Debate contribution: Food Security

Debate contribution by Mr Keith Buchanan on 1 December 2025.

MLA: Mr Keith Buchanan
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 5269641

Text

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Northern Ireland's agri-food sector is the backbone of our economy. It deserves clarity, support and respect, which I have not heard much of in here today, to be honest. Let us back our farmers, protect food security and ensure that that world-leading industry continues to thrive. It is estimated that Northern Ireland feeds approximately 10 million people. Food production is not just a business; it is a strategic asset. Our farmers are world leaders in many innovations. It was noted in a briefing by Invest NI that 35% of the businesses in the Mid Ulster council area, which is in my constituency, are agriculture. Having worked in the food processing sector for 22 and a half years — I will not go into the number of days, minutes and seconds, because that would bore people — I have seen exactly what farmers and food processors do daily. The Minister needs to work alongside the DUP — the DUP has been referenced a lot today — to establish realistic and achievable climate change targets that safeguard the future of our agriculture industry while ensuring environmental protection. I deal weekly with farmers and landowners who are stuck between Shared Environmental Services and the planning legislation. They are stuck in the middle of that, and they are not getting clarity either way. If they had clarity, at least they would know where to go. I appreciate that the Minister has already made his comments. Farmers are stuck between SES and the NIEA. They need some clarity on where to go. Farmers are trying to improve their business, but, as they cannot get any direction from either organisation, they are stuck.
Yes, go ahead.
Thank you. It is good to hear that, Minister. It is important to put yourself in the shoes of those farmers, because they are pulling their hair out — what is left of it. Ambition is important, but ambition without realism risks undermining our economy and our environment. Rural communities and major infrastructure projects cannot be sacrificed to satisfy the overly ambitious and impractical climate agenda that risks undermining economic growth and the livelihood of farmers. What is needed is a balanced approach. I do not think that you will get any argument about that from the farming sector. There needs to be a balanced approach that promotes sustainability without imposing disproportionate burdens on the rural community. The planning logjam from ammonia controls, as has been touched on, is strangling investment, especially in poultry. Farmers are willing to adapt, but they cannot do that if the Minister and his agencies contradict one another, and we have already covered that. We all want sustainability, but it cannot prevent progress. Current climate targets would slash livestock numbers. Looming over all those issues are other external threats. A farmer today, who is trying to make a living at the side of the A5 or, indeed, the A32 and who has had part of his land taken, leaving it in devastation, also has to deal with TB; bird flu; planning issues; bluetongue; inheritance tax; the weather; costs; negative press, with people who do not even know what they are talking about; veterinary medicines; and world trade prices. I declare an interest; I have two brothers who are farmers. Why would you ever want to be a farmer when that is looming over you every single day? To be fair, there is only so much that we in here and the Minister can do; I appreciate that. However, as we have heard, the world trade price of milk will have another detrimental impact on farming. We therefore have to try to do what we can here not to make it difficult for farmers, who are willing to work with us, as we have heard before. We cannot rely on complex fixes. We must restore certainty, fairness and unfettered access across the UK internal market. Northern Ireland deserves nothing less. Those are not abstract risks; they hit animal welfare, food security and consumer costs. This is not just a transition; it is a direct attack on food security. I will briefly go through some Members' comments, if I may. Michelle McIlveen, who moved the motion, talked about Northern Ireland producing 25% of the UK's food, which is an awful lot for a place the size of Northern Ireland, and said that 77% of the food produced here is sold outside Northern Ireland. She also talked about the veterinary medicine issue, which a lot of Members covered. Declan McAleer said that the agriculture sector is a growing part of our economy. He talked about other cheaper imports at lower standards. If our production in Northern Ireland is reduced, where will the produce come from, not necessarily to feed Northern Ireland but to feed the UK mainland? Where will that produce come from, and what standard are you going to get? He voted for "breakfast", not Brexit. I am not sure what he voted for or did not vote for. I will leave that there. He also talked about veterinary medicines. Sian Mulholland talked about food banks and their impact. Robbie talked about planning paralysis — everyone covered that more broadly. He also talked about the emission targets. Patsy wanted investment to improve productivity. That is fair enough. He talked about blue-green algae and new farming practices, but he did not mention the impact of NI Water. The impact that NI Water is having on Lough Neagh is widely known in the Chamber, but maybe some Committees do not really understand the impact. Maybe they need to own up to that. He also talked about veterinary medicines and planning issues. David Honeyford talked about food and drink and said that we punch above our weight here. He also said that energy costs here reflect directly on to business costs. That is a fair enough point. John Blair touched on the just transition fund, veterinary medicines and the sewage discharges into Belfast lough, not all of which, to be fair, point to the agriculture sector. I sometimes question the 62/24/12 figures and where they have come from. I think that some of them have been dreamed up, but I do not want a response on that one. Modelled is one thing, but actual is another. John Blair also said that climate and agriculture are two sides of the same coin. I do not really know what that meant, but I wrote it down anyway. John, thank you for that.
Yes.
Thank you. Finally, the Minister touched on the fact that the agriculture sector is a strategic asset. He talked about the import of fruit and veg into Northern Ireland, and veterinary medicines — something on which he is working with DEFRA. We will see where that goes. Obviously, time is running out on that. To be fair, he provided a degree of clarity on SES and NIEA issue more broadly for planning. I will leave it at that.

1,165 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification