Debate contribution: Budget 2024-25
Debate contribution by Mr Declan McAleer on .
- MLA
- Mr Declan McAleer
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 28 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Budget 2024-25
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4492297
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I speak in my capacity as Sinn Féin spokesperson for agriculture, and I welcome the opportunity to make some points on the Budget. It is welcome that the Finance Minister has secured a Budget that was agreed by the majority of the Executive parties. That will bring some clarity and stability to our public services and allow Departments to plan ahead. The agreed Executive Budget is a very welcome step given that, over the past two years, the Budget was decided by the Tory Government without our consent. DAERA has responsibility for food, farming, climate change, environmental matters, fisheries, forestry, sustainability policy and rural affairs. The overarching aim of the Department is to put sustainability at the heart of a living, working, active landscape that is valued by everyone. We strongly believe that it is important that DAERA commits to working in partnership with rural people to create a sustainable rural community where people want to live, work and be active. Whilst I welcome the total funding allocation for DAERA, I want to highlight the detrimental effects of Brexit on agriculture and rural communities. The Tory Government created and delivered austerity and Brexit. The EU common agricultural policy — we are not suggesting that it was absolutely perfect — at least gave certainty to farming communities and provided a seven-year multi-annual budget so that they could plan ahead. However, Brexit has delivered a huge cut to rural funding, not only to agriculture but to the rural development programme. We had a ring-fenced budget for rural funding that ended in December 2023. Rural communities must not be ignored. They face many challenges, and we are seeing the consequences of the Tory Government's overlooking rural votes, with their seats up for grabs at the next general election, if the polls are to be believed. Our rural communities need investment and support from government policy that is cross-departmental. The success of rural communities is central to our future. Rural dwellers should have equality of opportunity. All Departments have a responsibility for issues that affect rural areas, and we all must be mindful of our statutory obligations under the Rural Needs Act, which was passed in this House. While most of the budget is ring-fenced for farm support payments — I welcome the fact, which I heard from DAERA officials, that the farm budget is £332·5 million for 2024-25 — the key thing is that there is no clarity beyond 2024-25. Without certainty beyond that date, how are farmers supposed to run their businesses and make plans? Farmers highlighted the problem that the prices that they get for their produce do not cover the cost of production. Budget certainty is critical. As one farmer said to us at the Balmoral show a couple of weeks ago, food does not come from the local supermarket; it just sells it. Food comes from farms, and that is a really important point to make. Sinn Féin wants farm support and a rural development programme to continue as part of a multi-year, ring-fenced Budget. It is always worth remembering that when we were in the EU, the single farm payment and most of the rural development programme came as a separate ring-fenced budget from our block grant. When we exited the EU, we were promised by the UK Government that that lost funding would be replaced. We have not seen the colour of that money, and that has had a serious impact on our rural communities. Another issue of major financial concern is the TB programme. Officials highlighted to the Committee its increasing cost: TB compensation was £38 million in 2022-23, which was up from £19·5 million in 2019-2020, and the overall programme costs in the region of £50 million. If we can get to grips with that disease, it should free up money for other aspects of farming and rural communities. As we look to the future, we need the required fiscal levers and multi-year Budgets to enable long-term planning and proper investment in agriculture and rural communities. I support the motion and commend the Minister for her achievements on the interim fiscal framework and achieving her first Budget.
692 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.06 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.11 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.03 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.58 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.37 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:32 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.