that a significant proportion of the environmental damage can be attributed to agriculture. That is out there. I did not produce those figures; they were produced for my perusal and that of others. In talking about that backdrop, my question was this: do you understand that I see as pretty stark a submission that says that there should not be an environmental component to the scheme? Maybe it would have been better to put the question like that, but I wanted to build that backdrop, because I represent that section of the public.

Mr Sloane: We support the principle that farm viability and environmental outcomes should work together. That is the position of the Young Farmers' Clubs of Ulster. We understand that both things have to work together. We believe, however, that the ANC should not be coupled with environmental outcomes. We have schemes such as Farming with Nature that tackle those objectives, so this scheme should not come under that umbrella.

Mr Blair: OK.

Mr Sloane: That is our belief.

Mr Blair: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): It is worth noting, John, that a lot of schemes are under way that are being embraced by farmers. That work is moving forward, and it is hard to measure the outcomes of those schemes. The purpose of those schemes is to improve environmental outcomes. Farmers need to be given credit for embracing that.

Mr Blair: I do not dispute that, Chair. Some of the members who are here today were present at one of the Committee's meetings at the Balmoral show when I asked a question that was about bringing together all that environmental work and where I could see a summary of it. I think that I can quote verbatim the answer that I got, which was, "All the information's out there, but it's not written down anywhere". You can check the record on that. That meeting was not this year; it was last year. The senior team was in the room. I have tried to get that information, so that we can all know clearly where we are. I failed to do that not because the information does not exist but because it was not provided to us; it is as simple as that. Chair, I hope that you understand that I say this respectfully to all those who are here, reflecting on your comments: if the commentary is that there are already enough schemes and that we do not need any more, I will totally disagree with that at every opportunity.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): It is your right to do so, of course.

Miss McIlveen: Thank you very much for your presentation. I am content that your support for the Bill comes with caveats around the issue of finances and the fact that you do not support the "robbing Peter to pay Paul" environment that we are in with the Bill as it is. My question is therefore quite general. It is about the generational renewal piece and you. Is there anything additional that we could do to support the work that you do?

Ms Simmons: There are a lot of things. We do not want to see it as additional income, because, basically, it is a payment to recognise additional costs and income forgone from the natural constraints in an area. It is within the reach of Young Farmers' Clubs of Ulster to do all that it can to bring young people into the industry; to make it a worthwhile industry for them; to have structural renewal; and to have things such as the land mobility scheme that we had previously to bring younger people into the industry so that it will be here for years to come. As was mentioned, the average age of a farmer in Northern Ireland is 61: that is a startling fact. We need to look at that at government level.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): From what you hear from your young farmer members, what, would you say, is the reality of being a young farmer in an ANC? There are a lot of those areas in Fermanagh, where I am from.

Mr Chambers: The reality is that a lot of young farmers have to work other jobs, and their fathers are reluctant to pass farms on to them, because there is not the wage there for a young person to come home to farm. The likes of this payment would, perhaps, help that along. That is the reality of it. A lot of hill farmers are in that 60-plus age group. There are few younger farmers of my age on hill farms, because it is not viable for them. That is the way that I see it.

Ms Fleming: As Harry said, we find that a lot of our young farmers have second jobs or further part-time jobs or that they decide to diversify in some shape or form. There is not really the opportunity to do that in the case of hill farms. We do not have the statistics for this, but the likes of hill farmers probably find the fact that the farms are not being passed on pushes the average age up, whereas those who are not in those areas probably bring the age category down, because they pass on to the next generation, who can diversify in whatever way they see fit.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): What is the awareness of and support for biodiversity of plants and other species out there? Is that a real concern for young farmers in those areas? Are they aware of the importance of the balance of nature?

Mr Sloane: The membership across the organisation is very aware of that. We hold events to raise awareness. We see different land types across the world and bring that knowledge back to our membership. Harry and I are in the fortunate position of having been fit to travel to Canada in the summer, where we spent two weeks looking at regenerative farming practices. We are aware, therefore, of international practice and are able to bring that knowledge back to our membership, passing on what we have seen from an environmental point of view.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Members, are there any further questions?

Ms Finnegan: Thanks for coming along and giving us the briefing.

On the environmental impact, you will perhaps know that we had a conversation about that with the Department representatives a while ago, and I pressed them on the evaluation that was done by NISRA. It did an evaluation of the less-favoured area compensatory allowance (LFACA) scheme, the predecessor of the ANC scheme, and found it to have a positive environmental impact. Living in south Armagh, I know that those are mountainous areas and conservation areas. At certain times of the year, the ground can get dry and tindery, and it holds low stocking density as well. Even on that, it is not high-intensity, so how can it have a negative impact if it is not high-density? Surely, given the tinder-dry conditions of the ground, having livestock on it would have a positive environmental impact. Do you agree that that is the case, and have you considered that NISRA evaluation?

Ms Simmons: We would support sensible amendments that make the legislation workable. Yes, we understand what you say.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): That has been a really good —.

Mr T Buchanan: Chair, I have a brief question.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): OK, Tom.

Mr T Buchanan: Thank you for coming and giving us the view of the younger generation. Living in an area that would qualify under the ANC scheme, I know what the ground is like. It is heavy ground, and it is heathery and rocky. We know all the types of ground that fall into that, and we want to see the younger generation coming into the farming arena.

During your presentation, you said exactly the same thing as everyone else who has given evidence: you do not want to see the money being taken out of the ring-fenced budget to compensate this, and you want to see new money coming in. We have had the Department before us on a couple of occasions. We have questioned those representatives continually, and they have said that there is no new money and that, if this goes forward, it will affect existing schemes. You say that you cannot support that. Where do we go with this? The Department continually says that there is no new money for it and that, if the Bill goes forward, the money will have to come from elsewhere. In giving evidence, most people have said, "We do not support it if there is no new money for it". How do we go forward in a situation like that?

Mr Sloane: We are of the belief that it should be funded through new money. The existing funding has already been reduced, so, if you take that money and fund something else, that will take money away from other pots. We have been concerned about a situation in which the support will simply move from one group of farmers to another in the aim of trying to support hill farmers. We would prefer a more sustainable funding solution that recognises the public and agricultural value of maintaining viable farming communities in areas of natural constraint. We do not really know where the money comes from, so we cannot answer that question.

Mr T Buchanan: Some in here have said that it could come from the funding to tackle TB, if that is dealt with. However, if that issue is sorted, it will be at least 10 years down the line before you see much coming from that. There will be a gap. I fully understand the issue, but it is about knowing where the money will come from. When the Department representatives have been before us, they have been clear that there is no new money, and all the evidence has been, "We cannot support this if there is no new money". It leaves us in a difficult position.

Ms Simmons: We have to look at the bigger picture, because, if there is no new money and no support for the next generation, we will lose that next generation, whether those people go off to other countries or stay here and move to different jobs. The organisation that we represent has 3,500 members, and a good number of them are in the hill farming areas in County Antrim. We have to think of them and support them in whatever way we can.

Mr T Buchanan: thinking somewhere along the line.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): We will have a final quick question from the sponsor.

Mr McAleer: This is the Committee's last evidence session on the Bill, so I will chance my arm and say that we have saved the best until last.

I think that all parties agree that we do not want to take it out of the farm budget. If we blindly accept the Department saying that there is no new money, we should just stop asking for anything. I do not have a breakdown of the age profile of farmers in ANCs, but I know that, without subsidy, farmers in ANCs operate at a £17,000 loss and, with subsidy — the single farm payment — they operate, on average, at a £12,000 loss. Those farmers are at the beginning of the food chain. They are the backbone of the red meat sector in the North, but they are living and operating on the edge.

Thank you very much for coming along.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): There is one more question.

Miss McIlveen: It is not a question; it is a comment about what the member has just said. It is reckless to say that we should not accept the Department saying that there is no new money, given that the Bill sponsor's party holds the Finance Ministry. His final comment is concerning.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Among everyone who has concerns about ANC succession planning, there will be voices that will seek the funding from different streams, and there will be other opinions. That is a fight for another day.

It is good to have had this conversation. Thank you again for coming. It was important to hear from you.