Debate contribution: Upland Sheep Farmers: Support

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .

MLA
Mr Timothy Gaston
Party at the time
Traditional Unionist Voice
Date
25 November 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Upland Sheep Farmers: Support
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4675133

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I support the amendment in the names of Miss McIlveen, Mr Irwin and Mr Buchanan, and I thank them for tabling it. Although sheep farming is a significant part of our agriculture industry, it is very much the poor relation, as the incomes of sheep farmers are among the lowest in the sector. That underscores the need for a sheep support scheme. We already have a beef support scheme, the beef carbon reduction scheme and a separate cow scheme. Those contribute to environmental enhancements to the direct payment. There is, however, no scheme for sheep farmers. That is a failure on the part of the Department. It has had a task force recommendation since early last year. What has it done on the matter? Perhaps the Minister, in his response, will tell us. In the Republic, a sheep support scheme pays up to €20 a head. That is not available in Northern Ireland. However, courtesy of the Windsor framework and the protocol, we have a situation in which Northern Ireland farmers are subject to the same rules and regulations but none of the benefits. Members should not forget that, when it comes to agri-food, most debates that happen in this place will amount to nothing more than hot air. Why? It is because the laws concerning farming in Northern Ireland are not made in this place; they are made in a foreign Parliament to which we elect no one. We have a situation in which, in more than 300 areas of law, the laws are foreign-imposed, colony-like, on Northern Ireland. The laws concerning the whole agri-food industry are made not here but in Brussels. We have a looming crisis because we are subject to the European veterinary regime. From 2025, veterinary medicines produced in Great Britain will not be permitted to enter Northern Ireland. Up to 50% of our medicines will be excluded from Northern Ireland. Movements of livestock from Great Britain to Northern Ireland are subject to every EU law. That results in quarantine periods of six months for those wanting to bring in livestock and 30 days for the host farm from which it comes. That is particularly an issue when it comes to sheep farming, which requires farmers to constantly improve the genetic line. They need to bring in new rams, but bringing in one from Scotland or Wales, which are our traditional sources, is now nearly impossible because of those quarantine rules. MLAs from all parties should recognise that, when their constituents come to them about farming issues, they should be honest with them and tell them that, in many instances, we cannot make the changes that are necessary here because those powers have been surrendered to Brussels, where none of us has any say. That is a constitutional obscenity. It also has profound practical ramifications that need to be faced up to when we discuss matters like those that are in the motion.

488 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

  • Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.14 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
  • None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
  • Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.92).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
  • Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
  • The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.07No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.04No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.11No
Controversy escalation0.09No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.92Yes
Overall judgement0.14At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.97
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.03
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.93
No identity-related subject0.07
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:40 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