Debate contribution: Upland Sheep Farmers: Support
Debate contribution by Mr Patsy McGlone on .
- MLA
- Mr Patsy McGlone
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 25 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Upland Sheep Farmers: Support
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4674689
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the opportunity to highlight the need to support and safeguard the future viability of sheep farming in the North. Sheep farming is an integral and important part of our agricultural economy, and it contributes around 4% of total agricultural output. In 2023, the sheep industry contributed £109 million to the Northern Irish economy. It provides a wide range of goods and services while playing a hugely important part in sustaining many of our rural communities. Upland sheep farming in particular plays a vital role in less-favoured areas. It is often the only viable type of farming available on land that is not suitable for growing crops or raising cattle. It provides essential income and employment in those rural communities. As with other agriculture sectors, sheep farming faces the problems of an ageing workforce. In order to safeguard its future viability, it must be an attractive career option with pathways for new entrants and farm succession. Despite the sector's importance, there was a lack of specific measures to support sheep farmers in the future agricultural policy for the North that was developed under the previous Minister. The Ulster Farmers' Union has expressed its concern that sheep farmers now face losing 17% from the basic payment scheme. It is concerned that funding for maedi-visna control measures has been withdrawn and that there is no more funding for the sheep scab scheme. In January 2023, the sheep industry task force published a report identifying the sheep sector's needs and made proposals to encourage its development. I believe that the Minister and his officials met the task force to discuss the report, and I am sure that the Minister will respond to that. The Minister has indicated that he is keen to understand the sector's needs and will consider adopting proposals to meet them. However, that was in the context of ring-fenced farm support funding provided by the British Government. That would have been challenging enough; however, since Brexit, the annual funding for agriculture has been capped at approximately £330 million. To maintain its real value, the overall funding for agriculture should have increased to £389 million by now. That is a real-term cut in funding of around £60 million this year alone. Following the British Government's autumn Budget, the situation has changed again. The new rules for inheritance tax on agricultural land pose a risk and, indeed, a big worry for many who are thinking of farm succession. Instead of managing our ring-fenced fund for agriculture, the Minister will now be faced with the dilemma of negotiating with his Executive colleagues for a share of the block grant. As I have said before and as, I expect, the Minister will repeat today, it was within the power of the Executive to ring-fence funding for agriculture locally. They could, if they wish, put additional funding within that ring fence to provide for the proposals brought forward by the sheep industry task force. If Members are serious in their concern —.
Thank you very much, and I thank the Member for his intervention. I get entirely what he says about loads of take-note debates but little rubber hitting the road when it comes to Executive action. That is exactly the point. In that regard, if we are serious about that and seriously want to help farmers, Members and parties in the Chamber can do so. They can negotiate. The Minister can negotiate on our behalf. He has committed to doing that, and parties can call on their colleagues in the Executive to support the Minister's bid to ring-fence funding for agriculture locally. They should also lobby those colleagues to support the provision of any additional funding required for the proposals brought forward by the sheep industry task force. That is when we will see the colour of the money.
636 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | 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 | 0.72 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.27 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| 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.