Debate contribution: Food Security

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on 1 December 2025.

MLA

Mr Robbie Butler

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

1 December 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Food Security

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5269576

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. I begin by acknowledging that the one thing that we will all agree on is that food security matters but that is where the similarities in the motion and the amendment end. In Northern Ireland, food security means more than a few lines on a page or a few words in a speech. Food security is our strategic asset. As was said, we feed around 10 million people across these islands, we sustain rural communities and our agri-food sector contributes around £5 billion in gross value added (GVA) to Northern Ireland's economy. When our farmers thrive, Northern Ireland thrives. I offer qualified support to the DUP motion. We will oppose the Sinn Féin amendment. The protection of our ability to produce our food, to invest in agriculture and to ensure that regulations enable rather than paralyse innovation is at the centre of our support. However, we must remain ambitious in our climate and environmental ambition, and pragmatism must prevail. Many of the challenges referenced in the motion, however, did not appear out of the blue, and nor were they created by the Windsor framework alone. As was picked out, they were and are the symptoms of a Brexit that was mis-sold; a Brexit that promised frictionless trade. It was a Brexit that insisted that there would be no borders on this island; nonetheless, there is one in the Irish Sea. It was a Brexit that was presented as cost-free for farmers, processors, the rural supply chain and industry. That Brexit never existed. Now, however, my ears have to listen to those who champion an internal regulatory border as if it was some kind of benefit to Northern Ireland. I am sorry but that stretches credibility beyond breaking point. The Windsor framework should never have been seen or sold as a prize. It was offered by some as damage limitation, constructed perhaps because of political dishonesty that left Northern Ireland without any alternative. It was sold as avoiding a hard border on the island. However, we ended up with one in the sea. The framework brought challenges, and we should acknowledge that, but to suggest that it was created in a vacuum or that we would have been better off is false, because there was always going to be some form of arrangement. However, we have to deal in facts and not fantasies. The reality is that our farmers face uncertainty over veterinary medicines from 2026, planning paralysis caused by years of unclear ammonia guidance, the prospect of more not fewer regulatory requirements from the UK and the EU and a global market that is becoming more competitive, more volatile and more influenced by climate risk. That is one that retailers and consumers are demanding action on. Those issues require clear, grown-up policymaking, not slogans, not wishful thinking and not pretending that rolling back on commitments alone will create progress. We should remain ambitious on emissions targets, but we have to tackle that with realism and fairness and by being pragmatic. Northern Ireland has committed itself to some of the most stretching emissions targets anywhere on these islands, but targets alone do not deliver progress. It is the approach that matters. I suggest that the approach to achieving those targets is where the failings have been evidenced so far.

We see that being realised elsewhere, because new approaches and revised targets are not just within our purview here.

Just this year, the EU has signalled a more pragmatic approach to regionally significant sectors as it negotiates its own climate framework, and Scotland, faced with its ambitious but unrealistic pathway, adjusted its interim targets in recognition of the fact that progress must be fair, deliverable and rooted in evidence, not aspiration alone. That is not abandoning climate action; it is aligning ambition with reality. It is about ensuring that we do not force cuts in local production only to replace them with higher-carbon imports from elsewhere, and it is about protecting food security whilst moving forward. We must remain ambitious — absolutely — but we must also adopt a balanced, regionally appropriate path that recognises the unique structure of our agriculture sector and its essential role in feeding millions. I will finish with this: our agri-food sector does not sit in isolation. Regardless of the top-line figure, with the rural economy, whether it is about rural shops, engineering or schools, the whole economy is tied —

— to our food security.

748 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