Robbie Butler
Lagan Valley · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Officials highlighted that alignment was provided through existing EU-derived arrangements and that coherence with existing regulatory frameworks was identified as a main consideration.”
“I note that the Member for Strangford agrees: she understands the value of our fisheries in those areas. There are other complexities. The Isle of Man Government have now done a bit of a circle around that island, which makes it difficult for our fishers from Portavogie, Kilkeel and Portaferry to craft and graft a living from some of the…”
“The Committee took the opportunity to question officials on several issues and highlight matters warranting scrutiny at Committee Stage but was not limited to those areas.”
“As the Minister said, they have possibly been viewed as competing demands, but they are not competing demands, because clean water is part of sustainable food production.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am glad to see language in the Bill on the sustainability of the aquaculture sector, and I want to lean in a bit on that. Aquaculture pastimes have, perhaps, been underutilised, whether they relate to the angling fraternity or other river and water users.”
“Today, I want to talk about a very talented young girl from Lisburn called Freya Terris. Freya, who is 17 years old, attends Friends' School and studies the piano under former Lisburn resident Rory Dowse. Freya is an incredibly accomplished young pianist and has performed in the Ulster Hall.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,636 lines we hold for Robbie Butler, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 21 of 53.
“<BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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 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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“However, it has continued to take all possible measures short of pursuing legal action in cases where breaches of IRM requirements have been identified. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“The bottom line is that officials advised us that there is a need to ensure that DAERA continues to have a legally enforceable livestock traceability regime and that there has been some legal uncertainty about the Department's ability to fully apply the relevant enforcement provisions to this date. However, the officials were at pains to note that the legal obligations to correctly and appropriately identify livestock and record their movements have applied to farmers at all times.”
“We heard that the SR makes technical amendments to five separate pieces of domestic livestock movement legislation, and, primarily, the regulations update references to the repealed EU instruments by replacing them with the reference to the equivalent AHL provisions. We heard that technical changes are required to ensure that the domestic legislation that provides for the enforcement of the EU requirements on IRM refer to the correct current legislation. A change also has been made by the SR to update the details of what is considered an approved livestock ID tag to align with the requirements for the new XI prefixes.”
“That was "revoked and replaced" by the animal health law (AHL), which is listed in annex 2 of the Windsor framework and, therefore, applies to Northern Ireland. We were advised that the AHL:”
“At its meeting on 23 January, DAERA officials briefed the Committee on the Animals (Identification, Records, Movement and Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025. We were advised why the SR was needed, and the reasons are as follows. <BR /> <BR />From 2021, the EU legislation that set out a system for the identification, registration and movement of livestock, otherwise known as IRM, has been:”
“We need to see ambition from the Minister — all Ministers — and the Department not just in ensuring the survival of family farms but in working collaboratively with the AERA Committee to mitigate climate harm, improve our shared environment and build a future that works for generations to come.”
“<BR /> <BR />A particular concern of mine is that the farm sustainability transitional payments and other provisions are being framed as the key risk factor: the leverage to push this over the line. That does not bode well for future change. Farmers in Northern Ireland already operate under mounting financial uncertainty and severe fiscal pressure. If we are to introduce policy changes that directly impact on family farms, the backbone of our rural economy, we must take time to get it right. That means proper scrutiny, proper consultation and, crucially, proper communication of the Committee's assessments. It cannot be about short-term fixes.”
“The Department's failure to provide early sight of a finalised draft statutory rule means that we now face an unnecessarily compressed decision-making window. That is not a minor inconvenience; it fundamentally weakens the ability of the Assembly and, in particular, the AERA Committee, of which I am Chair, to do its job effectively. The role of the Committee is not simply to rubber-stamp legislation but to scrutinise it, engage meaningfully with stakeholders and ensure that it is as robust and future-proofed as possible. The truncated time frame means that we are unable to fully examine the implications of the regulations or carry out our core function, which is to support the Minister in delivering the best possible legislation. It is a rather serious failing not just of process but, perhaps, of governance.”
“However, the majority of Committee members are of the opinion that, if the House did not approve the draft SR today, the delay would cause difficulty with departmental timings and could result in a failure to bring forward legislation in good time and to create the necessary space for the Committee to work. I am sure that the Minister is hanging on to my every word. I believe that he is listening, because he has made himself available over the past couple of weeks. <BR /> <BR />I will now comment on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, if that is OK. While the high-level ambition and briefing last May appeared on the surface to provide a reasonable timeline for the transitional provisions, the reality is different.”
“However, most members felt that, although the issue was brought to the Committee in May, there had been considerable changes to the policy position since then. Overall, the majority of Committee members feel that they have been put in the difficult position of not being able to fully explore the impacts of concern and that they have no real choice, as to further delay the SR would result in unwelcome consequences, as I have described. Members expressed the need for sufficient time to exercise their scrutiny role in the future and said that, generally, the Committee was not being given time and space to properly scrutinise the details of SRs. <BR /> <BR />I then sought the Committee's view on whether it could reach a consensus on supporting the draft SR in the plenary debate. I confirm that no consensus was reached on the draft SR.”
“Further Committee discussions followed. Some members raised the issue of a lack of financial support for new entrants to farming and the possibility that the price of entitlements could rise and that the proposed changes could put young farmers at a disadvantage compared with, perhaps, farmers in the Republic of Ireland where a young farmer scheme, I believe, remains in place. The majority of members expressed dissatisfaction that the Department had not taken on board previous concerns raised by the Committee. One member felt that there had been ample time, as the Committee was first notified, as I said, of the Department's intention in May 2024, and highlighted the fact that the scheme did not seem to provide value for money and had a relatively low uptake.”
“I do not need to remind Members of the financial difficulty that farmers already face. In addition, as:”
“The response also states that, if the draft SR is not approved:”
“The majority of the Committee then agreed to write to the Department to seek an urgent response to their concerns and to hold an additional meeting to see whether Committee consensus could be reached on the draft SR. I thank the members of the Committee for participating in that extraordinary meeting on Monday morning. <BR /> <BR />A response was received to our queries, and the Committee met yesterday at 10.00 am to conclude its consideration of the matters. DAERA's response stated:”
“Some members felt that brand new entrants to farming would be disadvantaged and that there may be a situation in future in which there are not enough entitlements to match the land available. Some members also expressed concern that farmers who will not meet the "active farmer" definition will have only a short window in which to move their entitlements on to someone else. However, a member also highlighted that the Minister had outlined that the YFP was no longer value for money and that the schemes have made no difference to the age structure of the head of holdings on Northern Ireland farms, particularly over the past 10 years.”
“The majority of the Committee also expressed concern that, generally, we were not being given sufficient time to fully scrutinise and influence the delegated legislation. <BR /> <BR />On Monday 10 February, the Deputy Chair and I attended an informal meeting with the Minister at which he provided a follow-up letter that detailed the Farming for the Generations scheme and the rationale for closing the YFP and RR. The Committee then discussed those matters on 13 February, by which time the Minister had agreed to postpone moving the motion until today. The majority of members expressed concern that there had been no change, despite the range of concerns raised by the Committee and that there was still no certainty on the timeline for the Farming for the Generations scheme.”
“Unfortunately, therefore, the Committee did not have the revised draft SR for 6 February and could not form a view at that meeting. At that meeting, however, we noted correspondence from the APSG, which is chaired by the UFU, confirming that its member groups supported the draft SR. We have also received correspondence from several member groups of the APSG — the NI Meat Exporters Association, the NI Grain Trade Association and NI Environmental Link — stating that they support the SR. We then wrote to the Minister to request that he not move the motion on 11 February. The majority of the Committee also agreed to write to the Minister, calling for the continuation of the YFP and the regional reserve (RR) until Farming for the Generations is in place.”
“Officials confirmed that that was being looked at as part of the SAP. <BR /> <BR />The majority of members requested more time to scrutinise the draft SR. However, one member stated that he did not want to see any delay, as the plans for the SR had been discussed as far back as May 2024. The Committee then wrote to stakeholders listed on the APSG, giving them the opportunity to provide their views on the draft SR. The draft SR was then due to be considered at our meeting on 6 February, but the Examiner of Statutory Rules advised that there were drafting issues. <BR /> <BR />As far as we understand, the draft SR went between the Assembly Business Office and the Department a few times before the final revised draft was laid on Friday 7 February.”
“Some members were concerned about the plan to end entitlements for new entrants, believing that it will deter new people from entering farming because the new farmer will be beholden to another person who is leasing them the entitlements. In response, officials advised that the Minister was not removing support for new entrants but removing old EU legacy schemes. Some members remained concerned that the only way in which a new entrant can get entitlements is to lease them or buy them from a farmer who either does not need them or does not want them — I made the point that it is a bit like buying a liquor licence — which does not allow a young person with no farming background who is just starting out to have their own chance. Members also expressed a desire to see a crisis framework, such as one related to bad weather.”
“On a positive note, members were pleased to note the early success of the uptake of the beef carbon reduction scheme. We were keen to know how the programme will assist with having an effective supply chain. However, we were advised that the supply chain schemes are not as well advanced as others and that a strategic pilot is being developed.”
“Having heard the detail of the draft regulation on 30 January, the Committee queried a number of matters with officials.”
“Officials highlighted that Farming for the Generations will be:”
“When officials came to the Committee in May, five hectares of eligible land was proposed as the minimum, as I think that the Minister pointed out. The Committee disagreed at that time due to the fact that many farms here that contribute to food production are smaller than five hectares. The Committee was therefore pleased to learn that that will remain at three hectares, and we thank the Minister for reconsidering that. <BR /> <BR />We heard:”
“We also heard that those who were not active farmers during the historical reference period will be able to transfer their entitlements by closure of the trading window in 2026 and that the:”
“which I will refer to as the FSTP, and a number of provisions to "support the roll-out" of the SAP. <BR /> <BR />The Committee heard that the draft SR was an updated version of the plans that were brought before the Committee in May 2024. However, the draft SR that is now before us covers significantly more provisions than were covered in that early briefing. At its meeting on 30 January, the Committee heard:”
“I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. The Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs scrutinised the draft statutory rule over a number of meetings, and it is important to go through our considerations. <BR /> <BR />On 30 January, we received an oral briefing from officials on the SL1 regarding the draft SR, and we were notified that the farm sustainability programme is now referred to as the sustainable agriculture programme. If approved today, the regulations will:”
“<BR /> <BR />Minister, the Bill has the potential to be a lifeline that can ensure that no deaf child is left struggling because they cannot fully access their education, their community, the health system or their future. If we get the Bill right, we will be doing more than just passing legislation. We will be correcting an equality imbalance that has persisted for too long. We will be giving more than hope to deaf children and their parents, and we will be legislating for their future, for their success and for a society that truly values them. I am sorry that I am not on the Communities Committee for the Bill. I would really like to be part of it, but I am sure that, when Andy is back, we will work collegiately to assist you with the Bill.”
“Those are not just technical questions: the answers will determine whether the Bill will deliver real change or simply set aspirations that will never be met. We need to be clear about the stakes. There are at least 1,600 deaf children in Northern Ireland today, more than half of whom have a mild or moderate level of deafness. As we know, the vast majority attend mainstream schools. We also know that deaf children in Northern Ireland are more likely than their hearing peers to experience mental health issues, with figures at around 21% compared with 12% of the general population. That, sadly, is not an accident. It is the result of systemic barriers, isolation and a lack of support.”
“Will we measure the outcomes for deaf children in later life to ensure that they get all the employment opportunities that they should and all of life's wonderful offerings?”
“It is not just about schooling; it is about lifelong inclusion. We have debated many times the importance of the first 1,001 days in any child's life. If any child has additional needs or a disability, that must be picked up at the earliest stage, and we must not wait or delay in getting those necessary supports in place. <BR /> <BR />We all know that legislation is only as strong as its implementation, so I will ask the Minister a number of questions. Will the Bill be backed by the necessary funding and resources to ensure that it is more than just symbolic? What mechanisms will be in place to monitor its success and listen to experiences, particularly those of deaf children, young people and their families? How will we ensure that teachers and interpreters are appropriately accredited and registered so that quality is not compromised?”
“We need to ensure that those in rural communities and those who do not have much money to access services are not left behind at any point. Good intentions will mean little if families who desperately need those classes cannot access them. <BR /> <BR />Public bodies must be held accountable for ensuring sign language access across all areas of deaf children's lives, be that in education, healthcare, social services or everyday interactions with government. The Bill must guarantee that sign language is embedded as a right and is not an afterthought. The National Deaf Children's Society has made it clear that access to a language-rich environment from birth is critical for deaf children's development, whether that is in communication, learning, forming friendships or participating in their communities.”
“For deaf children, adults and their families, it is about more than just policy; it is about dignity, inclusion and the fundamental right to communicate in their own language. I commend the recognition that deaf children and their families should have access to sign language classes. I ask the Minister whether that will be fully resourced. That is a point that Kellie Armstrong made. I know that it is early, but we need to ensure that, in our compressed mandate, we deliver on what we can and that the classes are widely available and accessible to all families, regardless of income and geography. There are a number of assessments that we can make. I would like to ensure that provision is rural-proofed and prosperity-independent so that it is not just for those who live in our cities or well-populated towns.”
“<BR /> <BR />That is why, today, I will seek some clarity to measure the ambition and, hopefully, hear some assurance from the Minister that the legislation will deliver transformative change, particularly for deaf children and young people and the wider deaf community in Northern Ireland. As I have said, for too long, our deaf community has faced real barriers to full participation in society. The Bill presents a chance to right those imbalances, but we must ensure that it has teeth so that it has an impact on their lives. This is not about well-intentioned words on a page or great speeches. <BR /> <BR />I particularly welcome the recognition of British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language and the commitment to promoting greater understanding of and access to those languages.”
“Thanks to those in the Public Gallery and the activists who, for many years, have wrestled with us, regardless of whether we have been here or not, to bring forward legislation that should, hopefully, bring tangible change to their lives. I therefore welcome this moment, particularly at this early stage. I know that it is only the Second Stage, but, as Kellie Armstrong outlined, it is imperative that we do not just give each other a pat on the back but add a level of scrutiny and deliberative, proactive engagement on all these matters. We must test the legislation diligently to ensure that we deliver something that has both scope and breadth to bring about tangible change. We must ensure that we take every opportunity to create ambitious law but, very importantly, do not overpromise, because that is almost as bad as getting it wrong.”
“That is the last compliment that you are going to get in this mandate.”
“As chair of the all-party group on disability, I know only too well, from the many presentations that we have had from people of all ages, particularly young people, about the lack of inclusivity that deaf people feel. To see a Minister stepping up today and doing that was —.”
“I congratulate the Minister, not just for introducing the Bill but for starting the debate by using sign language. That was more than impressive and it was very welcome.”
“— and to invest in a truly just transition. I will conclude there.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee is aware from its evidence sessions that rural support is under significant pressure, and the Committee requests that it remain a focus for the Agriculture Minister. The Minister highlighted to us his view that investing in addressing climate change is an opportunity to pursue the green growth agenda, so the Committee expects to see the continued prioritisation of funding in that regard. We know that the Minister shares our interest in supporting the agriculture sector to play its part in climate actions by, for example, delivering finance to ensure that there is research to improve technologies —”
“They have had to avail themselves of the different iterations of Peace funds and various funding pots, as departmental funding is uncertain and inconsistent. Chasing those funds takes vital energy and time away from their on-the-ground delivery. <BR /> <BR />The budgetary challenges of the past year that have come to the Committee's attention are fairly similar to those from the year before. Bovine TB remains — I have said this more than once — one of the most challenging issues facing cattle farmers, with high herd incidence remaining and the spend on the programme and on compensation increasing year-on-year. However, the overall compensation still does not cover the full income lost, as it takes time to rebuild a herd, never mind the emotional distress.”
“We heard about the historical underinvestment in rural women and how, when budgets are tightened, rural transport is often lost, and networks and women's projects, sadly, come under threat. There was a request to put the TRPSI programme on a statutory footing to ensure funding. The general point was that those groups just do not have enough money to deliver their services. I think that it is agreed across the board that all of the rural support networks have to look for funding elsewhere to enable them to carry out their vital work in rural community development. The organisations have branched out into different things, such as healthy living networks, which are supported by lottery funds.”
“In addition, the Department reclassified £1·6 million resource DEL to capital DEL for the environmental farming scheme, the common market organisation regulation and the farm carbon footprinting project. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was pleased to hear that DAERA continues to provide capital support to farm businesses through significant capital expenditure in the farm business improvement scheme and the environmental farming scheme. In 2024-25, a total of £5·7 million capital DEL was allocated to the TRPSI programme to fund the rural business development grant scheme and the rural micro capital grant scheme . <BR /> <BR />The Committee has devoted considerable time to rural affairs and took its meeting on 21 November to Loughry college in Cookstown to take evidence from rural partnership groups and rural support groups.”
“Regarding the SSEs, we heard that, during the 2024-25 Budget year, an additional £15·7 million resource DEL was allocated, including £4 million for bovine TB programme delivery; £1·5 million for the environmental improvement plan, including Lough Neagh; £3·6 million for departmental overcommitments; and £6·6 million for depreciation. His Majesty's Treasury (HMT) funding of £46·6 million was also allocated in-year in relation to administering the Windsor framework. During the year, an additional £1·6 million of capital DEL was allocated to take forward work on Lough Neagh, and £2 million was allocated for the tackling rural poverty and social isolation (TRPSI) programme. HMT funding of £2·8 million was also allocated in-year in relation to the cost of administering the Windsor framework.”
“<BR /> <BR />At our meeting on 6 February, we had a briefing from officials on the main drivers of spending changes since the 2024-25 Main Estimates and on the 2025-26 Budget. I will save the Committee's comments on the 2025-26 Budget for the appropriate debate in the near future.”
“The Committee has had consistent concerns over the cuts to discretionary spend, because those areas are often where a big impact on public well-being is lost, such as public angling, access to nature and rural support initiatives. <BR /> <BR />When it came to June monitoring, the bids were clearly based on the unmet elements of the Budget bids. In addition, there were specific bids for the statutory obligation of bovine TB compensation, as there were insufficient funds to cover what it was projected to cost by Brian Dooher, the Chief Veterinary Officer, and his team. DAERA, however, is not unique in having to rely on in-year allocations to meet even the statutory aspects of its work, of which bovine TB is one.”