Debate contribution: Women in Agriculture

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .

MLA
Mr Robbie Butler
Party at the time
Ulster Unionist Party
Date
11 March 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Women in Agriculture
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4855685

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Many times, when we talk in the Chamber about agriculture, we recognise that farming is the backbone of our rural economy. Farming is absolutely massive and so important, yet half of the population who live rurally face systemic and cultural barriers to entering it and thriving in it. Women are significantly under-represented across agriculture, not due to a lack of skill, passion or determination but because the sector remains shaped by outdated structures and attitudes that favour male succession, male decision makers and male workforce norms. Multiple reports, including the 'Breaking the Grass Ceiling' legacy report from my Committee, have laid bare the obstacles: limited access to land; traditional inheritance practices; lack of financial support; exclusion from decision-making roles; and, as many Members have picked up on today, training opportunities that do not account for the realities that women face. The evidence is there — the need for change is undeniable — yet, unless we deliberately challenge and change the narrative in every room where the conversation happens, we will be doomed to rinse and repeat the failures. One of the most persistent cultural barriers is the outdated view of faming as purely heavy manual labour. Running a farm today, we know, involves far more than that: financial planning, regulatory compliance, environmental management and navigating layers of bureaucracy that are burdensome yet essential. Let us be clear: the financial pressures facing farm families have never been more severe. Women are already central to farm businesses, often taking on essential but undervalued roles while being excluded from areas such as farm leadership, decision-making and land ownership. The problems start much earlier, beyond the farm gate. Careers advice in schools has not been fit for purpose. I will speak about a leading female farmer, a woman whom I admire greatly. Lorraine Killen is a leading voice in the sector. She spoke about the inheritance tax changes at the recent UFU conference at the Eikon Exhibition Centre. She recalled how, as a 16-year-old aspiring farmer, she was steered away from farming by her careers teacher, not because she lacked the ability but, perhaps, because she was a girl. How many talented young women have been pushed down a different path because of the same outdated thinking? If other sectors can recognise and remove structural barriers, why can we not do it in agriculture? I will give some personal experience. The Fire Service, in which I used to work, once assumed that you could succeed only with a certain physical reach or strength. Instead of continuing to exclude capable recruits, the Fire Service designed out those barriers: it adapted ladders, reduced equipment weight without sacrificing performance and mechanised tasks where possible. What was the result? A fairer, more inclusive service without any loss of efficiency. The same can and should happen in agriculture. It is time that we asked the Minister — as we are doing — to step into that space and implement real reforms that ensure that women are not just supporting farm businesses but leading them. Let us break the grass ceiling once and for all.

515 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: 0.06 (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 (0.91).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.96).
  • 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

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 framing0.29No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.03No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.07No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.91Yes
Overall judgement0.06At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.96
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.02
Adopts it0.02
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.92
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.08
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

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.

Challenge this classification