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

Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on 4 February 2025.

MLA

Mr Andrew Muir

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

4 February 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Committee Business

Heading

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

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4779219

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate on the prayer of annulment. In responding, I will set out the context to explain why my Department has laid the Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024. The cross-compliance regime has been in place since 2005, through the implementation of the EU common agricultural policy. Cross-compliance is the set of minimum standards to which all farmers who receive public subsidy should adhere. Those cover environmental protection, as well as standards concerning animal health and welfare. The regime helps to protect our precious habitats and waterways and the animal traceability systems that are vital for trade, disease control and human health. The standards are not intended to be excessive or onerous and reflect the responsible stewardship shown by the vast majority of our farmers. Where the standards are breached, a financial penalty is applied to the payment received by the farmer concerned. Those are not fines; they are penalties applied to public subsidy. The penalties are applied according to a published scale and are dependent on several factors, including the severity or impact of the breach and whether the breach is intentional or negligent. Negligent breaches attract lower penalties than intentional breaches, as the regime accepts that even good farmers make mistakes. Negligent breaches typically attract penalties of 1%, 3% or 5%, depending on the severity of the breach. Where a breach is repeated, the penalty is doubled. Intentional breaches attract penalties of between 15% and 100%, again, depending on the severity. Since 2005, EU regulations required member states to regard repeated negligent breaches of the same requirement as automatically intentional, with higher penalties applying. In 2022, in the absence of a sitting Assembly to scrutinise or vote against that, my predecessor decided to remove the requirement, and repeated negligent breaches were no longer treated as intentional. Penalties for repeated negligence were effectively capped at 15%. Those changes were made in 2022 to schemes that were nationally funded and were extended to all schemes in 2023 following the cessation of EU funding. As Minister, I simply cannot stand over that regime. Farmers who have their penalties capped at 15% have breached the same specific requirement at least three times within three years. Some of those breaches, including water pollution, are of high-level severity. I do not think that it is fair that penalties are reduced for repeated breaches of environmental and animal health standards. I do not think that that is fair to the public or the vast majority of our farmers who play by the rules.

I am happy to give way.

I want to bring us into line with the European Union and with Scotland and Wales. Cross-compliance has been entirely abolished in England, and it is moving towards a very different set-up. That is what I am trying to do. We are not an outlier.

I will continue. We are not an outlier in relation to animal health, traceability or environmental standards. We cannot afford to do that. I instructed officials in my Department to begin the process of reversing those changes.

On 14 August 2024, my officials commenced an eight-week, focused consultation with 21 key stakeholders, including the Ulster Farmers' Union, the Rural Community Network and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The four organisations that responded to the consultation supported my intention to reverse the changes. Following that, on 20 November 2024, officials from my Department provided an oral briefing to the AERA Committee. Members expressed some concern about the impact on farmers who breach environmental or animal welfare and traceability standards: I respectfully disagree.

We are all aware of the huge public concern about the condition of our environment, particularly water quality, and the health and welfare of animals. I therefore instructed my officials to proceed to make the regulations, which took effect on 1 January 2025. The regulations are an important means to encourage responsible stewardship, deter wrongdoing and protect our environment when farmers continually disregard the standards that are required. If you are genuinely serious about wanting to improve water quality and our environment and, importantly, support our critical agri-food industry and farm-to-fork traceability, you cannot, in all conscience, vote for the motion.

I will continue. Many talk the talk: you need to walk the walk and join me as I go through the Noes Lobby. I am happy to give way to the Chair of the Committee.

I received no formal correspondence from the Committee on this. Each week, I watch the Committee's proceedings. It is an important Committee. You analyse and consider the issues, and I like to think that I have respectful relationships with Committee members. The gist that I got of that Committee meeting was that we should change the SR and focus only on environmental and water quality breaches: that entirely undervalues the importance of farm-to-fork traceability and animal health and disease. I am responding to the motion feeling despondent and depressed. I get criticised and told that we need to do more on the environment and water quality, support our agri-food industry and assure customers about the fantastic, quality food that we have in Northern Ireland, and I work really hard to do that. However, when I present a concrete proposal to the Committee and the Assembly, people scatter.

I will continue. Politics is about leadership and taking difficult decisions. The Secretary of State has talked about that today. We need to do that. When we come to the vote —

— we cannot vote for the prayer of annulment because it is an abdication of responsibility. I am happy to give way to Patsy.

I understand that, Mr McGlone, but that is exactly what the SR seeks to do. I have a lot of respect for you and a very good relationship, but the past year, with the SDLP being the official Opposition, has been difficult because there have been many moments of rank hypocrisy. You have the leader of the Opposition berating me to take action while your party has shown an abject abdication of responsibility through its opposition to this. You cannot criticise the situation at Lough Neagh, want to support the agri-food industry and vote against the SR. You cannot have your cake and eat it. You cannot do that.

You have to vote for the SR.

I am going to wind up on this.

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. It is important that we focus on what this is. The SR is simply about bringing us back to the cross-compliance standards that applied before October 2022 and apply in every other EU member state and Scotland and Wales. It is important that we get ourselves back to that. What happened in October 2022, in the absence of the Assembly, was wrong, and I am seeking to rectify that.

1,152 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