Debate contribution: The Animals (Identification, Records, Movement and Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025: Prayer of Annulment

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on 24 February 2025.

MLA: Mr Robbie Butler
Party at the time: Ulster Unionist Party
Date: 24 February 2025
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: The Animals (Identification, Records, Movement and Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025: Prayer of Annulment
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 4813508

Text

I thank the Member for that. I am sure that the Minister will give him the Department's absolute position, but there is no doubt that there has been some legal uncertainty on this. I think that that has caused some nervousness in the Department, and that is probably why there is such a need to see this legislation brought through. The officials were at pains to note that the legal obligations to correctly and appropriately identify livestock and record movements have applied to farms at all times, and that is the caveat that they gave on this to try to apply some confidence. While there has been a legal gap with the enforcement powers, DAERA took the decision not to pursue legal prosecutions for breaches of IRM requirements other than in the most severe cases. However, it has continued to take all possible measures short of pursuing legal action in cases where breaches of IRM requirements have been identified. There followed a question-and-answer session on the proposed SR, and Committee members expressed a range of views and queried the provisions. It was noted that only the most severe cases of non-compliance with IRM would be referred to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) for potential prosecution. The Committee supported the need for robust farm-to-fork traceability, but there were concerns expressed by some members regarding divergence from the rest of the UK, as the AHL is listed in annex 2 of the Windsor framework, and that is why we have the prayer of annulment. The Committee understood that, since 2021, DAERA has not been able to take forward any such cases for prosecution but that the SR will bring back legal certainty. However, there was no Committee consensus of support that the Department proceeded to make the SR, and a vote was then taken. The Committee divided, with five Ayes, zero Noes and three abstentions. Therefore, the majority of the Committee present agreed that the Department should proceed to make the SR. The Committee then considered the SR on 6 February 2025 and noted that there had been no change to policy content since the SL1 was submitted. The Committee noted that it had been briefed on the matter in detail on 23 January, and, for the record, I ran through a summary of that discussion and the views expressed at that meeting. I then put the Question on the SR, and the Committee remained divided but was in support of the SR. A quorum of eight members was present, and a vote was taken. The Committee divided, with four Ayes and four Noes. There was no Committee majority, so no agreed position was taken on the SR. For completion, at the next meeting, members considered the thirty-first report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules (ESR). The ESR drew the attention of the Assembly to the SR on the grounds that it was laid in breach of the 21-day rule, however the ESR was content that the Department's explanation for the breach was sufficient. There was no Committee consensus, and the vote on the SR gave no Committee majority, so there was no agreed Committee position on the SR. The members of the Committee who have spoken or will speak today will express their own views on the SR, and I will keep my remarks really brief. The debates in the Committee on the SR were very good and very measured on what is a complex issue to debate. Obviously, there are animal welfare issues. There are issues relating to farm-to-fork traceability that, all Members will agree, need that legal certainty and in regard to which the Department needs to have the powers. Unfortunately, this is absolutely wrapped up in the internal market provisions. For the Ulster Unionist Party, which will support the motion, this very much feels like the thin end of the wedge. People rightly quantify the amount of legislative vires in the Windsor framework at about 300 pieces, but, unfortunately, on issues such as this, we need to have our eyes open. We need to be very aware of the impact that the changes might have in the not-too-distant future. All markets are close now, and our internal market remains our biggest opportunity not just for farmers and the agrisector but for most industry in Northern Ireland. Whilst the statutory rule may not bring instant pain or critique, we in the Ulster Unionist Party feel that we need to be on our toes about it and upfront about the fact that we will not rubber-stamp any aspect of the Windsor framework or potential divergence in our internal market.

769 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification