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
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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.11 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.14 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.03 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.93 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
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.