Debate contribution: Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024: Prayer of Annulment

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on 4 February 2025.

MLA

Mr Robbie Butler

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

4 February 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Committee Business

Heading

Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024: Prayer of Annulment

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4779088

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and to move the motion. At the Committee meeting on 28 November, officials briefed the Committee on statutory rule (SR) 2024/211, which is the Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024. Officials stated that the SR will remove provisions that were made under two previous SRs. First, the SR removes the provision in SR 2022/240, which is the Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2022, that removed the automatic application of intentional penalties to certain repeated non-compliances for the purposes of nationally funded area-based schemes. That meant that such breaches were regarded as negligent only, and penalties on repetition were kept, at that stage, at 15%. Secondly, the officials advised us that the SR also removes the provision SR 20233/210, which is the Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2023.

The Committee noted that the environmental farming scheme drew down EU funds from the rural development programme (RDP) and was subject to EU rules until the completion of the EU spending in 2023. The application of penalties for the environmental farming scheme and other former development programme schemes were aligned with direct payments through SR 2023/210 from 1 January 2024.

We also considered that regulation 4 of SR 2023/210 removed the requirement to increase the number of on-the-spot checks for any act or standard revealing a significant degree of non-compliance. Officials highlighted the need for the SR that we are considering today as being connected to water quality and environmental concerns and the fact that the Minister, having considered the current environmental conditions and protections in place, considered it appropriate to revert to the original penalty regime as a detriment to those who do not comply with cross-compliance verifiable standards on a recurring basis. After the briefing by the DAERA officials, there was a robust question-and-answer session, and Committee members expressed a range of views. Those views ranged from the majority of members feeling that a return to the previous penalty regime was too draconian, given the challenges now faced by farmers, to a member expressing the need for increased penalties if we are to be serious about tackling environmental challenges. Some Committee members raised concerns that the SR would increase penalties for minor breaches and that penalties were currently enough, given the many challenges facing family farmers and farmers across Northern Ireland. Concerns were expressed about the definition of breaches and how and when any repetitions of minor breaches became classed as "intentional" breaches. However, support was also voiced for higher penalties for intentional or repeated careless environmental breaches, and it is important to highlight that. The majority of members did not support the SR, but there was no consensus. A vote was taken on DAERA proceeding with the SR. The Committee divided, resulting in Ayes 1, Noes 6, and one abstention. The Committee then considered the SR at its meeting on 16 January 2025, and many members were concerned that there had been no changes to the policy content since the SL1 briefing in November. Those issues were repeatedly highlighted by members. Only the title had been amended from "(Revocation) Regulations" to "(Amendment) Regulations". Many members again discussed the regulation and expressed a range of views similar to those discussed on 28 November. However, many Committee members now expressed concern that the Minister had not reflected on the issues that the Committee had raised at the meeting on 28 November or reconsidered any aspect of the SR. Some members stated that the Department should have reflected on what was said at the Committee on 28 November and come back with a proposal for amendments to provide a more tiered system of penalties specifically relating to climate and the environment. Some members contended that there are already substantial penalties in place for breaches and that there was no need to segregate minor and major breaches. The view was also expressed that there is a need for harsher fines for environmental and food security breaches. The majority of the Committee did not support the SR in its current form, and the Committee divided on the rule, resulting in Ayes 1 and Noes 7, with no abstentions. For completion, at the meeting of 30 January, members considered the thirtieth report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules (ESR), which included the SR. The Committee noted that the ESR had not drawn special attention to the SR. In concluding my remarks as the Committee Chair, I point out that the majority of members present at the Committee meeting on 16 January agreed to put down a prayer of annulment, but there was no consensus. I will now speak on behalf of my party and as an MLA. The Ulster Unionist Party understands the current relentless pressures that family farmers face across Northern Ireland. I will reiterate the words that I regularly hear from them: "We want to be green, but we cannot be green if we are in the red". I believe that, in every deliberation that the AERA Committee had with departmental officials, we demonstrated a desire to work with the Minister and his Department and that, if the Department was serious about tackling climate change and about environmental protections in regard to cross-compliance issues — I do not diminish the Minister's desire to combat climate change and protect the environment — work could have been done to amend certain areas specific to environmental and climate breaches rather than have a broad-brush request. I remind the House that the change should be considered against the backdrop of the major challenges faced by farmers in regard to inheritance tax changes, the un-ring-fencing of the agri-food budget and the imminent and likely significant challenges that farmers will need to meet for us to achieve our environmental targets without clear pound-for-pound support from the Department. That is still unknown. I will give the Assembly one example from the many that I have received on what the change does on those cross-compliance matters. It is from a young female farmer, and she relates a story where her dad was fined 5% of a single farm payment for a breach of two cattle out of 380. One had a fully intact tag and one broken tag, and the second had one fully intact tag. The notification of the tag inspection came through on a Friday at 4.00 pm. She said that the closest place that could print tags was 35 minutes away, and it could not be done before closing. In that family's case, the grandfather passed away on the Sunday. Monday was a bank holiday, and the funeral was on the Tuesday. The tag inspection was at 9.00 am on the Wednesday. They failed the inspection, and, even after handing in the grandfather's death certificate and all other evidence, they were still penalised on cross-compliance matters. That has nothing to do with the environment or the climate, and it is exactly what the SR would do. That is just one example of the many that I have received since taking the Chair of the AERA Committee, and it is evidence of why the move by the Department does not do what it says in the tin. Perhaps the Minister and the Department will accept the offer made by the Committee —.

One second, please. Perhaps the Minister and the Department will accept the offer that has been made by my Committee since I have taken the Chair and its willingness to engage proactively on matters relating to cross-compliance failures, particularly in relation to environment and climate harm.

I thank the Member for his intervention, which is useful. I will be honest: in my time as Chair, I have not detected that any member of the Committee has demonstrated to me that they do not share the Minister's ambition. We all need to reflect that we passed the Climate Change Act in the previous dispensation. I am facing in that direction as the Chair of the Agriculture Committee and as someone who voted for that legislation, but, in reality, I refer the Member to what I said: farmers and the agriculture sector want to be green, but they cannot be green if they are in the red. The Minister and his Department could have segregated the environmental and climate matters out of the regulations, and that would have put the Committee in a position where it could have supported them.

We do not need to play high politics with this. The Member is absolutely right: the problem is that, if we pass the SR, farmers such as that would be exposed to 100% of the fine, which is an increase. At the moment, we have derogation on those fines, and that is what has been achieved here. We need to move into getting absolutely serious about environmental and climate breaches, but, in reality, while I do not have the number of instances when the Department has acted in that manner, I do not think that that manner could be described as draconian. It is something that happened and could still happen. It might be a reduced fine, but it should not happen anyway. There are operational issues. Given the fiscal environment in which farmers and others in the agriculture sector are working, we are desperately trying to build their trust. They will be trusted stakeholders as we face into the climate crisis and the targets that we have to meet. In this instance, a simple fix would be for the Minister and the Department to segregate the environmental and climate matters and allow us to look at the other issues in the round. In bringing my remarks to a close, I look forward to the rest of the debate.

1,642 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:51 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