Debate contribution: Food Security

Debate contribution by Miss Michelle McIlveen on 1 December 2025.

MLA

Miss Michelle McIlveen

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

1 December 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Food Security

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5269548

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Food security is not an optional extra for Northern Ireland; it is a fundamental responsibility to ensure that the people who live here and the millions in the rest of the UK who depend on what we produce have access to safe, affordable and high-quality food. However, national food reserves are low, with some suggesting that they could be as low as six days. There is no buffer for shocks, given our reliance on imported food. Northern Ireland feeds around 10 million people, which equates to around 25% of the UK's food production. That is remarkable for a region of its size. While we can be proud of that, it is something that we must protect. It depends on the health of our farms, the strength of our supply chains and the ability of our agri-food businesses to compete on a level playing field. At present, all those face very serious challenges. The Ernst and Young (EY) report, 'Food for thought', spells out clearly why the agri-food sector matters. It generates £4·9 billion in gross value added, and it supports 113,000 jobs. The Northern Ireland economy is three times more reliant on food and drink than the UK average, with 77% of everything that we produce being sold outside Northern Ireland. It is the backbone of Northern Ireland's economy: it sustains rural communities, drives exports and supports our ports, logistics sector, manufacturing base and hospitality industry. When something is that important, every sinew should be strained to allow it to grow, yet food producers find themselves battling red tape, getting conflicting planning advice and guidance and seeing a lack of joined-up thinking between Departments. Sadly, a lot of that rests at the feet of the Department. We hear time and again from poultry farmers who are stuck in planning limbo. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) gives one assessment and Shared Environmental Services (SES) gives another: nobody seems to be accountable for the delays. Those farmers are ready to invest and to improve their environmental performance, but they are blocked by a system that cannot provide clarity. We have raised issues with that system in the Chamber on several occasions, yet we are no further forward. That is neither sustainable nor fair, and it is certainly not consistent with the Programme for Government's commitment to supporting sustainable growth. The Minister needs to bring forward clear guidance on ammonia controls in planning: not aspirational statements or theoretical models, but clear, practical guidance that will allow investment to proceed, which is better for the environment. That is entirely achievable but long overdue. It is important to acknowledge the strengths that already exist in our agri-food industry. Take, for example, the internationally recognised Food Fortress scheme developed with Queen's University. That scheme increased testing for high-risk contaminants by over 500% at no extra cost to industry. It has helped to secure new markets in Southeast Asia and shows what can be achieved when government and industry work together rather than against each other. However, innovation can take us only so far when our trading relationship within the UK is undermined. The Windsor framework and the continued application of EU law in Northern Ireland create serious obstacles to food security and business confidence. The DUP will always support practical arrangements that genuinely ease trade, but it is clear that the framework has not solved the problems that businesses are living with day-to-day. The UK Government claim that the new sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement with the EU has restored trust. If that is the case, why are "Not for EU" labels still due to be imposed on products moving within the United Kingdom? Why should taxpayers here keep footing the bill for trader support that would not be needed if we had unfettered access to our own internal market? Most concerning of all is the threat to veterinary medicines. From January 2026, when the grace period expires, anywhere between 10% and 40% of veterinary medicines currently supplied to Northern Ireland could be discontinued because Great Britain suppliers simply cannot justify the cost of meeting EU rules for such a small market. That affects farmers, feed manufacturers, pet owners, vets, processors and, in fact, everyone who depends on the health and welfare of animals. It has been suggested that the Government have decided to simply wait and see how serious the situation becomes before acting. That is not acceptable when animal health, food safety and public confidence are at stake, particularly when it is blindingly obvious how dire the situation will be. We need only consider feed producers who produce medicated feed for the pig sector on advice from vets. Those businesses will need to be informed of what veterinary medicines are available or what alternatives they should use. The absence of action is an abdication of responsibility. Certainty is needed now, and there need to be assurances that Northern Ireland will not be left at the bottom of the priority list for access to essential medicines. We also need the Government to take a genuinely radical approach to resolving the structural problems in the framework rather than tinkering around the edges. A further area of growing concern is the new EU deforestation regulation. The new due diligence requirements will impact on about 20% of the raw materials imported by the Northern Ireland Grain Trade Association, but there is no clarity on how Northern Ireland will be affected if Great Britain chooses not to align. It is not a stretch to presume that that could result in shortages that, in turn, would cause costs to rise for feed companies and, ultimately, consumers. Those are real risks for an industry that is already working on tight margins. What, if any, tangible steps has the Minister taken to press the UK Government on that? What mitigations has he sought to minimise the risk of disruption for inputs moving between GB and NI if the rest of the UK does not follow suit? Waiting to see what happens is not an option: the Minister needs to be ahead of that instead of reacting to it. The DUP fully supports the need to protect our environment, reduce emissions and encourage sustainable practices, but climate policy must be realistic, evidence-based and fair. The interim targets that were set last December were not realistic, costed or accompanied by the policies that would be required to deliver them. The net cost of carbon budgets up to 2037 is almost £479 million, and the estimated cost to meet the 2040 target is around £707 million. Those are enormous sums that will, ultimately, fall on businesses, farmers and consumers. As the DUP has pointed out, the Minister's nutrients action programme (NAP) proposals would have resulted in significant reductions in livestock numbers. That would have devastated the agri-food sector and undermined food security. The result would have been offshoring our emissions to countries with much lower welfare and environmental standards. Not only would that not protect the planet but it would damage our economy and hand an advantage to our competitors. A genuine just transition recognises that farmers manage 78% of Northern Ireland's land area, deliver high-quality, sustainable produce and have a vested interest in caring for the land. Where is the investment in advisory services? Far too often, farmers face complex schemes and regulations, with very little one-to-one support. The Department would be better spending money on providing expert guidance to those who actually manage the land rather than creating new climate bodies or consultancy groups. There is no shame in the Minister revisiting the interim 2030 and 2040 targets. It would be an act of honesty and responsibility. We see that in jurisdictions around the world where pragmatism is favoured over hubris. For obvious reasons, we will not support the Sinn Féin amendment. It fails to recognise the problems that the Windsor framework causes and, therefore, fails to seek to address those problems. It fails to recognise the damage that will be caused by strict adherence to unrealistic targets rather than revisiting them, as is happening in other jurisdictions. It does not address what our agri-food sector needs. Northern Ireland's agri-food sector is one of our greatest assets, and it should be cherished and protected. It is productive, innovative, resilient and respected globally, but it is also vulnerable. If we want to retain food security, the obstacles that prevent growth need to be removed, the lack of clarity on ammonia controls in planning needs to be addressed and the looming crisis in veterinary medicine and the regulatory divergence created by the Windsor framework all need to be addressed. However, we must also adopt realistic climate targets that protect the environment and the farms and businesses that feed us. Food security is not delivered by overburdening the very people who provide the food, and sustainability is not delivered by driving production elsewhere. Economic growth is not delivered by allowing bureaucracy, whether it is from London, Brussels or our own agencies, to choke off investment. Food security is an issue not just for DAERA; there must be an Executive-wide approach, and the Minister must, as a priority, establish formalised discussions with the Department for the Economy on the development of a food strategy that places food security at its heart. The motion recognises those realities and identifies the steps that are to be taken. It sends a message that the Assembly values our farmers, processors and the tens of thousands of families whose livelihoods depend on the agri-food sector.

1,594 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:06 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