Debate contribution: Farming Families: Autumn Budget 2024
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew McMurray on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew McMurray
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 19 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Farming Families: Autumn Budget 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4666399
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Like others, I attended the event in the Eikon exhibition centre yesterday evening. I was glad that I did, because I was able to hear at first hand the concerns of Ulster's farmers. I thank the UFU for organising it and the DUP for tabling the motion. The farmers at that event were able to give context to how the issue affects them, so I will give context to my connection to the issue. My granda always told my mother that, if I had been called John, I would have inherited a farm somewhere between Claggan and Lough Veagh. I am far enough out not to have a pecuniary interest, but I wanted to declare an interest of sorts. I share the concerns about the impact that the new inheritance tax rules and the changes to farm support budgets will have on farming families in Northern Ireland. Farmers are the custodians of the countryside, and family farming is the cornerstone of the agriculture sector. The new tax rules are bad for farmers everywhere in the UK, but farmers in Northern Ireland will be particularly badly affected due to the comparatively high value of agricultural land. The Chancellor says that only one in four farms will be affected by the new rules, but DAERA estimates that the percentage in Northern Ireland will be higher, with one in three being a more realistic estimate across different types of farms. For dairy farms, the number could be as high as three in four. I am sure that many other MLAs have come across this as well: none of the farmers whom I have spoken to recognises the £17,000 average price per acre. It is more like £20,000 to £25,000, so these new tax rules will strain our rural economies to the point of breaking. Farmers play a key role as we transform into a greener and more environmentally friendly society. They take great pride in their role as custodians of the countryside. Older farmers have put in place nature-based measures that they will not see the benefit of but that will come to maturity for their children. Many are now aware that they will not be able to pass on their farm to allow those to mature. To farm in a sustainable way, first, you have to be farming. That is a quote from some of the people whom I have been speaking to. Farmers are not the sole reason for the environmental breakdown that we are seeing, but they are an integral part of the solution. As one farmer in my constituency put it, the best way to help farmers to be nature-friendly is for them to be profitable. If farms are profitable, farmers will feel comfortable and will invest in green measures. Precarity is the enemy of innovation and investment. It is frustrating that the UK Government have decided to create barriers for young farmers rather than supporting them to carry their family farms forward in a sustainable way. Ending ring-fenced funding for agriculture will only worsen the impact on our farmers. Farm assets are built up over generations and require big investments, with farms, land, buildings and machinery passed on through generations. The implementation of inheritance tax is simply punishing the hard work that has gone before. Yes, those assets are valuable, but only because they enable farmers to run a profitable farm. If assets have to be sold off to fund a tax bill, farmers will lose that ability. Inheritance tax will hinder investment and development in the industry. I know that Minister Muir agrees with me that this is a bad Budget for farmers, and he has written to the Chancellor, as have his Executive colleagues, outlining the concerns and urging her to reconsider the changes. The Minister is making the case to Executive colleagues for ring-fencing agriculture funding locally to ensure that we can continue to tackle the major environmental challenges that we face together while protecting rural economies and food security in Northern Ireland. I welcome all those efforts. Some of the impact of the new tax rules can be mitigated by succession planning, and I want to highlight the Minister's efforts to help farming families through DAERA's Farming for the Generations pilot scheme. Also, I echo the sentiments expressed by the UFU president yesterday evening in encouraging all those who are potentially affected to seek professional tax and legal advice on the matter. Yet the despondency and anger over this matter are and were palpable. As was said to me last night, we can disagree on any number of things, on many points of principle, but this inheritance tax is wrong and should not be implemented.
781 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: 0.03 (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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.86 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.09 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.03 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
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.