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

Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on 24 February 2025.

MLA: Mr Andrew Muir
Party at the time: Alliance Party
Date: 24 February 2025
Type: Debate contribution (made as a minister)
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 4813558

Text

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. It is concerning and, to be honest, frankly ludicrous that we are considering the prayer of annulment. This is perhaps one of the most irresponsible legislative motions to have been tabled in this mandate. Many wax lyrical about their support for the agri-food industry, but nothing could be further from the truth for anyone who speaks and votes in support of the prayer of annulment: they will be putting ideology above people's jobs and livelihoods and our agri-food industry. I will respond to a number of issues that have been raised. The Animals (Identification, Records, Movement and Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025, which, you will be glad to know, I will refer to as "the regulations", ensure that there are appropriate powers to enforce EU law on livestock identification and traceability. It is important to note that farm-to-fork traceability here has been underpinned by European law since the late 1990s and that the regime that those regulations enforce is broadly the same as it always has been. To set the context, EU law sets out a system for the identification, registration and movement of livestock. That has been the case for a number of years, and it is supported in domestic law by departmental legislation, which describes how livestock should be identified; the significant life events that need to be reported to the Department to ensure robust farm-to-fork traceability; and the offences and penalties that apply if those rules are not adhered to. However, the EU legislation that previously set out those livestock identification and traceability requirements has been revoked and replaced by new EU legislation, which is known as the animal health law. The animal health law, which was published in March 2016 and applied from April 2021, is listed in annex 2 of the Windsor framework and automatically applies in Northern Ireland. My predecessor chose not to update domestic law following the changes in April 2021. However, I have, and I will set out why. It is important to emphasise that animal health law, in general, does not make any changes to the livestock identification and traceability regime, nor are there any fundamental changes to the processes or procedures for livestock keepers or the Department as a result of the regulations. As the Department's domestic livestock identification and movement enforcement legislation refers to the previous repealed EU instruments, it needs to be updated to ensure that it is operable. The regulations are technical. They do not represent a change in policy, but they ensure that Northern Ireland's domestic legislation refers to the correct pieces of EU legislation. The existing domestic livestock identification and traceability legislation enables my Department to enforce the agreed European standards for the identification, movement and traceability of livestock. Indeed, the key components that are set out in European law reflect what any robust livestock traceability system should look like the world over. That is: the requirement for farmers to uniquely identify animals; the requirement for farmers to notify the appropriate competent authority of when animals move on to and off a farm; and the requirement to advise the competent authority of where those animals have been moved to, be that to another farm, a market, an abattoir or a destination that is beyond Northern Ireland. To put it another way, farmers need to provide that information so that we know where the animals are right now, where they have been and where they are going. In a disease outbreak scenario, having solid, accurate details on all movements is vital, because, as we have seen, diseases of animals do not respect borders. Through the regulations, my Department is ensuring that there are enforcement powers to make sure that farmers comply with the mandatory reporting requirements and that operational offences and penalties are available, should they choose not to. Quite simply, if a person wilfully fails to record a livestock movement, that is an offence, and so it should be. I should not need to remind the House of how one suspect movement of cattle or sheep has the capability to wreak havoc on farming, the health and welfare of animals and the economy of Northern Ireland. That is why my Department needs the powers that are in the regulations to investigate non-compliance issues. Where contraventions are detected, remedial actions range from the issue of warning letters, application of movement restrictions and, in the most severe cases, criminal prosecutions. The regulations also update the details of what is considered to be an approved livestock ID tag in order to align with the requirements of the new XI prefix tags. Members may be aware that, on 24 June last year, my Department implemented the new prefix of XI and its numerical equivalent, 899, on electronic identification devices that are required to uniquely identify animals from Northern Ireland. That requirement stems directly from animal health law. A transition period, which allows the application of UK or XI tags, is in place. However, Members may be aware that the transition period will end on 30 June this year. After that date, XI prefix tags must be applied. The legislative change in the regulations therefore ensures that domestic legislation is updated to reflect that change. It enables enforcement provisions that relate to the use of the new XI prefix tags that would not be possible without it, such as where there is failure to attach approved ear tags within existing legal timescales, where someone removes an approved ear tag from an animal without permission or where approved ear tags are altered or defaced. The regulations make a number of other minor changes, such as broadening the definition of the term "animal" to include the crossing of species and increasing the timescale for the re-identification of sheep and goats that are imported from third countries. It is important to emphasise that the regulations do not introduce any new enforcement powers. Therefore, herd and flock keepers will not notice any difference. The regulations allow my Department to utilise the same enforcement provisions that have always been applied but to do so with legal certainty. It is important that I address the criticisms that were raised in the Chamber about the request to hold discussion on the item in private session at Committee. I was very conscious of the risk of non-compliance that could occur due to the knowledge that a lack of legal certainty existed around the powers of enforcement. That has now been rectified. That is why we sought to discuss the matter in private session. There has been a delay in introducing the regulations because it was not possible for officials to put in place the necessary legislative fix through the introduction of regulations prior to the former Minister's ceasing to hold office in October 2022. My predecessor decided not to proceed with the regulations. Negotiations between the UK Government and the European Commission, including indications that they might have included potential changes to requirements in animal health law on prefix codes for Northern Ireland livestock tags, meant that work on the regulations was further delayed until a position on that was agreed. My Department is also progressing legislation to fully implement the identification, registration and movement requirements in animal health law. There had been an expectation that that legislation would be ready in autumn 2024, thus negating the need for these regulations. It is the first time that Northern Ireland has fully advanced domestic legislation to introduce EU regulations without the complete support of Whitehall. The task has proved more complex than anticipated, and has resulted in an extended timeline before the legislation to fully implement animal health law IRM requirements will be ready to be laid. Given the extended deadline for introducing the full IRM legislation, work resumed at pace to progress these interim regulations. Before I continue, I want to put on record my thanks to all the officials in my Department who have been working on that. I do not find it appropriate to level any allegations of incompetence in that regard. Those officials are highly competent and dedicated individuals. We are spending lots of time, night and day, to implement the Windsor framework and ensure the safety of our agri-food system. That is what those officials are doing. I put on record my thanks to them. It is important to register to the House the consequences if the prayer of annulment passes. Members will agree that those technical regulations are important. Should they be annulled, my Department's existing domestic legislation would refer to repealed EU instruments and would not be operable. We, Northern Ireland plc, would be in the position of not having a legally enforceable livestock traceability regime. Annulling the regulations will not negate European law or its application here. The livestock identification requirements that were set down in EU animal health law will still apply in Northern Ireland regardless: it is the Department's domestic legislation that will be affected and its ability to enforce those identification and traceability requirements. Whilst I appreciate that most herd livestock owners comply with the law, there is, unfortunately, a minority who may not. Enforcement powers that are now in place following the making of the regulations are necessary to ensure that any potential non-compliance can be investigated and action taken as appropriate. That is important to ensure that the legal obligations to correctly and appropriately identify livestock and record their movements, as set out in EU legislation, apply at all times, thereby reducing any potential risks to public health. Other possible risks of not having a functioning livestock traceability enforcement regime could include negative implications for consumer confidence in our meat products, as well as possible trade and reputational damage to the livestock industry here. There would also be potential impacts for our future trading relationships, as a basic element of any agri-food agreement is to provide assurance about the origins and provenance of the product. If we cannot demonstrate that we take livestock traceability seriously, why would anyone want to trade with us? In addition, failure to implement those requirements, as with all directly applicable European legislation, could lead to infraction proceedings being pursued by the EU. Members may note that, while the industry was, as far as I understand, completely unaware of the fact that my Department was without a fully functioning enforcement regime between April 2021 and when the regulations came into force in January 2025, during that period, my Department took a proportionate approach that continued to take all possible measures short of pursuing legal action in cases where breaches of livestock identification and movement requirements had been identified. That included continuing to apply herd restrictions and issuing warning letters where wrongdoing was confirmed. Doing so ensured that there was no known reduction in animal health standards, thereby reducing any risks that could have arisen to public health and food safety. However, as I have already stated, prior to the regulations coming into force, the industry was largely unaware of the gap in the Department's enforcement powers. Therefore, the impact was relatively minor as most enforcement activities continued at risk. Should Members vote to annul the regulations, my Department's domestic livestock traceability legislation will become inoperable again.
Given the risks that were raised by my officials when they provided oral evidence to the AERA Committee in public session and that have been further highlighted in the debate, the loss of my Department's enforcement powers would become widely known. Consequently, there would be a potential increased risk of non-compliance. Even if that were not widespread, some keepers could challenge or, potentially, ignore any enforcement action that the Department would take to address such wrongdoing. Not only could the Department not pursue prosecutions for the more serious cases of non-compliance, but even routine action for more minor contraventions, which are normally resolved by movement restrictions and the issuing of warning letters, could be called into question.
Yes.
The Member has asked a very specific question about liabilities, but it depends where the liabilities would be borne. The main thing, as I have outlined in my response to the prayer of annulment, is that the industry was largely unaware that this lacuna had arisen. My predecessor was offered the opportunity to update domestic law back in 2021 and chose not to. As Minister, I am working through this and many other issues in order to rectify the situation that we are in. It is important that I state that. For years, our farmers have benefited from a world-leading system of animal traceability. The notion that the DUP would seek to annul an update because it originates from the EU is both bizarre and reckless, playing fast and loose with people's jobs and livelihoods and the future of our agri-food industry. Sadly, however, that does not surprise me when you take into account the fact that the previous DUP leader said that he could live with 40,000 job losses due to Brexit. We all should be about safeguarding and creating jobs, not wrecking our economy because of some ideological purism. Therefore, I urge Members to vote against the prayer of annulment and ensure that my Department continues to retain the necessary livestock identification and traceability enforcement powers.

2,207 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