Debate contribution: Farming Families: Autumn Budget 2024

Debate contribution by Ms Diana Armstrong on .

MLA
Ms Diana Armstrong
Party at the time
Ulster Unionist Party
Date
19 November 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Farming Families: Autumn Budget 2024
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4666407

Read the official Assembly record

Text

At the outset, I declare an interest in this and the previous motion, as I am a farming family member. I support the motion and thank the proposer for bringing it to the House. The debate follows the Ulster Farmers' Union rally last night at the Eikon centre. As has been referenced, over 6,000 farm family members attended that event. It was a phenomenal show of strength in protest at the unfair and unjust plans of the Labour Government to impose new thresholds for inheritance tax and agricultural property relief on farms. You had only to look to see how many young people attended that rally, young people whose future is being threatened by this punishing tax. We need to do all that we can to value their commitment to farming and protect their livelihoods. The situation facing farm families is intolerable. Farmers have already had to navigate new environmental regulations; digital record-keeping; increased regulatory inspections; TB; bird flu; and EU regulations on the movement of animals. Last year, the average farm income dropped by as much as 44%. The new tax on inheritance is the greatest threat to succession farming that we will ever know. The Labour Government, with their ill-thought-out policy, will wipe out the next generation of food producers in this country, threaten food security and desecrate the land. Without the next generation of farmers, there will be no food. Farmers are looking into a bleak future, and we must collectively do all in our power to reverse the policy. The uncertainty is, as others have said, taking its toll not only on farm livelihoods but on farmers' mental health. If the Labour Government are genuine in their calculations that the policy will affect only large farming estates, they should raise the threshold in Northern Ireland to higher than £1 million to reflect the smaller scale of farming in the Province. As others have stated, farmers are asset-rich but cash-poor. Many farms with an average of 80 to 100 acres will easily reach the £1 million inheritance tax threshold due to land prices, machinery and buildings on farms. To protect the average farming family in this country, we need to see the threshold raised. As others have mentioned, the mean age of farmers in Northern Ireland is 59, with 36% of managers aged over 65, so, really, this is coming down the tracks. We have a major problem with succession planning. Despite recent DAERA initiatives, namely the Farming for the Generations pilot scheme delivered by Rural Support, which I welcome, farmers are still not able to grasp succession planning. On the one hand, not having had to face inheritance tax in the past, farmers saw no urgency to plan for farm handover; on the other hand, they were encouraged to expand and borrow from banks in order to meet that expansion. Now with the Chancellor's Budget announcement introducing changes to inheritance tax and agricultural property relief, it is ironic that the expansion of herds and flocks will push many small farms over the £1 million threshold when they already struggle to meet repayments and investment, leaving an impossible burden on successors. The Chancellor's decision will decimate food production in Northern Ireland. I say it again: no farmers, no food. There is a route to a just and fair policy. The Chancellor must raise the threshold and ring-fence farm funding. The Minister of Agriculture needs to work with the Finance Minister to introduce increased inflation-proofed multi-annual support for the agriculture sector. That would be critical to Northern Ireland's economy. Without it, food production will be at serious risk. Therefore, I support the call for the Agriculture Minister, along with his Executive colleagues, to urgently press the UK Government to reverse the policy and introduce a Budget that ensures long-term, ring-fenced and increased financial support for our farmers and the wider agriculture sector. I thank the proposers of the motion, which I support.

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

Assessment

Not qualifying

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: 0.05 (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 (0.93).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.07No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.04No
Controversy escalation0.04No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.93Yes
Overall judgement0.05At or below not-qualifying threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.47
Another identity-related subject0.33
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.13
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.05
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.01

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.

Challenge this classification