Chair of the agri-food strategy board (AFSB) Tony O’Neill was in a straight-talking mood last week when he addressed MLAs on the Stormont Agriculture Committee.

During a 90-minute session, civil servants, politicians and inefficient farmers all found themselves in the firing line of the Dunbia deputy chief.

The major British supermarkets were also not immune to some criticism, with O’Neill suggesting that neither processors nor farmers are currently getting a fair price for what they produce.

“The truth of the matter is that supermarkets are getting a margin – they always get a margin. The truth of the matter is that customers are not paying enough. The cost of food has got to go up,” he told MLAs.

He maintained that, over the years, the support mechanism put in place for farmers (CAP subsidies) has gradually been eaten up by the supermarkets, to the point where the system doesn’t support farmers, it just supports low food prices.

“Fundamentally, it has to change. It is changing, but just changing very slowly. Supermarkets are now realising they have gone too far, but they have to find a way back,” he said.

While the cost of food needs to be realigned, O’Neill also emphasised that farmers must strive to be more competitive, applying higher standards so they have a point of difference. Competition comes not just from foreign imports, but from Scots, Welsh and English producers, he said.

He repeated his assertion from a few years ago that NI only needs 5,000 to 6,000 highly productive and efficient farmers, while the remaining 20,000 should be supported to look after the environment.

Dismissive

O’Neill was also dismissive of the guarantees coming from the British government that subsidy payments will continue to 2020, even if the UK leaves the EU before then. “The Treasury didn’t give us anything. They need to underpin subsidies for 10 years, so we can manage our way through (Brexit),” he said.

His fear is that the collective energy of the agri-food industry is spent over the next 10 years trying to come to terms with the UK exit from the EU.

Over the same period, that energy could have been spent building and growing the industry.

When challenged by DUP politicians on the committee that he should focus on the positives from Brexit, O’Neill accepted that there are opportunities if tariff barriers make food imports into the UK more expensive.

However, he pointed out that the UK only eats 60% of a chicken – and even less of a beef animal or lamb. The industry is therefore heavily dependent on finding markets that eat all the component parts (such as fifth quarter). “That is where the value really comes in. It is critical that we have markets for those products,” said O’Neill.

However, while the agri-food industry wants government to do trade deals, it could also turn into a negative. In particular, the easiest starting point is probably Commonwealth countries, such as Australia or New Zealand, which could mean more cheap lamb and dairy products heading in our direction.

“Brexit has more implications for agri-food than any other sector in our economy. It is extremely important we understand the risks and do all we can to mitigate them,” said O’Neill.

When asked about industry lobbying of UK government to date, O’Neill said they are being heard, but isn’t so sure that they are being understood. “Will it get to the negotiating table? Time will tell,” he said.