Debate contribution: Food Security

Debate contribution by Mr Declan McAleer on 1 December 2025.

MLA

Mr Declan McAleer

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

1 December 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Food Security

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5269560

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of our amendment, which seeks to place clarity, balance and reality at the centre of our discussion on agriculture, food security, environmental sustainability and the future of our rural communities. It recognises not only the challenges but the enormous opportunities that lie ahead, should we choose to take them. The amendment begins by recognising environmentally sustainable practices, but it also sets out truths that can no longer be avoided. The first of those truths is:

"Brexit has had a significant destabilising impact on our agriculture and agri-food sector"

and, by extension, on our farmers, processors and the rural communities that rely on them. Our agri-food sector is one of the greatest economic success stories. It grew by 7% in 2018 alone, rising to over £5 billion in value. That figure makes it clear that agri-food is not just another part of our economy but a key catalyst for growth, manufacturing, logistics, hospitality, retail and exports.

The sector does not operate in isolation; it is part of a finely balanced all-island system with supply chains, processing networks and labour flows that simply cannot be separated by lines on a map.

The free-trade agreements struck by the British Government with third countries and often negotiated without sufficient regard for the specific structure of our agri-food market pose real risks. Cheaper imports from countries with lower environmental and welfare standards have the potential to undercut our farmers, particularly in their major market: Britain. That is not scaremongering; it is already happening. Our farmers are competing with products from across the world that are produced at lower cost and, often, to lower standards. The loss of labour has been even more pressing. For decades, our food-processing plants, mushroom farms, dairy operations and horticulture businesses were able to rely on a steady stream of EU workers. Post Brexit, that workforce has drastically reduced, and COVID-19 only intensified the problem. The problem of labour shortage is far more acute in the North. That is because, just a few miles away, in the South of Ireland, firms continue to enjoy full access to EU labour and can operate a general employment permit scheme for third-country nationals. It is against that backdrop that our amendment emphasises the all-island nature of the agri-food sector. That is not a political statement but a statement of economic and agricultural reality. Livestock do not recognise when a field is cross-border. Raw milk does not require customs paperwork as it moves from processing. Our agri-food systems operate seamlessly across the island. Animals and raw ingredients move freely across the island because that is how the industry was designed to operate.

Yes, I absolutely agree with you, Mr McGlone. One third of the milk that is produced by the industry in the North is exported across the border for further processing. If we did not have that seamless processing trade across the island, our dairy industry would collapse overnight. Recognising that reality does not undermine anyone's constitutional position; it simply means acknowledging how the sector works in practice. Our amendment makes it clear that the Windsor framework, whilst not perfect, provides a workable way of managing the new trading realities created by breakfast — Brexit.

It prevents the emergence of a hard border on this island, and it preserves dual market access for our produce. That dual access into the EU single market and the UK internal market is a competitive advantage that no other region in these islands enjoys. It is already opening doors for exporters, particularly in dairy and meat, and we should do everything that we can to maximise that opportunity. We must also acknowledge the serious concerns that exist, such as those among farmers about future access to veterinary medicines and the implementation of emerging regulatory requirements. At last week's AERA Committee, Committee members heard that the North of Ireland Veterinary Association has warned of serious pressures on the supply of veterinary medicines. Brexit has created significant uncertainty, and vets still have no official guidance on which products may be withdrawn, increasing the risk of shortages of essential treatments. Some supplies are now being routed through the South, which is helpful, but concerns remain about NI-only pack sizes becoming more expensive and hitting smaller farms hardest. We urgently need clear guidance on the veterinary medicine directive, proper communication from the British Government and a practical plan to avoid supply gaps. Importantly, we need to see continued constructive negotiations between the EU, the British Government and all stakeholders in order to secure a long-term, workable solution that protects animal health and our farming sector. Our amendment also places an emphasis on the path towards emissions reductions. Let us be clear: farmers understand the need to address climate change. They are very much part of the solution. New science, new technologies and new practices are emerging faster than ever. Our farmers are embracing soil testing, carbon surveys and a range of innovations that reduce emissions while improving efficiency. The North's farm support measures have been designed to encourage exactly that kind of progress. We must ensure that the transition is fair, evidence-based and consistent with the principle of just transition for agriculture. Absolutely central to that will be avoiding the kinds of blunt, damaging measures such as culls that would devastate family farms while doing little to address global emissions. Equally important is avoiding carbon leakage, where reducing local production results only in more imports, with higher emissions and lower welfare standards. That would be an environmental failure and an economic catastrophe. Food security is a priority. Insecurity in global supply chains, geopolitical instability and extreme weather have shown us that the ability to produce food locally is vital. Society needs farmers more today than ever, yet government policy, particularly at Westminster, has too often moved in the opposite direction. For example, the decision to remove agricultural property relief and business property relief will hit family farms the hardest. In the North of Ireland, where family farms dominate and land values are high, that will pose a serious threat. That is why our amendment supports the DUP's call for the Minister to bring in measures that will unlock greater on-farm investment and innovation. If we want farmers to meet environmental standards, improve productivity and maintain food production, they need certainty, support and the right tools. That includes providing long-overdue clarity on ammonia controls in the planning system. No farmer can be expected to invest in modern infrastructure if planning guidance is unclear, inconsistent or subject to sudden change. We need an approach that protects the environment while enabling farms to modernise, grow and become more efficient. That is fully consistent with the Executive's Programme for Government and is essential for the confidence of the sector. Our amendment acknowledges the challenges of Brexit, recognises the opportunities of the Windsor framework, defends the interests of farmers, promotes sustainability without sacrificing food security and calls for clear, practical action to support innovation and investment. I commend the amendment.

1,171 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