Debate contribution: The Hops Certification (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024: Prayer of Annulment
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 14 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Committee Business
- Heading
- The Hops Certification (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024: Prayer of Annulment
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4590172
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will begin by setting out the context to explain why my Department has laid the Hops Certification (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024. Until December 2023, the UK's domestic hops regulations — the Hops Certification Regulations 1979, which were made just a few years after I was born — were aligned with those of the European Union. However, the European Union introduced two new pieces of legislation. First, in December 2023, the Commission published new implementing and delegated regulations (EU) 2023/2834 and (EU) 2023/2835 for the import of rice, cereal, sugar and hops from third countries in the Official Journal. Following that, the Commission published new implementing and delegated regulations (EU) 2024/601 and (EU) 2024/602 for hops certification in March 2024. Those regulations replaced and revoked previous regulations on the importation of hops from third countries and hops certification, both of which are listed in annex 2 of the Windsor framework. As a result of that, Northern Ireland is required to comply with the new updated hops regulations. The publication of the new hops regulations has led to a loss of enforcement powers for various Northern Ireland hops bodies, specifically the Rural Payments Agency for hops certification and DAERA's Forest Service for checks on hops consignments imported from third countries. With that in mind, my Department wishes to update the domestic Hops Certification Regulations 1979 on a Northern Ireland basis to reinstate lost enforcement and certification powers. To ensure that the voices of stakeholders were heard early in the process, the hops statutory rule was the subject of a consultation between 7 May 2024 and 2 July 2024. The Department received no responses to the consultation. That was not unforeseen. There are currently no hop growers in Northern Ireland, and the new hops statutory rule simply updates references to the new EU rules so as to maintain enforcement powers in Northern Ireland. During and after the consultation period, officials from my Department provided two oral briefings to the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. During those Committee meetings and in the debate today, Members have raised concerns and questions as to whether the hops statutory rule will create divergence from Great Britain and whether the legislation is required at all, as there are currently no hops producers in Northern Ireland. As has been stated, the proposed changes to current legislation are technical and will not represent a deviation from the underlying policy position in Great Britain. Many of the small changes are, in fact, positive: for example, enabling hard copy and digital documentation and an extra two weeks to report to the Rural Payments Agency, a certification and enforcement authority. Whilst there are no hop growers in Northern Ireland, there are businesses that import hops. A lack of powers to perform the necessary checks on hop consignments from third countries has the potential to impact negatively on consumer confidence and protection. For instance, not being able to enforce the movement of hops into Northern Ireland could allow products of a lesser standard to come into our local market. We should not risk Northern Ireland's reputation for always providing a good-quality pint. In the absence of the legislation, the Department is not fulfilling its responsibilities under the withdrawal agreement. There is a risk of the UK Government being subject to EU infringement proceedings for failing to implement EU regulations that fall under annex 2 of the Windsor framework, something that we can ill afford. It is something that, given our cost pressures, such as those at Lough Neagh, we should do. Not having the legislation would leave Northern Ireland as the only region of the UK without enforcement powers. Should a producer wish to begin growing hops in Northern Ireland, in the absence of the legislation, their produce could not be certified. Northern Ireland would be the only region in the UK where a producer would be unable to have their produce certified. Annulling the legislation therefore has the potential to create divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I am committed to ensuring that hop stakeholders, such as local breweries, hobbyists and supply specialists, continue to be able to import hops of a high standard into Northern Ireland. To ensure the facilitation of trade on the global market, it is important that the regulations are in place in Northern Ireland. I urge Members to vote against the prayer of annulment.
745 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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.77 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.23 |
| 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 11:21 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.