Tom Buchanan
West Tyrone · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“However, the Bill must give hydro operators clarity and confidence, through a sustainable licensing framework with long-term regulatory certainty, to enable them to invest and upgrade, modernise and improve fish pass technology.”
“I note that quite a bit of work in the Bill falls to the Department with regard to monitoring, enforcement and scientific assessment, which will require adequate resourcing. <BR /> <BR />The Bill must strike the right balance between encouraging investment and protecting sensitive freshwater habitats.”
“I welcome the opportunity to say a few words at Second Stage of the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill. It is overdue legislation, which touches on three interlinked systems: commercial fisheries; growing the aquaculture sector; and the wider water environment, with an ambition to modernise regulation while supporting susta…”
“<BR /> <BR />Hydro schemes and hydropower to produce clean energy that will contribute to decarbonisation targets must be catered for in the Bill, with a clear vision for their future expansion. Those are not abstract infrastructure projects but local assets that generate clean renewable energy while supporting employment in rural areas.”
“Minister, under your watch, many miles of posts and wire fencing were put up along the A5 western transport corridor. However, in the past few weeks, a good bit of that has been removed by a mechanical digger and pushed into a pile for dumping.”
“In reality, however, every notice, every new form and every new administrative step will be another cost to councils. We simply cannot keep relying on councils to pick up the cost. We cannot pretend that council budgets are elastic, with plenty of stretch left in them. As is the case in many other sectors, councils are under pressure.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,021 lines we hold for Tom Buchanan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 21.
“<BR /> <BR />The main objectives of the motions, as Members will know, have been highlighted in the debate today, and are to improve on the provisions in the House for an official Opposition, from qualification and formation to titles, provision to ask questions, representation on Statutory Committees and the Business Committee, and chairing the Public Accounts Committee. Those are important changes to support more effective working arrangements should there be an official Opposition in the House. <BR /> <BR />As the Chairperson highlighted at the beginning of the debate, it has taken a number of years, an independent review and much Committee deliberation to reach this point.”
“<BR /> <BR />I can attest that the Committee has carefully considered the recommendations and narrowed down the areas where it considered procedural changes were needed in order to give effect to the intent of the report. The motions before the House, therefore, fulfil the Committee on Procedures' aspects of the job regarding improvements for an official Opposition to operate in the House. The Committee has carefully considered the impacts that they will have, as outlined by the Chair. It even sought additional information on how questions would be handled under the proposed new arrangements. Today's motions are a result of months of detailed work undertaken by the Committee. I am confident that the majority of them are appropriate and will suffice in their objectives.”
“I will speak first as Deputy Chair of the Committee on Procedures, and following what I have to say about the work that the Committee did, I will speak briefly as a DUP representative. <BR /> <BR />First, I thank the Committee Chairperson for opening the debate, as well as Members who have made contributions. It has been interesting to hear the views of Members on the Committee on Procedures' motion to make enhanced provision for an official Opposition in this House. As we all know, we are debating these motions today because on 9 November 2021, the House agreed to implement the recommendations from the Assembly and Executive Review Committee's 'Report on the outcome of the independent Review of the adequacy and effectiveness of the Statement of Entitlements for an Official Opposition at the Northern Ireland Assembly'.”
“Yet, some of the people who have been red-flagged are waiting for months on end. What are we doing to deal with that situation? We all know that cancer is much more deadly than COVID has ever been, so what are we doing to address that matter?”
“I thank the Minister for his response. I note the number of initiatives that, the Minister keeps telling us, are ongoing to bring waiting lists down. As always, he points to the pandemic. It seems that everything else was put on hold because of it. <BR /> <BR />One thing that concerns me is the people who are red-flagged for cancer. We all know that, when people are red-flagged, there are a number of weeks — six, I think — until they are taken for surgery.”
“<BR /> <BR />Why others chose to go against this is beyond me. It is vital, for the future of the agriculture industry, rural communities and many other aspects of society, that these amendments receive the support of the House. There is little point in saying on one hand that we support our young people going into agriculture, the family farms and the industry as a whole, and then, on the other hand, going into the Lobbies and voting for something that is going to tear it apart. <BR /> <BR />I say to folk around the Chamber, do the right thing today and support the agriculture industry.”
“It is a sad reality that many of us from the wide rural communities see elected Members from those communities actually vilifying the farmers and the agriculture industry. That is a shame on those sitting around the House today. <BR /> <BR />Today's amendments tabled by the Minister provide comfort to the agri-food sector after many weeks of concern and anxiety and not knowing where their businesses will end up. Those amendments will go some way to rectifying the damage caused by those that were passed in the previous debate in the House. They have the full support of the farming community. Those who are in touch with people on the ground will know that all those people — from the young to the women that we have been looking at in agriculture and others — know that the Minister's amendments have the full support of the agriculture sector.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Of course, the Member was trying to widen the horizon here, and he knows quite well that that is out for consultation. When the consultation finishes, that will be dealt with appropriately. <BR /> <BR />We in this House should all be aware of the importance of agriculture in all aspects of today's society: in providing energy for our homes, price stability for our citizens, the use of renewable biomethane gas from the anaerobic digesters and many other developments within the agriculture sector. Rather than vilify our agri-food sector, we should be striving to support the it, as the Minister has sought to do since taking up office, and recognising that farmers are actually part of the solution, rather than the problem, as many in this House seek to portray.”
“Absolutely. The point is very well made. Indeed, it was not only Mr Blair; other Members did exactly the same thing. <BR /> <BR />If we are to learn anything from the past week, it is to not rely on others for essentials but to be as self-sufficient as possible. Why, then, do some in the House want to destroy that which we already have? Russia and Ukraine account for a third of the world's exports, a fifth of our corn trade and almost 80% of sunflower oil production, with Ukraine being given the nickname "the breadbasket of Europe". Our aim should be to invest in our agriculture sector to maintain and build on our production capacity while seeking to reduce the impact on our environment. The first group of amendments that the Minister has tabled allow us to do that.”
“I accept that if Northern Ireland does nothing, it will still meet the UK's targets as set out.”
“<BR /> <BR />In the light of the ongoing events in Russia and Ukraine, the Assembly should stop and take note that our duty and responsibility to our people is to assist them to provide the essentials that we need for all aspects of life. Those issues are debated every week in the House: food, heat, housing, law and order etc.”
“Therefore, at Further Consideration Stage, I urge Members who have paid lip service to the agri-food sector throughout the process to now do the right thing and vote for the amendments tabled by the Minister, which are fair and just for the industry. <BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin decided to ignore all scientific evidence and plough on with support for amendments to the Bill to shape it in line with its vanity project, a private Member's Bill that they co-sponsored while ignoring the farming community. The fact that such moves would jeopardise our agriculture industry to the extent that 86% of the industry would be assigned to the dustbin of history was reckless, to say the least. The first set of amendments protect and preserve the overall net zero target while providing some degree of protection for our agriculture sector.”
“Amendment No 1 seeks to redress that issue and is consistent with the IPCC and the carbon capture and storage (CCS) balanced pathway recommendations. Following the last debate in the House, the agri-food industry was dealt a serious body blow. Many in the industry saw it as the end of a career that had been handed down to them through many generations. That is exactly what the House did when it voted through all those amendments that changed the very face of the Bill, which had been brought forward by the Minister based on scientific evidence. It was changed into something unrecognisable that spelt disaster for the agri-food sector.”
“The action taken by the majority in the House at Consideration Stage of the Bill to change the target to net zero by 2050 was a retrograde step. Not only did the target go against the scientific evidence, no costings were provided for it and no farming industry could adhere to it.”
“I note the Minister's concern about the draft Budget. Will she inform the House what discussions she has had with the Finance Minister, as he has a responsibility under NDNA to provide adequate funding for the required increase in officer numbers? How positive have those talks been?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. There is a need to involve the fishing community in any proposal going forward. The work that the sector is doing with the environmental NGO sector is to be welcomed. Does he foresee both sectors working together in the longer term?”
“Thank you for that, Minister. Can you give us any indication of when it will finally be brought to a close?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. The fund is yet another example of the strides that are being made to make a practical difference to our environment, wildlife population, biodiversity etc. Minister, what concerns do you have about the risks that are posed by the net zero emissions target that was voted for by the House, against the scientific advice, and has the potential to drive up levels of land abandonment and create an environmental crisis?”
“Is the Minister at liberty to divulge to the House the contents of the legal opinion, which directed him to consider that as the most appropriate and only course of action that could be taken?”
“Again, there is no merit in that, and there is no mention of how it will be funded. Will that come out of the rates, or who will pay the price for that? It is all right for legislators to bring forward all of these grand ideas, but we need to step back and think for a moment. Where is the money for it coming from? Who will pay the price for it, and who will be left to pick up the tab when advice that has been provided is ignored in the House? If the Members around the House are sensible and wise tonight, each of the amendments in group 3 will be voted down.”
“Why would we waste millions on doing that when Members around the House will not accept the scientific evidence that has been provided? Why would we set up another body to give us more advice and continue to ignore it? Would we not look like fools among members of the community and the public around us? Rightly, we talk so much about people who are in poverty and people who need more help financially, yet we in the House squander money on setting up bodies for which there is no need and no justification. After yesterday's vote in the House and the results that followed, I really question the merit of the House setting up other bodies to provide independent advice that is then blatantly ignored. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 60, which proposes a new clause 21A, places a further bureaucratic burden on the public sector.”
“Maybe he will put the money into the purse to cover the body that is being set up. The Members on this side of the House would be grateful to know whether the Minister will fund the aspirational proposals that are coming forward from Members on the other side of the House. <BR /> <BR />I am not convinced of the need for more bodies. Why? Because I do not see, from the advice that has been given and the scientific evidence that has been provided, where the gaps exist to justify another body being set up to provide more advice that is already being given and is being ignored by Members of the House. Why would we set up another body to provide more advice and to give us more evidence that will be ignored? Why would we do that?”
“Can someone in the House tell me what a wide range of additional bodies will deliver over and above the role of the independent Climate Change Committee and the creation of a just transition committee via green growth? What will a commissioner deliver over and above that? Further to that, who will fund the additional bodies, on top of the additional cost of an unrealistic climate change target? To set this up and to fund it will cost us millions, with set-up costs, staff costs and running costs. Who will pay the price? Will it be Health? Will it be Education? Will it be our students? Will it be our community groups? Maybe that is something that Members never thought about when they were bringing forward the proposals, or maybe they have talked to the Minister. Maybe the Finance Minister has told them something that we do not know about.”
“If, following yesterday evening's vote in the House, we were to go back and speak to the agri-food sector, the farmers and those who were here yesterday morning, would they tell us that they considered their consultation with policymakers to have been meaningful? Would they consider that their voices had been heard? Would they consider that it was a fruitful exercise? I think that they would simply come to the conclusion that their views were completely ignored by Members around the House.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Minister listened to the concerns of the Committee. He listened to them, reflected on them and tabled amendment Nos 61 and 63 to address the views of the AERA Committee. Yet, today, we have amendment Nos 33, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74 and 78, which are focused on creating a commissioner and a commissioner's office, and amendment No 72, which calls for a climate adviser. The Bill adequately addresses the issue, so what will those people do? Have we ever stepped back and thought, "What are we putting these people in place for? What are we setting up another office for these people to do?"? <BR /> <BR />It appears that some in the House are fixated on the need for consultation to bring people and organisations along on the climate change journey.”
“We have come to this group of amendments on oversight, governance and accountability. One thing that we do not want to do in the Assembly is create another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy. If there is one thing that we want to get rid of in Northern Ireland, it is the unnecessary red tape. For far too long, our businesses and farming community have been burdened with red tape. We need to get rid of that, rather than add to it. However, that is exactly what the Assembly is proposes to do in the amendments: add further layers of red tape and bureaucracy to governance in Northern Ireland. Is that what Members want to do? That is the question that we have to ask ourselves. Do we want to add another layer of bureaucracy to what is already here, which businesses and the farming community already face in Northern Ireland?”
“It is unfortunate that Members decided to table amendments that are variations on what is already in that amendment. Is that not overly bureaucratic? Do we really need that? <BR /> <BR />The Climate Change (No. 2) Bill is the most realistic and achievable pathway to addressing climate change. We need to get that into our minds and support the Minister's departmental Bill.”
“That is covered by amendment No 38, so why table another amendment for the same thing? Amendment No 76 suggests that we should align ourselves with the Republic of Ireland. We saw how the vote went in the House last night — that we should have net zero by 2050 — yet the same people suggest that we should align ourselves with the Republic of Ireland, which has an abysmal record of delivery on climate change. In fact, since 1990, its emissions have increased far beyond those of Northern Ireland. There is no logic in saying that we should align ourselves with those who have an abysmal record on climate change. <BR /> <BR />A number of concerns were raised during the Committee process, and those are addressed by proposed new clause 16A, under amendment No 38.”
“Absolutely. That is a huge problem. I do not know whether I can say this, but I will: I am dealing with a planning application that has been in the system for six years for a farmer who wants to upgrade. The application is still sitting there, and we cannot get any movement on it. That is the situation that the farming community faces today. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 47 talks about supporting:”
“I was interested to hear Mr Muir talk about the planning system. The farming community has, over the past number of years, been prepared to make changes to comply in line with climate change, yet it has been hampered by the planning system. For example, the dairy, poultry and pig sectors have all been hampered in getting planning permission for new buildings that would greatly reduce ammonia emissions and so on. There is a huge onus on the Department for Infrastructure to step up to the mark on that issue.”
“The green growth strategy incorporates a lot of the issues covered in this group of amendments. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 38 and new clause 16A, tabled by the Minister, will place additional legislative requirements on the Northern Ireland Departments. Amendment Nos 18, 19 and 21 to 28 appear to be variations of what is already covered in the Bill. I do not see the need to be repetitive on those issues. While those amendments suggest sectoral plans, they do not align with the current sectoral emissions data. That is a problem.”
“I will make a few comments on the second group of amendments on the proposals and policies. My colleagues have already dealt with a number of the issues. <BR /> <BR />The green growth strategy, taken forward by the Minister and supported by the Executive, deals with a wide range of the issues covered in this group of amendments. The strategy is a key driver in encouraging change in a wide range of sectors. DAERA has already started to deliver on those changes. I think, for example, of Forests for Our Future — it was launched in the middle of last year — the soil health scheme and the rural policy framework, which are already under way. The Minister has been way out in front of the Bill in taking action in those areas to help to deliver climate change initiatives.”
“Let us be known for doing that by doing that which is right in the House today.”
“We would therefore be defeating the purpose, with the consequence of having a greater carbon footprint. There would be a real risk of increasing fuel poverty for those in society who are suffering the most, and there would be an impact on the Northern Ireland taxpayer. <BR /> <BR />Those are the issues that are before the House. We have a choice to make. You have a choice to make. Everyone who is sitting in the House has a choice to make. Do Members want to destroy what we have, or do they want to support what we have and strengthen it as we move forward? I hope that Members will reconsider and that they will think long and hard before going through the Lobbies. I hope that they will do what is right and support the Minister and the Bill that is before the House. We are here as legislators to provide good legislation.”
“<BR /> <BR />Today, I have heard many Members talk about the need to ensure that we leave a legacy that we can all be proud of for our children and grandchildren. Let us do that, and let us not destroy it by bringing in something that is going to put our farmers and our farming community out of business. <BR /> <BR />My colleague William Irwin has ably outlined our position on the other amendments, and I do not intend to repeat it. I have focused somewhat on the agriculture industry, but the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill goes wider than that. It will, of course, affect urban areas as well, and it will have an impact on those areas. Capital investment will be required to move to new heating systems, but the difficulty is that, if we move too quickly, that will result in the replacing of equipment before it has come to the end of its life.”
“We have a business and agriculture industry in Northern Ireland that is one of the very best. If we are not careful about what we do in the House today, we will destroy that. To deviate from the targets set out in the Bill will be to say to the farming community: we are here to put you out of business. This question has to be on everybody's mind as we vote on the Bill: do we want to preside over putting farmers out of business and reducing the agri-food sector to such an extent that our food would be produced in countries with a higher carbon footprint, such as Brazil? It was reported this week that, in Brazil, 13,235 square kilometres of rainforest were cleared in 2020-21. That is the stark choice before the House.”
“Folks, that is what Members will be presiding over should they seek to change the targets that are set out in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Livestock reductions of that scale would decimate the agri-food sector and rural communities in Northern Ireland and result in the loss of 13,000 on-farm jobs, plus thousands more in the ancillary industries. Reducing livestock numbers in Northern Ireland and the UK will export our emissions overseas to regions that have higher emissions and lower environmental and animal health and welfare standards, as demand for food, meat and dairy remains. That is likely to result in higher global emissions. <BR /> <BR />Northern Ireland farmers are among the most carbon-efficient producers in the world. This question has to be asked to Members in the House: do you want to destroy that?”
“To deviate from the targets set out in the Bill will be to say to the farming community and to others in the business sector that we in Stormont, as legislators, are in the business of putting you out of business. Is that what Members want to do? I, for one, will certainly not go down that road; I am here to support the business sector and the farming community, not to take forward something that will put them out of business. <BR /> <BR />Let us weigh up the evidence. The KPMG report makes for very stark reading. I will quote some stuff from it. It says:”
“Amendment Nos 2, 3, 5 and 11 are focused on changing the targets that are in the Bill, but there is no scientific evidence to back up that proposed change. No analysis has been done of their delivery, and there is no economic impact assessment of what the proposal will cost or of the devastating consequences it will have for our agriculture industry, our business sector and our citizens. No alternative advice has been forthcoming to counter that which has been provided by the Climate Change Committee.”
“Key to all this, however, is credible, evidence-based targets. The Bill's target is set as part of the UK's reaching net zero by 2050, allowing each constituent part of the UK to play its fair part in reaching that goal. I sometimes wonder, as I listen to the debate, whether some of the other parties have an issue with that target simply because it is a UK target. Sometimes when you listen to the debate, you wonder whether that is the reason why there is opposition to the targets that are actually set out in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Climate Change Committee, which carried out detailed modelling and analysis for every sector and region, stated clearly that to reduce targets to net zero before 2050 is not credible, is morally wrong and is not based on scientific evidence.”
“What we have in the Bill is not only in line with the Paris Accord but reflects the targets that were set out by the Climate Change Committee that said that the net NI emissions account for 2050 should be at least 82% lower than the baseline. <BR /> <BR />While some in the House have aspirations for what the targets should be, it is important that, as legislators, we set targets that are realistic, scientifically based and achievable by our agriculture and business sectors. The agriculture sector in Northern Ireland, which supports around 113,000 jobs, feeds approximately 10 million people and is a key part of the Northern Ireland economy, stands to be worst affected by climate change legislation. However, our farming community is resilient, directly aware of the challenges and not opposed to reducing emissions.”
“I welcome the opportunity to comment on the Bill during the Consideration Stage. I thank the Minister, the officials and all who have been involved in getting the Bill to Consideration Stage for deliberation. <BR /> <BR />In the New Decade, New Approach agreement, a commitment was given that the Executive would:”
“Minister, I am sure that we will all agree that these organisations do invaluable work in very difficult circumstances and have some real challenges to meet. Can you give some indication of what engagement you have had with the search and rescue organisations on the work that they do and the challenges that they face?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. There is no doubt that, through the initiatives and the framework, our rural communities will thrive. Proper support for rural businesses and having proper infrastructure in place will be the vehicle to help to reduce the brain drain from our rural communities. How does the Minister foresee this being taken forward in future programmes?”
“I thank the Minister for that answer. Will the schemes be completed prior to the end of the financial year? If not, will the money that is allocated to them have to be returned?”
“I thank the Minister for her response. Minister, last week we saw another fatality on that road. Another year has passed, hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent and not one sod has been turned on that road. We are talking about more environmental statements and more delays. Will you give the House some indication of when work will start on-site? We have all those statements coming forward, but the project seems to be getting pushed back into the abyss. Give us some indication of when the work will start and when we will see diggers on-site.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement and the action that he and his Department have taken to date to try to stop the spread of this influenza. Minister, in your statement, you talked about meeting frequently with stakeholders and engaging closely with them on the matter. What interactions have your officials had with other relevant Departments across the United Kingdom and, indeed, across the border in the Republic of Ireland?”
“Thank you, Minister. A target of one year is welcome. When will we see that in action and see that the waiting lists are reduced? Will it be two or three years down the line before we see that it is working and that waiting lists are reduced to one year?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. We have a report here that is based on tolerance and respect. When will the junior Minister and his party step up to the plate and show some tolerance and respect towards the unionist community and its identity, culture and tradition in the House, which they have sought to trample under foot by their actions on previous occasions?”
“Thank you for your statement this morning, Minister. A topic that is on a lot of people's minds nowadays is climate change. Issues to do with COP26 were discussed at the meeting. Was there any discussion around how members plan to work together to deliver the reduction of carbon emissions?”