Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I welcome the following DAERA officials to brief the Committee. We have Neal Gartland, the director of animal health and welfare policy; Christopher Andrews, the deputy director of animal health and welfare policy; Darrin Fullerton, head of the bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD) branch; and Niall McAuley, divisional veterinary officer. Is that correct, gentlemen?

Mr Christopher Andrews (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): It is, yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Sometimes, if I have not looked up, I have read out the wrong names. Please brief the Committee. Thank you for your attendance.

Mr Neal Gartland (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Chair, and good morning to you and members of the Committee. I will take this opportunity to brief you on the statutory rule (SR), the Animals (Identification, Records, Movement and Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025. With your permission, I will give the Committee a short overview of the proposed SR. As you mentioned, Chair, I am joined today by the deputy director of animal health and welfare policy division, Christopher Andrews; divisional veterinary officer for the identification, registration and movement (IRM) branch, Niall McAuley; and head of livestock ID and BVD branch, Darrin Fullerton. Along with me, they will seek to answer any questions that members may have.

You have been provided with a detailed written briefing on the statutory rule, so I will try to keep my remarks brief. I will start off with some background on why the statutory rule is required. European Union law sets out a system for the identification, registration and movement of livestock. That is supported in domestic law by a number of departmental regulations that describe 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 However, the EU legislation that previously set out those IRM requirements has been revoked and replaced by new legislation known as the animal health law (AHL). The animal health law has applied from 2021 and is listed in annex 2 of the Windsor framework, which automatically applies to Northern Ireland.

It is important to emphasise, members, that the animal health law in general does not make many changes to the livestock identification and traceability regime; nor are there any fundamental changes to processes or procedures for livestock keepers or the Department as a result of the statutory rule. As the Department's domestic livestock identification and movement enforcement legislation currently refers to the repealed EU instruments, it needs to be updated to ensure that it remains operable.

I will now turn to what the proposed SR does. This draft statutory rule makes technical amendments to the five separate pieces of domestic livestock movement legislation that relate to cattle, sheep and goats, as detailed in the written briefing. Primarily, these draft regulations update references to the repealed EU instruments by replacing them with references to the equivalent animal health law provisions. These changes do not represent a change in policy. Rather, they are technical changes required to ensure that this domestic legislation refers to the correct pieces of parent legislation. This domestic legislation provides for the enforcement of the EU requirements on IRM. It does that by setting out offences and penalties should there be a failure to comply with these identification and movement obligations, such as the requirements to record births on time and notify movements on and off the livestock keeper's holding. It also provides the powers to investigate such non-compliance issues. Remedial action where contraventions occur includes the issue of warning letters, the application of movement restrictions and, in the most severe cases only, pursuing prosecutions. There is a need to make these amendments to the existing domestic legislation by way of this SR today to ensure that the Department continues to have a legally enforceable livestock traceability regime.

Another change made by the draft SR is to update the details of what is considered an approved livestock ID tag to align with the requirements for the new XI prefix tags. Committee members will be aware that, on 24 June 2024, the Department implemented the new prefix of XI — 899 is the numerical equivalent on electronic identification devices — which is required to uniquely identify animals from Northern Ireland. That requirement already stems directly from the AHL. A transition period is in place currently to allow the application of UK or XI tags. However, members will be aware that the transition period will end on 30 June this year. After that date, XI tags, as mandated already under the AHL, must be applied. The legislative change in this SR ensures that domestic legislation is updated to reflect the change. It will enable enforcement provisions relating to the use of the new XI prefix tags, which would otherwise not be possible: for example, where there is a 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.

A number of other minor changes made by this statutory rule are set out in the written brief. For example, the draft SR extends the timescale for the re-identification of sheep and goats imported from third countries, as set out in the Sheep and Goats (Records, Identification and Movement) Order (Northern Ireland) 2009. While this was previously 14 days, it has now been extended to 20 days, which, again, is in line with the requirements of the AHL. The SR also makes some minor changes to definitions in the domestic IRM legislation to ensure that they are consistent across the legislation, and, again, in line with the AHL. For example, the definition of animals is slightly amended to clarify that the offspring of crossings of certain species are within the scope of this definition and therefore covered by the requirements in domestic statute. Finally, there are some transitionary provisions from when the domestic legislation was originally made that are no longer required, and the draft SR seeks to remove those.

As I noted, the draft SR primarily addresses operability issues in our domestic legislation to ensure that we have a fully enforceable livestock traceability regime, including the ability to enforce issues associated with the introduction of the new XI prefix tag. However, since the introduction of the AHL, given that our domestic legislation referred to now repealed EU instruments rather than their equivalents in the animal health law, there has been some legal uncertainty about the Department's ability to fully apply the relevant enforcement provisions relating to livestock identification and movement. It is very important to note, however, that the legal obligations to correctly and appropriately identify livestock and record their movements, as set out in EU legislation, has applied to farmers at all times. While those obligations are contained in EU instruments that are now repealed, they were carried over into the EU animal health law, which directly applies in Northern Ireland.

I wish to restate the point that I made at the start: the fundamental requirement to identify livestock and report all life events, such as births, deaths and movements, has not changed because of the animal health law. It is just that it is essential that our domestic legislation be updated now to ensure that we can utilise, with certainty, the same enforcement provisions that we have always used. There are no new enforcement powers being introduced as a result of this SR. While there has been a legal gap with our current enforcement powers, the Department took the decision not to pursue legal prosecutions for breaches of IRM requirements other than in only the most severe cases. That is because attempts to prosecute cases where there are operability issues with our domestic legislation would likely be unsuccessful. Also, we did not do targeted on-farm investigations where the purpose of those is to gather information for court action specifically related to IRM contraventions. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that prosecutions are pursued for serious fraudulent activity in only a very small number of cases.

The Department continues to take all possible measures, short of pursuing legal action, in cases where breaches of IRM requirements have been identified. For example, we continue to carry out routine cross-compliance in livestock inspections, apply herd restrictions and issue warning letters where wrongdoing has been confirmed. While we have proceeded with a range of enforcement activities short of prosecution, an individual on-farm investigation in some instances has taken place, despite the legal gap until this SR can be made. That has ensured that there has been no known reduction in animal health standards, thereby reducing any risks that could have arisen to public health and food safety. However, as you will appreciate, it is important to correct those operability issues with our domestic legislation and provide legal certainty to the Department's enforcement of existing IRM requirements. This draft SR will do that.

Finally, as I said earlier, the draft SR is technical in nature and therefore does not represent any significant policy change. The existing IRM requirements placed on farmers will continue as they currently do. Also, the IRM requirements are derived from EU legislation. There is no scope for the Department to change those requirements and therefore no need to consult, nor are there expected to be any additional costs to industry as a result of this draft SR. The Department engaged with stakeholders on the introduction of the new XI tags last year. The only significant concerns raised were in relation to the length of the transition period, as keepers were concerned that they would be left with stocks of UK tags. However, as announced in August last year, that transition period was extended until 30 June this year. The extension has been welcomed by industry and will mean additional time to use up stocks of UK-prefixed tags.

Thank you for your time today, Chair and members. I am happy to take any questions that the Committee may have.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you so much. We really appreciate that. Members have the papers and the legislation in their packs. I am sure that there will be plenty of questions.

I will start with a question. It is evident — it was even covered in your speech — that EU commitments seem to be well covered in the proposals. Is there any concern about any impact on the internal market, particularly in and around the XI tags? You mentioned that, in the stakeholder feedback, for instance, one of the concerns — maybe it has been addressed — was that farmers have the GB tags and can no longer use them. Has how that will play out in the GB market been scoped out, given that it is the biggest market for our farmers?

Mr Gartland: Chair, I understand. I should make clear that this SR gives us the ability to enforce the new tags; it does not mandate the new tags. That is already derived from EU legislation applicable from 2021. Indeed, before that happened, we were already uniquely identified compared with the rest of the UK anyway. We always had a different system for the identification of livestock. It has no impact on the internal market. Cattle can still move to GB under the new XI regime. There is no difference in that at all. The XI/899 was primarily introduced because the EU needed a way to identify Northern Ireland uniquely from the rest of the UK, given the Windsor framework implications, and to protect trade from Northern Ireland out into the single market so that we can continue to export products of animal origin (POAO) and live animals to the South and other EU member states. However, there is no impact from the XI/899 on the internal market, and animals can still move freely.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Are there no system change requirements from that?

Mr Andrews: Chair, there have been frustrations expressed because, as Neal referenced in his opening remarks, when an animal is moving from GB to Northern Ireland, there is a requirement to retag it. If an animal has been applied with a UK tag from birth on its holding in England, Scotland or Wales, once it arrives in Northern Ireland, the new herd keeper or flock keeper will have 20 days to re-identify the animal with tags issued by DAERA — official DAERA tags. That is because the movement of that animal is seen as a movement from a third country into the EU sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) zone, of which we remain a part.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): You mentioned the fact that there have been — I assume — no prosecutions under AHL over the past while because the powers were in abeyance. Is it possible to estimate the impact of not being able to do that? Is it possible to quantify what will happen if the SR is made?

Mr Gartland: I will let the team come in on that, but I highlight the fact that we have taken proportionate action on enforcement this entire time in order to pose no risk to what we perceive to be food safety or the traceability regime. We have always known where every animal should be. That was always recorded on the system. We continue to apply restrictions, which is our normal route of enforcement if contraventions occur.

We looked at some numbers before coming to the Committee. In the year before 2021, which is when the AHL became applicable and the enforcement powers were questioned, we took around 20 cases to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) for non-appliance of IRM legislation. That is not to say 20 people, because we did not have the number of people. There might have been three or four people with a number of offences in that overall number. In those instances, there would have been aspects that we could not progress to court action, because there was a high chance that a legal challenge would have been successful, had those people challenged any enforcement that the Department was granted by the court. As a result, we used what we have always used and enforced by way of restriction and warning letters.

If the SR is made today, it will provide us with full legal certainty that we will be able to take cases to court again, although we wish to do so in only the most severe instances of contravention of the law. Furthermore, as with any EU legislation, AHL is required to have domestic statute in order for the Department as a whole to be able to enforce it as a competent authority. The SR progresses that to the Department and ensures that we are fully legally compliant on that front also.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I have two final questions, if you do not mind, because I am very interested in this. When we had the session on cost compliance issues, the possible totality of the offences was not bottomed out. Will someone give us an explanation or a list — something reasonably definitive — of what kinds of contravention would lead to a case being taken to the PPS? There is a concern that this may be tied to TB. Is animal welfare picked up in the regulation too? That is important to a number of us.

Mr Gartland: I will let the team come in, but cross-compliance is separate. The SR concerns specific identification, registration and movement offences, such as not registering the birth of a calf on time, not properly applying the ear tag or the numbers being missing or incorrect. That is the kind of thing that we are talking about. That is the kind of thing on which we did not take full enforcement and go to court. We applied all the restrictions in a proportionate manner, however, and continued to do so over the time when we did not have the SR.

Cross-compliance is different. It is a voluntary scheme through which you get basic payments for adhering to the rules set out by the Department. If you do not adhere to the rules, you can be inspected by the Department, in which case you will be found to be either fully compliant or not. That is a separate area; it is not our remit. Niall, I do not know whether you want to add anything more.

Mr Niall McAuley (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Yes. Formal prosecution and enforcement action tend to come in just for very serious offences. There are a small number of those. That is a last resort for us, not the first thing that we jump to. Officials generally try to work with non-compliers to achieve compliance. We tend to bring cases mostly for habitual offenders. Where we identified the potential for any repeat offences or habitual offenders, we referred those cases to our welfare enforcement branch, which takes the enforcement action. Officials will have those on file. Obviously, we will not be able to take action for any offences that may have been committed during this period, but we can still go out and perform evidence-based investigations. If people have not complied for years, the likelihood is that they will still not be complying, and we may find further evidence.

As Neal said, cross-compliance is separate, but, in many ways, it looks for the same issues. Practically every herd in Northern Ireland is subject to the cross-compliance regime, because almost all livestock keepers participate voluntarily in the scheme and receive payment for doing so. They are all required to report births, deaths, movements and significant life events to the database within a set time. Every year, we run a matrix against the database, looking out for non-compliances. We list the 20,000 cattle herds in order and select a proportion of them for inspection. It is likely that anybody who would have been subject to prosecution during this period would also have been found high up on the list of those identified for cross-compliance purposes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): That is the bit that intrigues me. I accept that there are two separate regimes but that the instances that will trigger either are kind of the same: it could be the ear tag issue, for example. There is probably some read across. I can imagine a single Department administering the scheme but also being responsible for the administration of the legal part. I understand why it is like that.

This is my very final question, and I am genuinely interested in this. It is important to consider the process from farm to fork. One of the things that we stand for in this country is our ability to stand over the quality and all the details from farm to fork. I eat an awful lot. I am on a carnivore diet. That is my declaration of interest — it makes William smile when I say that. The paper that was provided to the Committee says that the SR:

That says to me that some divergence has potentially been identified. It may not be significant, but what divergence has been estimated?

Mr Andrews: The fundamentals of every traceability regime, including the existing UK traceability regime, are the same, regardless of whether they are in the UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia or wherever: you identify an animal, you record its identity, and you request that the keepers of that animal tell you where it is at all times. The fundamentals of any farm-to-fork traceability regime are always the same.

In essence, the rules that are in place in England, Scotland and Wales largely mirror those that are in place in Northern Ireland. The only obvious difference, compared with the past regimes, is that we now have a different prefix for our animals and a requirement to retag animals when they move from GB to Northern Ireland. Those are the two fundamental differentials. That makes very little difference to herd keepers or flock keepers on the ground. I appreciate that there is probably a bit of administrative awkwardness that was not there previously when it comes to moving animals from GB to Northern Ireland, but we have been doing this for a number of years — since 2021 — and have managed that process quite well.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We are the only region on these islands that does not currently apply any form of enforcement.

Mr Gartland: To the best of our knowledge, the competent authorities would not inform us if they had a question over legal advice about their enforcement power. We have not informed other jurisdictions, because that would call into question the restrictions that we apply at the moment.

Let me be clear: we are very much of the view that we have maintained farm-to-fork traceability here and the reputation of the industry and the scheme. We were assured that we knew where all animals were at all times. If people were not going to apply the legislation or were going to do something wrong, they would have done it regardless of whether this SR was in place. We wanted to ensure, however, that we took a proportionate approach in the Department to protect the farm-to-fork traceability regime. We are here today to fix that. This SR will, hopefully, bring that legal certainty back.

I assume that other jurisdictions have legal powers, but they would not necessarily discuss that with us, and I have not raised it with them.

Mr Andrews: I would like to underscore earlier points. The thing that was not occurring was prosecutions going through court. As Niall said, they are very much a last resort. We were doing all the other things: herd restrictions were still being put in place, individual animals were still being put under restriction, warning letters were still being sent to farmers, and we were still undertaking cattle cross-compliance and cattle identity inspections. All those other fundamental parts of a farm-to-fork traceability regime were still going ahead. We could not take prosecutions to court, however, because we did not have the underlying legal powers to do so. The likelihood of those prosecutions succeeding would therefore have been pretty uncertain.

Mr McAuley: If we are aware of someone who is not fully compliant with any element of the traceability scheme — if they were to register a calf late, if a discrepancy were to be identified later in its life or if they did not report a movement for it, for example — we manage that through statuses in our database. Those statuses have two functions: they prevent the animal from moving from farm to farm so that you are not allowed to sell your problems on to somebody else, and, when the animal goes to slaughter, the fact that it has done so is flagged to the abattoir and the vet who is present. All those animals are under the same scrutiny under various legislation, such as the food safety legislation. That has not been affected by this. Those statuses continue to be applied, and those animals are still flagged and subject to extra scrutiny at the point of slaughter. That extra protection in the food chain has been maintained.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you, and thank you, members, for indulging me in asking so many questions.

Mr McAleer: Given that there has not been a consultation, because the amendments are technical in nature, how will the Department ensure that farmers, vets and others who are involved can comply with the updated requirements?

Mr Gartland: What we are doing, Declan, does not change what we had in 2021. There are no new offences or penalties as a result of the SR. It is what they should have been doing all along, which they were already obliged by legislation to do. Regardless of our not having the full power to enforce, they should have been doing that.

We are working on wider legislation to look at the animal health law in a broad context. A couple of changes in penalties and offences will be needed for that, and we will come to the Committee with that legislation later in the year.

The purpose of this SR is just to bring back the enforcement powers that we had: making and laying it and bringing it to the Assembly for consideration should make no difference to farmers. They are already well aware of the need — they are legally obligated — to change tags to XI. The SR just means that the Department has the power to enforce where there is non-compliance. On the ground, there should not be much change for farmers, vets or anyone else.

We will meet the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) and the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association (NIAPA) tomorrow to run through the detail of the SR and what it proposes to do, but, as I said, on the ground, to the farmer, there should be no difference at all. All it does, broadly, is bring back the Department's legal certainty in our enforcement powers.

There is no need to consult on the SR because, again, there is no policy change, and there are no new offences or penalties. It highlights and supports the application of the animal health law in Northern Ireland, which there is a legal obligation on officials to do, and ensures that we, as a competent authority, have the power to enforce that.

Mr McAuley: The one significant change, if there is one, is to the tag prefix, Although there was no consultation, there was significant engagement with the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU), the meat industry, the Livestock and Meat Commission (LMC), the tag suppliers, the farm software suppliers and the market operators. Everyone was well briefed, and people had a lot of time to bring in the software changes to allow them to adapt. It went smoothly. Although consultation on something that we did not have a choice in was not appropriate, we took on board feedback from industry and extended the transition period as a result. Industry was broadly satisfied with the implementation.

Mr McAleer: Neal, you touched on the second question that I was going to ask. Are you confident that there will be no changes in farmers' practical day-to-day operations, such as tagging or notifications to the Department?

Mr Gartland: The SR is an internal mechanism to bring legal certainty back to the enforcement powers of the Department. The only real change as a result of it is the extension from 14 days to 20 days of the re-identification period for sheep and goats imported from third countries — there is not a lot of that at the moment — so, on-the-ground farmer interaction with the legislation will not mean a change. As we highlighted in our opening remarks, there are no financial penalties or other implications for farmers as a result of the SR, nor are there other implications for the Department. The SR brings full legal certainty back to the enforcement that we undertake and have been undertaking since 2021 and to the small number of cases that we may wish to pursue once the legislation is made.

Mr McAleer: Thank you.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for your presentation. Some of my questions about what you might do in the case of a persistent or high-end offender have been answered. Do you have any detail — you may not have this information, but we have talked about cross-compliance — on the number of individuals who are high-end offenders, or maybe we will call them repeat offenders, on whom cross-compliance penalties have been enforced? If you do not have that detail now, you can provide it later. It is about seeing what action has been taken in the cases of people in that category who should have gone to court but could not because the law was redundant. What other action has been taken action against them?

Mr McAuley: Without going into specifics on individual cases, I have a bit of high-level detail on that for 2023, which is the most recent year for which full figures are available. We are required to inspect at least 3% of all herds claiming on the basis of compliance with the traceability requirements.

Over 700 cattle herds were inspected in 2023. Given that 75% of those were selected on the basis of risk, it is probably not a surprise to find that almost 250 were penalised.

Mr McGlone: Sorry, maybe you are not hearing me clearly enough.

Mr McAuley: Sorry, the habitual —.

Mr McGlone: You identified individuals initially under your own criteria — I do not know the number — who could have been taken to court or regarded as offenders and had criminal action taken against them if the legislation had been updated in time. Of those individuals, what read-across action was taken against them in the cross-compliance penalties that can be enforced?

Mr McAuley: We would not have referred those directly for cross-compliance, because we probably did not have the legal authority. When we had the legal powers, if you had suspicions from, say, a whistle-blower, you would have taken them, but —.

Mr McGlone: Sorry, I am a wee bit confused. You are the same Department —

Mr McAuley: Yes.

Mr McGlone: — and you have legal authority. Are you telling me that, when you identify a high-end offender or a high-risk case that could wind up in court, and I am sure that you have identified a number of those, another wing of the Department does not know about it because you have not informed it?

Mr McAuley: No. If there was a potential breach, we would have to go on to the farm to investigate it. Those are what we call our targeted investigations, and they would feed into the cross-compliance system, but our welfare enforcement branch would do them. There are two teams. The welfare enforcement branch does targeted investigations, but it relies on the legal powers that are in the legislation to allow it to go on farm to do them. Without those legal powers, we would not be able to go on to a farm to carry out those investigations, which, almost certainly, would lead to cross-compliance breaches. I do not have specific figures for who may or may not have been taken to enforcement, but there is a high likelihood that those people would also have been caught in that matrix and be among the top 10 offenders who are getting [Inaudible.]

Mr McGlone: That is exactly what I am getting at, and a breach does not necessarily have to be to do with animal welfare, as you will know better than me. By whatever mechanism you identified high-risk offenders, who, in that interregnum period, would have wound up in court with you taking action, once the Department had identified them, I am trying to establish the process by which they are referred, highlighted, red-lighted or whatever it is to cross-compliance to ensure that that wing is aware of them.

Mr McAuley: Those are potential issues of non-compliance, but without the ability to go on to a farm to investigate, we do not have hard evidence. However, the same people are very likely to be notifying animals late, not registering their births on time, not notifying movements, have a high number of animal turnovers in their herd and be buying in a lot of stock. They are likely to fall high up that list anyway, but we would not penalise them directly for any of the other external evidence, which maybe comes from a whistle-blower, or anything like that. We go out and inspect them based on the risk matrix, but if we find non-compliances, they would be subject to a reduction in their cross-compliance penalty, which could be up to 100%.

Mr McGlone: I am not even talking about a whistle-blower; I am talking about the cases that would have been caught in that intervening period when you had an emasculated bit of legislation that you could not do anything with. You are bound to have identified a number of such cases. I would be shocked, and, indeed, surprised, if that was not the case. There may have been four, five, 10, 20 or whatever it may be in those cases that were identified as a potential high-risk or high-end offender. Even though you may have had the handcuffs on for taking legal action, I am trying to establish what the process is in the Department to ensure that someone else is aware of the risk and concerns. They may already be aware of them, but I just want to make sure that there is a proper flow of information in the Department.

Mr Gartland: Obviously, we could not progress on-farm investigations. However, where there is a high-risk offender who we thought might be in a worse position than we knew about but

on-farm investigation, we would put a restriction on that farm and take enforcement action. Cross-compliance is another area, but I assume that the restrictions that were placed on a farm at our end would have been flagged to cross-compliance or informed the matrix about how that person was selected. I do not know what that matrix is, because it is based on a large number of other factors as well, and it is with a different side of the Department. We can follow up in writing on that question if that is OK.

Mr McGlone: Yes, that is grand.

Mr Gartland: I certainly do not have the exact numbers. In many instances, Patsy, it is hypothetical. We do not know whether there has been an on-farm offence until we get on to the farm to see, and we cannot get on to the farm. You are asking about those instances where we thought that there was an intelligence-led potential that there was an offence and how that interacted with the cross-compliance, either with random selection or 75% targeted selection. If a restriction were placed on that herd, we would have fed that in as part of the matrix, but we will come back to you in writing on the points that you have asked about.

Mr McGlone: That is grand.

Mr McAuley: For prosecutions, you might be referring to a vet, an inspector or an admin person in one of our offices who might have noticed a level of unusual activity, such as late notifications or animals disappearing. You go to do a TB test and find that 20 animals are not there that you expected to be there. All that is feeding into the selection process for the cross-compliance inspections already. It is not that we have to take a separate process, because we have referred this for prosecution but cannot take a case, so we have to go back to cross-compliance; it already goes directly to cross-compliance as part of the selection process.

Mr McGlone: You will be coming back to us anyway, Neal.

Mr Gartland: Patsy, I will make two more quick points on that. It is worth noting that, if the Department received from industry or anywhere else any intelligence-led notes that somebody had non-compliance, we have that recorded. When the SR is made and we have the ability to do on-farm investigations, we can follow that up. Although that compliance may be done and dusted, the non-compliance process may have been started when we were not able to get on to the farm. We have an overview of intelligence to begin on-farm investigations in instances where something is not happening in the way that it should. We have that all recorded and will do that work when we have the powers of the SR in place.

It is also worth noting that, for the general prosecutions that we did not take, for example, the 20 instances that were sent to the Public Prosecution Service in 2020, those were not necessarily 20 people. It could be that two, three or four people were involved. When you look at the number of convictions that we got specifically for IRM offences — when I say convictions, I mean that there could have been a fine — you find that that takes in only the most severe cases. There were three in 2020, seven or thereabouts in 2019 and around 18 or 19 in 2017. The numbers fluctuate, but they are not huge when you take into account the fact that there are too many cattle in the country. We are not talking about a huge number, but this measure just brings back that legal certainty.

We will come back to you on the other point.

Mr McGlone: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): If I could fit two small points in. Patsy's piece was very interesting. I think that this has been said, but I will just repeat it. I think that you said that there are no practical implications for farmers because the regime is exactly the same.

Mr Gartland: There are none.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): The regime will not change, so there are no practical implications for farmers. Any changes would be a concern to farmers because they are under immense pressure for a variety of reasons. Thanks, Patsy, for raising that query.

Mr Irwin: In essence, as I see it, the SR is about legalising decisions that have already been made. Retagging animals that come in from the UK or GB has been an issue for registered pedigree producers, who are very unhappy. As I see it, Europe insists that this happen, but is there any other rationale behind it? It does not make sense.

Mr Andrews: I will try my best to explain it, William. There has always been a provision in Northern Ireland domestic legislation that livestock that comes in from a third country must be retagged. In the negotiations after the UK chose to leave the EU, GB was reclassified as a third country, so the existing provision then applied to England, Scotland and Wales. It is not technically a new requirement; GB's status changed. Once GB became a third country, we had no option but to apply the legislation. We were advised of that by the European Commission, which meant that that animals coming in from England, Scotland and Wales would have to undergo retagging. Niall and I, along with others, worked out a means of making sure that that could happen. We took representations at that time from a number of the pedigree societies. A number of individuals felt that it created difficulties. We worked with our UK colleagues, and, to a degree, we seem to have managed to get a process that largely works.

We have not received any further correspondence or representations in recent times about —.

Mr Irwin: Would you accept that there are very few animals — ?

Mr Andrews: Equally, very few animals have been coming in since bluetongue. Even prior to that, however, we had largely worked out a process that meant that we were able to keep the flow of pedigree animals moving. We were able to have a retagging process that was understood, and the information was able to be correlated on the flock and herd books belonging to those societies so that any impacts of that requirement were minimised.

Mr McAuley: It is also important to say that the change of having to re-identify GB imports predates the change to the legislation. That became effective immediately at the end of the transition period, which was at the beginning of 2020. The old EU legislation was still applicable at that stage, and as Chris said, all that changed was that, at that point, GB animals fell into the bracket of animals that we always had to re-identify. This SR will not have a direct and immediate impact on that measure, because it existed prior to this change.

Mr Irwin: You can understand how Joe Bloggs cannot see the logic in it. I understand where you are coming from, because the EU's insistence on the process was beyond our control. It is crazy.

Mr Gartland: The debate around the objectives of the animal health law or the requirements that are put on farmers can be in the discourse, but the SR does not impact on those obligations. They are already there, regardless of this piece of legislation, which gives us the power to enforce non-compliance. That is all that it does. Retagging or the XI/899 will not be impacted on by this SR at all. It just allows the enforcement of it.

Mr Irwin: You said that a small number went to court. You will accept that most cross-compliance issues are not criminal offences. Most are minor offences, and there is no criminal offence in a late permit coming in.

Mr Gartland: That is why, again, there will be two separate things. There will be a fine or a deduction —.

Mr Irwin: A lot of people do not understand that.

Mr Gartland: We can that take away. It is not our area. Cross-compliance lies with a separate part of the Department. We will be taking and seeking to do prosecutions only in the most severe instances of non-compliance with IRM legislation. When you look broadly at the number of restrictions that we would have on at any one time or the number of cattle that we would be restricting at any one time, you see that, compared with the number of prosecutions that we would take, it is very small. It is only as a very last resort, for the most serious issues, that we would take the step to try to bring a case to court. In those instances as well, the ultimate sanction by the court is generally a fine. It is a rarely used power, but it is one that we feel that we need in order to give ourselves legal certainty across the board on the issue.

Mr Irwin: OK.

Mr Blair: It is my hope that there will never be differences arising in something as serious as food security. Without doubt, the wider public — the people whom we represent — would expect there to be pretty robust regulation on food security stemming from traceability, for reasons of public health and animal health and reputation, amongst many others.

The question that I was going to ask is about numbers and is not dissimilar to Patsy's, but I am going to return to it. First, I would like some clarification. Did I hear that 200 or 250 herds out of 700 required further action? That is the first part of that question. The second part is this: I know that we probably cannot get the figure of the number of cases that might have gone to court, but is that because no decision was ever taken to go to court as you could not take that decision?

Mr Gartland: We could not do the on-farm investigation, so we could not know what we could not find. That is why I am working on the basis of the broad estimate of the number of cases that we took to court previous to 2021, when we took the proportionate decision to stop prosecutions. That is the only figure that I can give you on that, John. The figure of 20 cases from 2020 or thereabouts is not based on —.

Mr Blair: Yes.

Mr McAuley: It might be a good guide to hear that, of those 200 or so herds, six received 100% penalties. So, you would expect that that might roughly correlate, but we are only speculating when it comes to the most serious offenders.

Mr Blair: Again, just for clarification for me, is that 200 or 250 herds out of the 700?

Mr McAuley: In total, 250 herds were penalised, and about 200 had a total penalty of 5% or less. It is a voluntary scheme, and they are not obliged to receive those payments. By signing up for them, you agree to apply the conditions, which are legal obligations anyway. We find instances of failure to comply with the conditions when someone has signed up and said that they would do it before they claim those payments. Therefore, out of 20,000 or so herds that have been inspected, 250 have been penalised, and 200 of those had a penalty of 5% or less.

Mr Blair: OK. Those are pretty significant figures nevertheless, and, again, that reinforces the need for robust regulation.

The second question is purely for clarification and, I suppose, for the record. We have had this explained to us in some detail. So that we are clear, was no decision taken not to do that or not to do something about the inconsistency or lack of continuity that arose in 2021? Is it simply the case that nothing was done and a decision was not taken to do anything, meaning that there was no active decision not to do anything?

Mr Gartland: In 2021, with the application of AHL, we had legal advice to say that our legal powers of enforcement would be queried and that there would be a chance of a successful outcome for an appellant if we got a successful prosecution. Therefore, we took the proportionate course, which I outlined, to simply focus on restrictions, as we would normally do. The Department then recognised that efforts were needed to update the statute book, but we did not receive ministerial agreement before October 2022. Thereafter, we were also aware at official level that some aspects of the matter could have been part of the discussions over the Windsor framework, particularly around the XI/899 issue and how that was all going to be settled. When that came to a conclusion, we still were required to apply AHL in its entirety. We were working in the background to progress a larger SR to fully support animal health law IRM requirements in Northern Ireland, and we updated Minister Muir on that.

Unfortunately, that has been delayed because of the complexity around that legislation. Therefore, Minister Muir took the decision in the autumn to progress this SR as quickly as possible in order to bring the enforcement powers back and give us certainty. In the autumn, we will bring the larger SR for consideration, which will, essentially, have some new offences and penalties. It will be subject to a consultation.

That is the timeline of what we did on that. All that I can say is that we did not have a decision about what we should do with future legislation as of October 2022, and then we progressed, as officials, to draft legislation while being conscious of the fact that it could be subject to negotiations. Minister Muir then took the decision in October to progress with this bridging SR.

Mr Blair: That is helpful. Thank you.

Mr T Buchanan: A lot of the issues have been covered. However, when we strip everything away from this and drill right down into it, we find that what we have here is the dictate of the EU, which makes a difference between us and the rest of the United Kingdom. The notes say that it does not have to be applied throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, so it is making a difference. You may well talk about it making small technical changes that make no difference. We have seen over the years that, when such changes come, it is only when they are in place that the farmer on the ground sees that there is a difference and that they make a difference for him.

John spoke about robust legislation for food security. Let me tell you, there is no place where food security is greater than Northern Ireland. There is no fear about that part of it. It simply seems to be the dictates of Europe saying, "You must do this, because it is going to make a difference between you and the rest of the United Kingdom."

Mr Gartland: Tom, the written briefing says that it is the animal health law that is not applied in GB. It is applicable here under the Windsor framework and in the rest of the EU. It is not applicable in GB, although GB may choose to advance certain aspects of it for the trading relationship between England, Scotland and Wales and the EU. The SR simply brings back the enforcement powers that we had in 2021 before the animal health law even came into effect. It broadly does that. It gives us the full range of enforcement powers around IRM. It does not introduce anything new.

In the intervening period between the application of that larger law and now, we have taken a proportionate approach that we think — we will stand over this — has continued to ensure the complete protection of our traceability system and regime. Obviously, after discussing the SR with you today, it is now known that there was a query over the enforcement powers and our ability to enforce in that period, which we would not want to continue after today. That is why, to go back to the question, we would look to make and lay the legislation, if the Committee, in its considerations, would be minded to agree with us that it needs to be done.

The SR will not implement anything new from the EU. The animal health law, which is already here, does. It is already applicable, and farmers still have to do what it says automatically, because it is a regulation. That is separate from what we are here to discuss today. The SR gives us the powers to enforce IRM legislation. Those are powers that, broadly, as was asked earlier, England, Scotland and Wales should have but over which we have a legal question mark at the minute. It is hoped that this SR resolves that. That is what we intend to do. That is why it is technical. To be clear, the animal health law is not applicable in GB. That is not this SR; the SR that we are talking about today is on enforcement powers.

Mr Andrews: The fundamentals between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK are still the same. For example, herd keepers will still have to notify a birth in England, Scotland and Wales in the same way that we do, and they will still be required to notify movements of their holding in England, Scotland and Wales in exactly the same way as us. There are very broad parallels. The fundamentals of the farm-to-fork regime and the requirements that are placed on herd keepers and flock keepers are broadly identical.

Mr McAuley: This legislation is part of the high standards and high standing of our domestic traceability regime. It is vital. Our third country, internal market and all the rest of it — I mean customers we are trading with, the internal supermarkets, the EU and everybody else — will require this legislation to be in place. When they are auditing their meat plants, as they all do, they will be looking for an operable solution. It is not just about going out and prosecuting farmers — that is a last resort for them. Part of the overall traceability regime is about having these powers, and customers will expect to see them.

Mr T Buchanan: It gives you powers to enforce. I want to go back to what Patsy was getting at. If that power to enforce had been in place since 2021, how many enforcements do you estimate you would have made?

Mr Gartland: We can give you only an average of what we did before 2021. There were 20 contraventions of the law a year. As I said, that was not necessarily 20 people; it could have been five or six people involved in 20 incidents in which they did not do what they should have done under IRM legislation. I can give you only that figure. It is hypothetical. We discussed what happened in the time before that and thought that it would be of help to the Committee if we outlined that. Before 2021, there were three convictions in 2020, seven or eight in 2019 and 17 or 18 in 2018.

Mr McAuley: Not all those 20 would necessarily have resulted in a conviction. They could have been dealt with through cautions, conditional discharges and all sorts of legal mechanisms. They would not have all necessarily ended up in a criminal conviction.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Do members have any other questions? I have a couple, because this is a very interesting conversation. To pick up on Thomas's point, the animal health law applied from 2021. IRM is one part of that. We could find ourselves at different stages if GB decides to do something slightly different, or, if the EU decides to amend its legislation, we will keep coming back here. I suppose that is a risk of that future and growing divergence. You guys will not have been able to have scoped this, because we did not know which president we were getting in the US, or maybe you did not have sight of the EU signing the Mercosur deal. Obviously, this is about trade opportunities and food security. The EU has signed up to the Mercosur deal, which is evidently opening the door to a product that, I imagine, will not have this application. Furthermore, there will be products from South America that will not have been subject to this level of animal health legislation. On a global scale, there is the potential for further trade deals to be made now with the new American Administration. I am just going to say this, as much as you might not like it: we in this place are in a bit of a democratic deficit in that we have no say in the animal health legislation that is made in the EU. I know that that is very high level, but it is the reality. I am not giving you an out — I know how this works, so we need to be realistic in how we talk about these things — but, given that, what are discussions like with DEFRA and the other devolved regions on their ambitions on how closely they are going to work with the updated aspects of European legislation? Is there any hint that the Labour Government, for instance, are going to take that route?

Mr Gartland: There are a couple of questions there, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Yes, sorry.

Mr Gartland: You are grand. It is fair to say that animal health law applies here and does not apply in Great Britain, but Ministers there could decide to apply any aspect of it if they wished. We are under a legal obligation to apply it because of the Windsor framework. Yes, the European Union could take a decision to update that at any point, although it would have to go through its own democratic procedures and processes to ensure that it does so correctly, or, if the power to do it is given to the Commission, it must do it through democratic processes.

If it is done under the Windsor framework, it is likely to be subject to the democratic mechanisms that have been agreed here, and we may have to apply them. That is therefore fair.

What you say about the democratic deficit at an EU level is not a question for me to answer. That is more of a political question, so I will not attempt to answer it in any way. I cannot give you any information on the trade deal, because that is not our area of expertise. We cover domestic IRM legislation about movements in and out of Northern Ireland. We do not necessarily look at the rationale behind why products from a country with a lower or higher standard could come into here. That is for greater minds than mine to decide. I therefore cannot come back to the Committee on that question. I am sure that trade colleagues in the Department will come back to you with answers to some of the questions that have arisen.

I am not aware of the advice on the future relationship potentially being issued to UK Ministers. It will be a political decision for them to make. I go back to the obligations that the Windsor framework places on us. From the legal advice that we have received as departmental officials, we have to apply the law as it stands and advise the Minister to do the same and for him to assist us by agreeing to it and progressing it where we do not have a choice.

Mr Andrews: We regularly liaise on traceability with our colleagues in England, Scotland and Wales. They are very cognisant of the fact that Northern Ireland is in a unique position. We are still part of a UK traceability regime, but we are also part of an EU traceability regime, and our colleagues understand and respect that. Livestock traceability legislation is devolved to all four nations of the UK, so there was always the potential for England, Scotland and Wales to interpret it slightly differently. There is, however, a will and a desire to work together to ensure that, whatever rules are in place across the UK, we have a totally operable and robust UK traceability regime for external trade. The will to keep working together is there, and it will persist into the future.

Mr Gartland: The common frameworks come under what Chris has outlined, which the Committee has already considered and will do so again in due course. The common frameworks are the mechanisms by which we can formally discuss any divergence. Indeed, if officials cannot determine the answer to a question, such as on whether we can diverge or on the impact of divergence, it would go to the inter-ministerial group if there were a serious concern. The structures are in place, and the common frameworks provide a mechanism that covers a broad range of areas, including animal health and welfare and zootech. As members will be aware, there are other common frameworks for other parts of the Department.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): It is shaping up to be a simple problem with complex issues over here.

Mr Irwin: I have a quick question. The emphasis has been on the fact that the Department does not have the legal powers to bring farmers to court. I am aware of a farmer in my constituency who was brought to court some months ago. There are therefore still powers to bring farmers to court.

Mr Gartland: We have powers to bring farmers to court for non-convention of the law around, for example, animal health, welfare and transport, just not around IRM. Indeed, if there has been a court case about not meeting IRM requirements, the offence may have occurred before 2021 and the process already started. The Department has not actively taken any prosecutions for IRM offences since 2021, which was when the legal advice stated that our powers to enforce were at risk. We are partly here today to ask for the enforcement powers for IRM back, but we are also here to give ourselves complete legal certainty that the restrictions that we continue to have in place on farms cannot be challenged, for the reason that it is the right thing for the Department to do. Farmers should have complied anyway. That is why the restrictions were applied.

Mr Irwin: Most members of the Committee may not fully understand the matter. Has the Department been fully active in doing cross-compliance inspections throughout the period?

Mr Gartland: Yes.

Mr Irwin: That has therefore not been an issue.

Mr Gartland: No. Cross-compliance is different legislation and a completely different regime from what we cover, which is the identification, registration and movement of animals. It is not about payments to farmers or the ability to enforce a reduction in any payment or any scheme. That has nothing to do with us. We work on farm-to-fork traceability and on enforcing the requirements that are placed on farmers here.

Mr Irwin: Cross-compliance is also part of that.

Mr Gartland: For the sustainability centres, it is, yes, but that is a separate area to do with finance and a voluntary code that farmers sign up to in order to receive the money. It is different from a legal obligation placed on farmers to do the correct thing to ensure that our traceability regime is robust.

Mr Irwin: Absolutely. I am on for that. I am not against it. It is very important.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): No other members have anything else to add or any more questions to ask. You have been well and truly grilled, gentlemen. Thank you for attending, for taking our questions in the manner in which you did and for your responses.

Do members wish to comment on the content of the discussion and answers from the Department or on the Department's ambition to take forward the SR? If the Department is going to make the SR, it will be considered in due course.

Mr Irwin: We have some concerns about the SR, given that it is EU-led.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. Do any other members have anything to add? The Committee needs to decide whether it is content with the SR.

The Committee Clerk: We do not need to take a formal vote until the SR comes before us, but if members have strong views that they want fed back to the Minister, this is the time to raise them. It would be useful to get a view on whether there is general support for it so that the officials can take that information back.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We have the officials in front of us, guys. You are well aware of the questions that were asked and the responses. I can see the need for the SR, as it will ensure that there is a regime in place, but I share the concerns of some members about the fact that it is about only one element of animal health law. The discussion, however, has also been about future divergence, the global uncertainty that there is around trade and — I will be honest — the democratic deficit that arises from the fact that we do not have a voice in altering animal health law.

Mr T Buchanan: Therein lies the problem. The officials are before us to speak about the small, technical changes that are coming from Europe to do with the issue, but there is no guarantee that, within six or 12 months, those same folks will not be sitting in front of us again and looking to make further changes over which we have no say. The changes are dictated to us from Europe. The EU might look to make further changes that the rest of the UK would not have to implement. That is where the difficulty arises for us.

Mr Gartland: That is where we need to be clear. The SR will allow us to continue to enforce the powers that we had before 2016 and before 2021. There is nothing new in the SR, apart from that small change from 14 days to 20 days for imports of goats and sheep. The SR will allow us to enforce the new tags that have been rolled out. If we do not make the SR, we are proceeding at risk when it comes to enforcement of any IRM offences in Northern Ireland. We will not be able to take any prosecutions to court, and we could viably be challenged on the restrictions that we have in place. That is the impact from not making the SR. It does not bring in anything new, however.

Tom, you may not think it, but we want to be back with you again in six months, because we are working on a larger piece of legislation that will fully support animal health law in Northern Ireland. That legislation will contain a number of changes, which will be the new things to be introduced as a result of changes to animal health law. We do not think that there will be many changes, but we will come here to discuss the legislation with the Committee. We will have to go out to consultation on it. The Committee will fully consider it. The rights and wrongs of that are not for me to highlight, because I will simply be progressing what we are legally mandated to do and what the Minister has asked us to do. That will be the time at which we will highlight all the discussions about anything that is new, anything existing that will change or anything else that the Department will potentially be taking forward, subject to the Minister's view on a derogation or on an option that the he may have to choose.

Today's SR simply assures us of our ability to be able to enforce IRM legislation and take action where there is non-compliance with the obligations placed on farmers. Those obligations are the same today as they were in 2020 and 2021, but, because of the intervening period and the fact that our legislation was created by referring to old legislation and EU regulations that have now gone, we have an issue. That is why we needed to come here today. I take your point, but we will come back to the Committee in the autumn about anything new as a result of changes animal health law that we then need to put into domestic statute law.

Mr Blair: I understand and respect the fact that the views of some on the EU, including yours, Chair, are different from mine. I genuinely do. Confusion and uncertainty arose on a previous occasion, however. As a result, I had to seek clarification about issues that the Committee raised that it then officially sent, or did not send, to the Minister. I will therefore be asking for a summary of the issues that we have raised today. I make an appeal, which I hope is recorded, that any requests that are sent to the Minister on this or any other occasion not be outwith his responsibilities. Like anyone in this room, the Minister cannot single-handedly change the Windsor framework arrangements or anything else.

What we can do is work with him and other Ministers, irrespective of the differing views, to try to seek new arrangements and solutions where there are problems. That is a separate, political issue, as are the Windsor framework arrangements. We therefore need to be clear that some are objecting because of an arrangement that is outwith the Minister's control. The SR is something that he cannot provide an answer on, whatever concerns we express, and it is certainly something that he cannot change. I am keen to see it progress, given some of the stats that I have seen today and the clear gaps that currently exist in legislation and in regulation. I could not do anything other than support the SR at this stage. If there are other concerns, however, we need to list them. We also need to be specific so that we know that, when replies come back, if they come back, they relate to the concerns that we have raised and that new concerns do not arise at a later stage that were never addressed in the first place.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I respect everything that you have said, John. We have Hansard here today, who will report everything that is said, so there will be a verbatim record of everything. You make a fair point. Any requests that we make of the Department and the Minister have to be within the vires of the legislation, but there are vires that do not exist at the moment. Future divergence will happen as a result of the Windsor framework. There is no doubt about that. The Minister has no control over that, but, as legislators, we have every right to pursue issues and try to mitigate them. I would like the Labour Government to pursue an agenda in which that divergence is diminished, not extended. We all have a fist in the fight. Unfortunately, in this legislature, we are voiceless.

As I said, the meeting is being recorded by Hansard. We can sit here and compile a list if you like, John. I do not mind if members want to raise points about the wider context, as I have done. I think that we all agree on the point about the ability of our Department to pursue non-compliance with animal health law and related issues. That point has been well made, and I do not think that anybody could argue with that.

Mr Blair: And the issue of food security.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Yes. There is another context that I will raise, having already alluded to it. If members have anything brief that they wish to add, I ask that they do.

We are not taking a vote on the Committee's position on the SR today. The final question that I will ask you guys is whether the Minister has a date in mind, or in the diary, on which to lay the SR in the Business Office.

Mr Gartland: The Minister had asked for the legislation to be made as quickly as possible after the evidence session if the Committee indicated that it was in agreement with the requirement for it. We therefore seek to make and lay it tomorrow, the reason being that, because we have had this discussion today, it will have become apparent that there is a question of legal risk over the enforcement powers that we continue to use and need for food security, our supply chain and our farm-to-fork regime. That is why we were intending to make and lay it tomorrow. It was also to highlight to the Examiner of Statutory Rules the rationale behind why that would be the case. That is what we were intending to do, with the Minister's permission.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Unless members are going to tell me any different, I cannot say with any certainty that the Committee is agreed. It is certainly not unanimous. I just want to make sure that I am not putting my foot somewhere that it is not supposed to be. The Committee is not unanimous in its view. Tom, in particular, I think, would be —.

Mr T Buchanan: During today's discussion, I heard one of the witnesses say that the Department will meet the Ulster Farmers' Union tomorrow about the SR. It would be good for us to get the view of the Ulster Farmers' Union, NIAPA and other such folk. Why wait until tomorrow to meet the Ulster Farmers' Union? Why have you not met it before now? It would have been good for the Committee to hear where the Ulster Farmers' Union and NIAPA stand on the issue. It would have been good to have that information.

Mr Gartland: We are meeting the Ulster Farmers' Union tomorrow because we wanted to meet the Committee first to provide it with an overview of the SR. The only reason that we are meeting the Ulster Farmers' Union is to tell it that there is no change for any farmers as a result of the SR. The enforcement that we have taken over the past two and a half years is now being called into question, now that that has been made public. We are asking the UFU to make sure that its encourages its members, as far as is possible, to ensure that its obligations and IRM requirements are met. We will also reassure it that the actions that we took were proportionate in order for us to try to continue to ensure food safety in the supply. We are meeting the UFU, as well as NIAPA, tomorrow to discuss that. They would not be aware of the legal question that has been raised about the enforcement regime. We want to assure them that we were doing the right thing and try to ensure that they support the Department in its attempts to continue with the restrictions that are already in place.

Mr McGlone: I support the move. For whatever reason it happened, it is unfortunate that the EU legislation lapsed in 2021. I am sure that the industry wants to send a very clear message about what our food is like. I am sure that it wants to say that proper measures are being taken by the Department to ensure that there is a good product coming from Northern Ireland. That is uppermost in my mind.

Mr Gartland: I agree, Patsy.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Members, does that mean that the Committee can agree? I will soon put the Question. Do members want to take a formal position on the SR at this stage, or do they want to wait until the Minister has laid the SR? I am sure that we will hear from stakeholders after this meeting, because the people who are interested in it will, I am sure, be pursuing us.

Mr Irwin: I am a wee bit uncomfortable, but not because of the enforcement regime. I am up for dealing with those who do not obey the rules. I have no issue with that. We have concerns about the EU input, however, so we will want to discuss it further.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. The indication from the Committee, as will be evidenced in Hansard, is that it is not unanimous in its support for the SR. There is some support for it, and some concerns have been raised. The Committee is, I am sure, supportive of re-establishing the regime. After the Department's discussions with the UFU and any other stakeholders, and after the SR is laid, the Committee will revisit it and take a formal vote.

Mr McAleer: I want to clarify something with the Department. If the Department has to wait for the Committee's view on the SR, will that in any way impede or delay its implementation?

Mr Gartland: We will need to discuss that with the Minister. This is a public session in which we have discussed the ongoing lack of legal certainty over our powers, so that is now in the public domain. There is a range of restrictions that have placed on individuals because they are not compliant. There is probably now concern because of that. There is a need to reinstate the powers as soon as possible. Bear in mind that, if we do not do make the SR at this juncture, we have a legal obligation to apply and support EU legislation in Northern Ireland. We always have had. I will therefore need to take advice on that. Setting aside that legal obligation, I still need to take the Minister's mind on what he intends to do on the issue of enforcing powers. I need to do that before I can provide any answers.

Mr McAleer: Without a vote having even been taken, it is obvious to me that the majority of Committee members favour the SR's implementation. If waiting for the view of the Committee will impede that and delay the introduction of the enforcement regime, which is so important for protecting our agri-food industry, I want a vote to be taken.

Mr Blair: I agree, Chair. I do not need to speak again. It has all been said.

Mr Irwin: The SR has taken a long time to come here — from 2021 until now — so it cannot have been that big an issue.

Mr Gartland: The issue was not public at that time.

Mr Blair: It is a pretty big issue for food security.

Mr Irwin: If it is such a big issue, it should have been with us before now.

Mr Blair: It is for some of us.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We are in public session today. The game has therefore changed. There is a realisation that there is a risk. There is also a risk of future divergence because of the Windsor framework. That is not within our control, however.

I am minded to accept the proposal from the Deputy Chair to take a formal vote on whether members are content that the Minister take forward the draft SL1, as proposed by the Minister and as evidenced by departmental officials today.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): The Department now knows the Committee's formal position. There are five votes in favour and three abstentions.

Mr Blair: Are there three abstentions, Chair?

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I abstained.

Mr Blair: There are therefore three.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Yes.

Mr Blair: Thank you.

Mr Gartland: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, everyone.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you very much for your presentation.