Debate contribution: Women in Agriculture
Debate contribution by Mr Patsy McGlone on .
- MLA
- Mr Patsy McGlone
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 11 March 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Women in Agriculture
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4855665
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Gabhaim buíochas leis na Comhaltaí a mhol an rún.
Agriculture is one of our most crucial industries. It contributes to our economy, our rural communities and, of course, our food security. I concur entirely with the motion's sentiments, particularly that the under-representation of women is a major concern, despite their playing a pivotal role in the sector and in many farmhouses throughout the North and further afield. Important efforts have been made to address gender imbalances, and I encourage more women to become involved in the sector. Notably, organisations such as the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU), with its Women in Agriculture programme, have hosted important events, seminars and networking opportunities to empower women in the sector. We commend their efforts to challenge stereotypes and to encourage more women to consider farming as a viable career path. However, despite those efforts, the issue persists. Women in agriculture face too many barriers that can limit their involvement and success in the sector. As we know, the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs published its 'Breaking the Grass Ceiling' report in March 2022. It identified key challenges, including our traditional view of agriculture. We know that traditional views see agriculture as a male-dominated industry, but, as the report recommended, those views need to be challenged. Likewise, access to land and finance needs to be increased. I listened carefully to the speech on the Alliance Party's amendment, but I am not sure at this stage that loans are high on the list in some farmhouses, especially now that they face the challenges of inheritance tax. However, we support the amendment because it crosses many fields. Indeed, the innovative work that is being done at CAFRE and some of the work that is being done in the further education (FE) colleges has to be considered and factored into any policies going forward. As has been established, agricultural land is typically passed through male lines, and women sometimes have less access to inheritance or ownership rights. Furthermore, obtaining financial support from banks or funding bodies can be much more difficult for women, particularly if they lack experience in certain areas. Similarly, there are limited leadership opportunities for women. The top positions in agricultural businesses or organisations are frequently dominated by men, with a number of notable exceptions. Crucially, women are also under-represented in key agricultural organisations and policymaking bodies. That perpetuates problems, leading to policy bias, inequality and the reinforcement of gender stereotypes. It also reduces political engagement and trust. Such situations ultimately slow progress and prevent more comprehensive and well-rounded solutions that benefit the sector and society. Furthermore, agriculture is, without doubt, a demanding profession, often requiring long hours and a heavy physical workload. That can make it difficult for anyone to achieve a healthy work-life balance but can be particularly problematic for women, especially, as previously mentioned, those who are primary caregivers, when trying to balance work and family responsibilities. Additionally, we need to ensure that women in agriculture have the same access to training and education opportunities to enable them to develop skills that could enhance a farm management or agri-business or make it more effective and efficient. Historically, agricultural training programmes have been tailored to men, and that needs to change. To assist, we need to ensure that there are adequate mentorship opportunities for women. Feedback that my colleagues and I have received from stakeholders highlighted a lack of networking opportunities to meet other farmers or industry leaders. Women's contributions to farming are all too often underappreciated or, indeed, overlooked, especially if they are not considered as primary farm managers. As we have heard, the barriers to the full participation of women in agriculture are multifaceted and require urgent action. The under-representation of women in agriculture not only affects their rights and interests but undermines the development of more inclusive, effective and efficient policies and practices. The imbalance limits the sector's potential for growth, innovation and diversification. I fully endorse the recommendation of the Committee's March 2022 "Breaking the Grass Ceiling" report, and I support the motion and, indeed, the amendment.
680 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: 0.03 (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 (0.88).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.19 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.83 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.17 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:15 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.