Debate contribution: Farming Families: Autumn Budget 2024
Debate contribution by Mr Declan McAleer on .
- MLA
- Mr Declan McAleer
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 19 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Farming Families: Autumn Budget 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4666373
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I too welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. It addresses a matter of critical importance for our farming families, rural communities and the wider agriculture sector. The Assembly and, indeed, our party condemn the British Government's recent autumn Budget for neglecting the pressing needs of our rural economy and failing to support the very families who put food on our tables and keep our countryside thriving. The debate is timely, following the meeting in the Eikon centre last night, which, as Robbie Butler reminded us countless times, is in the Lagan Valley constituency. It was an absolutely phenomenal meeting, and we heard some harrowing personal stories from farmers who are going to be impacted on by the changes. I commend the UFU for organising the event. It is in Westminster today, meeting the Secretary of State and other leading political figures and taking the fight over there. I also commend the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society (RUAS) for making the premises available. The decisions in the Budget reveal a deep disconnect from the realities that farmers face. The new thresholds that are proposed for inheritance tax strike at the heart of family farming. These measures jeopardise succession planning, making it harder for families to pass down their farm to the next generation. Farming is more than a business; it is a way of life. It is a tradition that has been rooted in our communities for generations. These tax burdens may force families to sell land in order to pay this unfair family farm tax, which will eat away at the fabric of our rural life. In addition to threatening succession, these policies stifle investment in farming businesses. Why would you invest in a farm if you were just going to pass on a huge tax burden to your children and the next generation? Modern agriculture demands continuous innovation, investment in technology, sustainable practices and great efficiencies. Farmers are already working to meet the challenges of climate change, food security and environmental responsibility, but, instead of supporting those efforts, the British Government have created an economic climate that makes progress harder to achieve. Farmers need certainty that their investments will secure not just their future but that of their children and grandchildren. The consequences of these decisions go far beyond individual farms. If families are forced to sell land or scale back operations, domestic food production will decline. In a world where global supply chains are increasingly unpredictable, undermining local food production is not just short-sighted but irresponsible. I think that Patsy McGlone touched on that in his contribution at last night's meeting. Food security depends on resilient, productive farms. Of course, this situation comes on top of the challenges created by Brexit, which stripped farmers of the stability provided by the EU common agricultural policy, and the British Government's failure to replace that support with adequate measures. Farmers now face rising costs and administrative burdens, without the certainty of stable funding. Equally alarming is the Government's refusal to ring-fence farm support budgets. Without that security, farmers cannot plan or invest in the sustainable practices that are needed to address climate challenges. Rising costs for fuel, feed and labour are pushing many to the brink. Expecting farmers to do more with less will bring greater personal financial strain and is deeply unfair and unsustainable. If farm businesses falter, the economic fallout will ripple across the North and beyond. Agriculture is the backbone of the rural economy and supports thousands of jobs and industries. Undermining it will drive up food prices and hit hard-working families and the most vulnerable in society. We need policies that protect farm succession and encourage young people to enter farming and which ensure that sustainable, modern agricultural practices can thrive. Food security must be a priority and be built on the foundation of strong, stable support for our farming community. Our farmers are the custodians of the countryside, the producers of our food and the stewards of a way of life that enriches us all. The Assembly must give them the assurance that they are valued, that their contributions are understood and that their future is secure. Let us send a clear message that we stand firmly with our farmers against policies that threaten their livelihoods. The Assembly will support them today, tomorrow and for generations to come.
723 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.64 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.34 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:38 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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.