Debate contribution: The Hops Certification (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024: Prayer of Annulment
Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .
- MLA
- Mr Robbie Butler
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 14 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Committee Business
- Heading
- The Hops Certification (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024: Prayer of Annulment
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4589680
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. This is my first speech as Chair of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. It is not the speech that I would have wished for, as I was not in the Chair for the scrutiny of these regulations; that was, in fact, my predecessor, Lord Elliott. My Committee colleagues, who are more knowledgeable on the matter, may shed more light in their speeches, and I look forward to listening to the debate. Scrutiny of the Hops Certification (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024 began at the Committee meeting on 9 May 2024, when members considered correspondence from the Department advising of the eight-week consultation and the information that went out to stakeholders. It was noted that new European Commission-delegated and implementing regulations for hops certification came into force on 27 March, and new regulations for the import of hops, rice, cereal and sugar from third countries came into force on 20 December 2023. It was noted that EU hops legislation relating to certification and third country imports is directly applicable here under the annex of the Windsor framework. The Committee felt that it needed a fuller oral briefing from officials, which took place on 20 June 2024, when the following points were explained in more detail. The amending statutory rule (SR) is required to provide enforcement powers for the updated EU rules. It seeks to replicate the current UK hops regulations as far as possible, with no change to underlying policy. The EU regulations for hops certification have introduced several changes, however. First, the cost of certification is to be carried by operators except where member states decide otherwise. The Rural Payments Agency, which is the certification authority for GB and Northern Ireland, does not charge operators for hops-related certificates or services. The regulations would allow that derogation to continue. Secondly, brewers must declare the particulars of hops harvested on their land to the competent certification authority by 15 November each year. Currently, that date is 31 October, so it is a two-week extension. Thirdly, the regulations increase the maximum weight where certification rules do not apply for sales to individuals for their own use. Lastly, the regulations allow for electronic documentation: digital attestations of equivalence that must accompany hops that are imported from third countries. In addition, officials stated that, in the rest of the UK, the relevant hops certification legislation remains the UK-wide Hops Certification Regulations 1979. I understand that some members highlighted a number of concerns regarding the need for the regulations, given that there are no hop growers in Northern Ireland. Some members also highlighted the involvement of the Windsor framework and potential divergence from the United Kingdom. The next time the Committee considered the proposed SR was on 12 September, when it had before it the Department's SL1. The Committee noted that the SR was to be laid before the Assembly under the negative resolution procedure and that it was anticipated that it would come into operation on 18 October. Members again considered the amendments to the 1979 regulations as they apply here to, first, update references to the new EU legislation for hops certification and, secondly, reflect the changes that have been introduced by the new EU legislation. A number of members again expressed concern regarding the need for separate regulations and divergence from the United Kingdom. The Committee agreed to write to the Department to request an oral briefing to get more information on the extent of that divergence. That second oral briefing took place on 19 September. Again, some members queried the need for the specific regulations. Officials explained that DAERA could not carry out certain checks on imported hops without them and that documentary checks would continue at the point of entry. Officials went on to highlight the future-proofing elements for potential hop growers here. At that juncture, some members flagged the potential for seeking a prayer of annulment, but the Committee agreed that the Department should proceed to make the SR in the meantime. The SR came before the Committee at its meeting of 26 September. My predecessor, Lord Elliott, reminded the Committee that it had taken a second oral briefing to attempt to address any concerns. He then put the following motion to the Committee:
"The Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has considered SR 2024/171 Hops Certification (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024, pending the report by the Examiner of Statutory Rules, and has no objection to the rule."
The Committee then divided on the motion. There was a quorum — five members — and the Committee divided, with two Ayes and three Noes. In conclusion, the majority of the members present at that meeting when the vote was taken agreed to put down a prayer of annulment. Members also considered the twenty-third report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules at its meeting on 10 October, which included this SR. The Committee noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules did not draw special attention to it.
835 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: 0.05 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.93).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.53 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.93 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.07 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.86 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.14 |
| 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 11:13 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.