Debate contribution: Farming Families: Autumn Budget 2024

Debate contribution by Mr Patsy McGlone on 19 November 2024.

MLA

Mr Patsy McGlone

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

19 November 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Farming Families: Autumn Budget 2024

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4666377

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the proposer of the motion and welcome the opportunity to highlight the failure of the British Government to prioritise farming families and the rural economy in the autumn Budget. The introduction of new thresholds for inheritance tax and the change to agricultural property relief will have a significant impact on farmers here. We heard that last night — any of us who were there heard it loud and clear — but we also heard the emotion, given the attachment of generations to the farmland and what the change could do and the instability that it could create. The raw emotion, and the fear for the future of many people who have had that land handed down to them through the generations, was palpable in the room last night. The Minister has stated that it is likely that around one third of all Northern Irish farmers will be brought within the scope of inheritance tax as a result of those changes. In the dairy sector, that number could be as high as 75%. We have some of the highest-value agricultural land on these islands, which will amplify the impact. I know that the Minister has challenged the UK Government on the changes, but, unless that challenge is successful, there is a genuine risk to succession planning on farms. I want to make this point, and I made it last night. Governments are entitled to do what they do, but the UK Government have to look at the bigger picture: the food security issue at a time when there is world instability. With world instability — God forbid it goes a stage further to even greater chaos on the world stage — one of the first things that is affected is food. We have some of the highest-quality food produce, which feeds 10 million people. Why do anything that is going to undermine that, jeopardise it and leave it insecure at a time when there is enough insecurity on the world stage? That is a major political issue for the UK Government when they consider this factor.

Yes, sure.

Absolutely. I take your point entirely. I would think that some of the new Labour MPs who have been elected to serve rural constituencies will be getting that message. Back to my original point: this is certainly not the time to make this change. A time of uncertainty is not the time for the UK Government to create further uncertainty in the rural economy and food production. They need to seriously reflect on that issue. I welcome the timely launch of the Farming for the Generations pilot scheme, which is targeting up to 60 farm families. The scheme has the potential to support farm families through planning for succession and to help ensure the long-term sustainability of farms. According to DAERA statistics, the average age of farmers in the North is 59; 36% of managers of family farms in the North are over the age of 65; and only 8% of such managers are under the age of 40. Succession planning will clearly play an important role in sustaining family farms. That is crucial to what we have been hearing about today.

Financial support for farming has been the subject of a number of recent debates, and we have heard it mentioned today. Had our amendment been selected, we would, once again, have highlighted how the actions of successive British Governments, in capping the level of agricultural support in 2020 and, now, removing the ring-fencing of that support, are a direct result of Brexit, which the DUP campaigned for. That is a reality.

Indeed, as a result of Brexit, funding for agriculture has suffered real-terms cuts. The annual funding for agriculture by the UK Government has been capped at approximately £330 million since 2020, £300 million of which is for direct payments to farmers. To maintain its real value, the overall funding should have increased to £389 million by the end of 2024, so there has been a cut of around £60 million this year alone. From next year, agriculture funding will be included in the block grant. Funding that had been ring-fenced and guaranteed will now be part of the annual negotiations between the Executive parties. Funding to support farmers will now be competing with Health, Infrastructure and Education, which, almost inevitably, will lead to cuts in the support that farmers and farming families receive. The UK Government may have removed the ring-fencing of direct payments for farmers, but there is nothing to prevent the Executive from putting that ring-fencing back in place. As the Minister recently told the Assembly:

"it is within the power of the Executive to earmark funding for agriculture, agrienvironment, rural development and fisheries locally." — [Official Report (Hansard), 12 November 2024, p 64, col 1].

The Executive also have the power to uplift the level of that funding in line with inflation on an annual basis. They could guarantee that funding over a number of years and restore the certainty that farmers need. That is the message that I hope the motion's sponsors and all those who have spoken in the debate will take to their party colleagues in the Executive.

866 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification