Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): I invite the Bill sponsor, Declan, to the table to take some questions. First, we will pass over to the Committee Clerk for a résumé of the questions that were asked. Thanks, Declan.

The Committee Clerk: The Committee, in its closed session, discussed all the Bill's clauses and their subsections. The Chair summarised in some good detail the key points of evidence that were received on the Bill and potential amendments to it.

Clause 1(1) is on the very specific setting of areas with natural constraints (ANC). There were some wider discussions, but that subsection is definitive in saying that the Department must exercise the power that it already has. There were some conversations that went a bit wider regarding a potential sheep support scheme and how that might impact on any future ANC payment scheme, but it was discussed that, should the Bill pass, the way in which both schemes are set up will really be up to the Department. There were also some discussions about considering environmental links, and it was agreed that that would be discussed more when we get to clause 1(3).

The Committee discussed clause 1(2). The Examiner of Statutory Rules (ESR) has raised a technical query, which we understand the Bill sponsor has taken up with the Department. We can return to that, Declan, once I have finished this run-through. Thank you.

Clause 1(3) is about the regulations. Again, the ESR has raised a comment that Declan can pick up on when I have finished this overview. There was a further discussion regarding the potential link to environmental outcomes in the Bill, as those now generally apply to a lot of the farming support schemes. We were discussing how the best place to look at that is clause 1(3); however, the Bill Office highlighted the fact that the regulations must include the payment rate. The door is completely left open, however, for the Department to add other aspects to those regulations, including, potentially, an environmental link, connection or outcome, which are in many of the other farm support schemes. The regulations will be draft affirmative, so they will come back through the Committee and the Assembly. At some point, the Committee will need to discuss and decide whether it wishes to see those in the Bill. The 2018 regulations are substantial, as highlighted, so the Department is likely to look back to draw on them.

The fact that the Bill proposes a funding stream with an inflation-linked payment was discussed. That would, therefore, be the only scheme with that inflation-linked payment, so, in real terms, if the scheme went up with an inflation-linked payment and other farm support schemes were not receiving that uplift, it could be difficult. However, the Committee can look at that as a potential amendment. We also discussed that when Declan picked up on the rationale for that being in his Bill.

For clause 1(4), the Bill sponsor stated that he used the 2018 scheme as a starting point for the Bill. There was some discussion about what the Department had raised with us, which was the lack of an ANC definition in the Bill. The Bill states that the definition is the same as that in the Agriculture Act 2020. However, there is no specific definition in that Act either, so a complete definition of ANC may not be needed, as previous schemes have operated without it.

That is a quick summary of what we discussed. Perhaps members want to bring up their individual points, or Declan may want to pick up on some of those things now.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): I will start with the Bill sponsor. You may want to make a few outline statements, and if members have any comments, you can come in on points that they raise.

Mr Declan McAleer (Northern Ireland Assembly): Thank you, Chair, for giving me the opportunity to come before the Committee. I commend Glenda, Janice and others for doing a lot of work on the Committee report. The work has been hard and time-consuming, so I thank them for that.

Do you want me to touch only on all the issues that you raised, Chair?

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Yes.

Mr McAleer: I noted from the evidence coming in that there has been strong support — there is 97% support — for an ANC scheme. I tried to make the Bill as straightforward as possible within the confines that the Speaker set out for a private Member's Bill. I left it straightforward to say that, basically, the Department must set out those powers under Part 1 of the Agriculture Act 2020 and set out a rate of payment no less than what was in the 2018 scheme, which was the last ANC scheme that was in operation here. The precise details of inserting environmental outcomes would be in the regulations that would flow from the Bill. The only stipulation is that the regulations would be made 12 months after Royal Assent. It is important to point out that the regulations are subject to the draft affirmative procedure, so they will be thrashed out in the Committee and Assembly, but, as I said, I tried to leave the Bill as straightforward as possible to enable passage within this mandate.

As for the other issues that were mentioned, the only stipulation that I have is that the rate of payment would be no less than that of 2018. John mentioned an environmental outcome clause. That can certainly be put into the regulations, and, if you feel that it is not strong enough, perhaps we can look at that as a Committee or as individuals and bring it forward as an amendment to the Bill.

Clause 1(3) makes the payment rates index-linked. That came about from my pre-consultation and consultation with the sector. We had a lot of consultation. In fact, because I had started the ANC scheme in a previous mandate and time ran out on me, I have had two very substantive consultations. The dominant theme that I have picked up from farmers in those areas is not only that the natural constraints — the climate, the soil, all the biophysical criteria, the long winters and all that — add to the cost and make it more challenging to farm those areas but that there are also rising costs of inputs. Fuel and fertiliser costs are rising, which is why I inserted an index-linked clause. However, I accept what has been raised, namely, that that would be the only scheme that would be index-linked and that, over time, it could start cutting into other aspects of the Department's funding. Perhaps that could be looked at, and maybe we could look at an amendment to that and a review further down the line. Indeed, through the regulations, the Department would have the time and ability to allocate additional funding to the scheme should that be required in the future, but the legislation will say that payments will be no less generous than those under the 2018 scheme.

I touched on the environmental outcomes, which can certainly be looked at, and I touched on them with the Department. The 12 months were mentioned. The majority of respondents said that they felt that 12 months was a reasonable time for the Department to bring forward the regulations. However, I have been engaging with the Department on that, and it felt that 12 months would be a challenge for bringing forward the regulations following Royal Assent. It suggested a longer period, because it would require additional time to get its IT system in place. The system was linked to the old regime, so it could take a bit of time to get the system up to date.

Areas with natural constraints are what people in the farming community would formerly have known as the severely disadvantaged areas (SDA). Previously, the scheme applied to what were known as less favoured areas (LFA), and LFAs covered severely disadvantaged and disadvantaged areas. However, there was a redefinition — I think that it was in 2014 or 2015 — of ANC. I used that definition, going back to the 2018 scheme as the most recent in operation here. I have used that as a starting point for both the area as defined, because it covers the most severely disadvantaged areas, and the payment rate.

That is a very quick run-through of most of the issues that have been raised. Do you have any questions?

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you very much. Members, is there anything that you want to discuss with Declan? Is there anything else that remains to be discussed? No. Everyone is content.

Thank you, Declan, for giving us that overview and the explanations. We will return to the Bill next week.

Mr McAleer: Thank you.