Debate contribution: Upland Sheep Farmers: Support

Debate contribution by Miss Michelle McIlveen on 25 November 2024.

MLA

Miss Michelle McIlveen

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

25 November 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Upland Sheep Farmers: Support

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4674668

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. While sheep farming contributes 4% of total agricultural output, it plays an important role in the Northern Ireland economy. In Northern Ireland, there are approximately two million sheep, which includes around 973,718 breeding ewes. According to the 2023 sheep census, around 38% of farmers in Northern Ireland have sheep, and the value of the sheep industry output was £106 million. Beyond that, sheep farming activity makes a significant contribution to the wider rural economy. It is estimated that the sector has one of the highest output multiplier effects in the Northern Ireland economy, turning £1 of primary output into £1.80 of output across the wider economy. The services that support the activity include scanning and shearing contractors and those involved in veterinary services, feed production, property maintenance, haulage, auctions, markets, and slaughtering and meat processing. In Northern Ireland, 38% of farmers have sheep. There are over 25,000 farm businesses in Northern Ireland, and sheep production is a significant contributor to over 9,800 of those businesses. As a result, a threat to the viability of sheep enterprise will have an effect on the sustainability of more than one third of farms in Northern Ireland. From a recent debate, we know, in general terms, about the reduction in the basic payment to farmers. Specifically, however, by 2025, sheep farmers will lose 17% of the basic payment scheme. That 17% will go to a £50 million fund for a protein scheme, a beef carbon reduction scheme and a cow suckler scheme. In order to regain that lost 17% of their basic payment scheme, sheep farmers will need to change their businesses to include cattle or protein crops. Sheep-specific support was not included in DAERA's future agricultural policy of 2022. That policy stated:

"No further proposals for support to incentivise productivity in breeding ewes are brought forward at this stage. However, work will be undertaken to explore options for support that will improve the overall performance and resilience of the sheep sector. This will include work to explore how the sheep sector could be incentivised to provide baseline performance data to inform future sector support measures and to engage in a future Ruminant Genetics Programme."

In response to questions raised by a number of Members, Minister Muir stated:

"My officials are currently working to better understand the strategic needs of this sector and I will consider deploying levers to meet those needs. It is too early in the policy development process to give any indication of what might be included in any sheep scheme moving forward."

The Minister also said:

"Any decision to introduce new policies or programmes will be in the context of budget availability within the ear-marked farm support funding envelope."

We fully endorse the recommendations of the Northern Ireland sheep industry task force earlier this year. In particular, we believe that proper consideration needs to be given to developing new programmes that pursue genetic improvement in sheep, increase capital investment and encourage effective land management. I appreciate that the Minister has indicated that he is exploring various levers in that regard, and I urge him to maintain regular engagement with the task force to that end. The Minister has the benefit of the task force, which has not only produced evidence-based recommendations but given a voice to the sector as a whole, which is something that was not available to previous Ministers. The task force has five key asks of the Minister: a sheep genetic improvement scheme; a sheep health and welfare scheme; a sustainable land management and biodiversity scheme; bespoke sheep capital investment measures; and a sheep research programme. Those asks are based on a number of findings that are set out in the task force publication, 'A vision for the development of the Northern Ireland sheep industry'. That document outlines the fall in the Northern Ireland breeding sheep population, as the previous Member to speak highlighted, by about 30% over the past 20 years. Structural change over the past 10 years has led to much smaller flocks. The task force also found that almost 60% of ewes were to be found in severely disadvantaged areas, such as uplands, where farming is more challenging but where sheep numbers have been better maintained. Only 55% of animals are slaughtered in Northern Ireland, and only 40% of production remains within the jurisdiction. That is a huge amount of work and production that could be retained in Northern Ireland. Some 6% of our wool deliveries contain damaged wool, whereas the figure for the UK as a whole is 4%. The wool is damaged as a result of it being delivered wet or containing contaminants. Suitable on-farm management could address that problem, but, again, that needs support, guidance and investment. Reducing the amount of damaged wool would improve farm output at minimal cost. Of significant concern is the poor quality of the fleeces compared with those produced by counterparts in GB. That quality could be improved by careful genetic selection. A genetic improvement scheme would increase the value of lambs produced for slaughter by around an additional £1 million if even half of them were produced using high genetic value rams. We can already see the importance of departmental intervention. It is disappointing that the Department was not able to identify any steps that could be taken. The creation of the task force and its contribution are extremely welcome and timely.

It is clear from what has been produced that there is a need to develop strategies that improve economic and environmental sustainability, but we recognise the need for there to be adequate centralised data. The data is lacking at farm level and at industry level, and that is something that needs to be addressed. Doing that will ensure that any future interventions are evidence-based, but it will also mean that such interventions can deliver maximum benefit. I also ask the Minister to reconsider any plans that he may have to stop testing for maedi-visna (MV), given the implications that the disease could have for the industry. Although the motion focuses on the steps that the AERA Minister can take to provide support to and protect the future of the sheep sector in Northern Ireland, there is a wider responsibility, which extends to the Westminster Government. We have already heard and debated the changes to agricultural property relief and employer's National Insurance contributions, which threaten the future sustainability of our farm businesses and undermine our food security. I said just last week that the Labour Government are now the existential threat to farm businesses. Although they may seek to deal with the multimillionaires who are trying to avoid inheritance tax, they are also sweeping away family farms. The Government are raising food prices so that the poor will get poorer, and they are hitting the working man in his pay packet via his shopping trolley. Like with many parts of the agriculture sector, the sheep farming workforce needs younger people to join it. For that to happen, however, sheep farming needs to be profitable and attractive. It needs innovation, investment and fair taxation. I pointed out in last week's debate that the Government seem to have abandoned food security as a strategic national aim, and that needs to be addressed. As I regularly point out, farm income has fallen by 47%, and that has been caused by rising input costs, such as inflation on energy, feed and workforce costs. On the horizon are the costs associated with the climate policies that the authors of the motion have endorsed. Those policies will affect all sheep farmers, whether in upland or lowland areas. The sheep sector needs support and investment, regardless of the area, and it is unfair and unacceptable to single out some areas over others. That is particularly true where the practical outworkings of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 will potentially lead to a reduction in land available for farming across Northern Ireland. Business income and profitability are broadly comparable for lowland and upland farms, yet farm businesses from disadvantaged and severely disadvantaged areas have received more financial support in recent years. For example, between 2018 and 2020, the environmental farming scheme (EFS) meant that only 705 out of 4,256 businesses were in receipt of support, and those were exclusively in lowland areas. Since the most recent reform of the common agricultural policy, the switch to a land-based payment has seen more funding under the basic payment scheme move from the lowlands to disadvantaged area and severely disadvantaged area land types. It is a scheme that the now First Minister introduced against official advice. She acted to extend those payments, but that could be done only temporarily, because the business case did not support a permanent change. Agriculture support measures should not be in the business of taking money from farmers whose incomes are going down to supplement farmers whose incomes are going up. Rather than further regressive area-based payments, we want to see programmes that focus on efficiency and resilience in order to support productive, profitable and sustainable farms. Finally, it is important that the Minister engage productively with the sheep industry task force to address the challenges being faced by the sector as a whole and to move the sector on to a more profitable and sustainable footing.

1,553 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