Clare Bailey
South Belfast · Green Party · Northern Ireland
“It is a great relief to finally be able to move my Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Bill at Final Stage. When I was first elected, I pledged to the people of South Belfast that I would work hard on equality issues, for human rights-compliant legislation and, particularly, for women. Today is the last sitting day of the mandate.”
“Yet, despite "Stay at home" messaging and regulations to prevent public gatherings, the concerted campaign of harassment and intimidation against women and staff continued unabated, and all authorities — the Health Department, the Department of Justice, the PSNI — claimed that they could do nothing to stop it.”
“The efficacy of the Bill is achieved without being unnecessarily heavy-handed or putting significant additional pressures on any criminal justice system. I hope that we can move on from those debates. <BR /> <BR />This is absolutely a landmark moment for the Assembly. I have seen many Bills passed today that I am incredibly proud of.”
“I thank the Member for that. It is worth noting that, comparatively, this Bill takes a light touch in respect of offences being committed, because the punishment for breaching safe access zones around the world, in almost all cases where they are operational, can result in imprisonment and wildly higher fines than what is being proposed i…”
“I am also aware that the Minister, who, Mr Butler, is your party colleague, has also confirmed that he will produce a policy paper setting out how his Department intends to implement the requirements for safe access zones, including guidance to operators of health and social care premises.”
“None of that is what I have experienced with abortion services. <BR /> <BR />I went out to consultation on the Bill in 2017, just as the Executive was collapsing yet again, and the three-year hiatus meant that I could not progress the Bill any further.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,016 lines we hold for Clare Bailey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 21.
“Nitrogen balance sheets do not set targets; they just establish how much nitrogen is being efficiently used — for example, by applying them to grass for agriculture and seeing how much is being lost to the air as ammonia pollution and to our waterways. They are not best located in policy. They are a key element of up-to-date climate legislation and will help to improve public health, water quality, soil quality and biodiversity, as well as helping us to understand nitrogen flows across the island. They are essential to transboundary commitments. Nitrogen balance sheets will help farmers, policymakers and the environment. They are part of good practice and will help us to lower our emissions. <BR /> <BR />The issue of methane and biogenic methane has also been raised.”
“No one has ever claimed differently, but it is one advisory body. The CCC advises Northern Ireland solely in relation to its commitments under the UK Climate Change Act 2008; it does not take account of Northern Ireland's unique political and biogeographical context. It is not a policy-setting body, and the CCC's chief executive has also made it clear that, if politicians want to make the political decision to go beyond 82%, they are free to do so. Scotland and Wales did, and we can too, but the CCC will continue to offer advice. <BR /> <BR />I want to address some of the questions raised on the balanced nitrogen sheets. They are vital for the effectiveness of good climate legislation. They are present in Scotland's climate legislation and have been a great success in helping to establish baselines and in feeding into other strategies.”
“We need to follow the science as it is now and as it will develop in the coming years. Once upon a time, humans believed that the earth was flat until science proved that to be wrong. Human history is the story of being led by science and allowing it to help us to find new ways of living. Then there is the ethical evidence. When we know that our behaviour causes harm, the onus is on us to stop that. When we know that we are harming the life and the ecosystems that we need to survive, we must stop that and find new ways of living within our means. The science tells us that, if every person in the world were to live the lifestyle that we enjoy, it would take three Planet Earths to sustain us. We are well beyond our means. We use up more than our fair share, and it is time to turn that around. <BR /> <BR />The CCC is a highly respected body.”
“I want to address some points in relation to the science, which has been spoken about a lot. As has been mentioned, the science could not be clearer: we are in "code red for humanity". In order to keep 1·5°C within reach and to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate breakdown, we must reach net zero by 2050 at the latest. That is what the science tells us. The science also says that we need to cut global emissions in half by 2030, which is eight years from now. It might be better to frame that in the Chamber by saying that it is two electoral mandates away.”
“As a developed country, we emit more, so we also have a duty to decarbonise faster. The worst impacts of climate change will be felt in poorer and more vulnerable countries.”
“I thank Members for their contributions to what has been a lively, at times, and mostly interesting debate. We have all been listening intently, so I do not intend to summarise Members' comments, but I have picked up common themes relating to this group of amendments, and I want to address those. <BR /> <BR />"Fair share" got a mention. What is a fair target for Northern Ireland? I remind Members that we are small; there is no doubt about that. We make up 0·02% of the global population, but we emit 0·04% of global emissions. That is twice our share of emissions by population. We emit more emissions per capita than anywhere else in the UK. We emit more emissions per capita than China. What we think of as fair is subjective, depending on the data that we use.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Is he aware that we are now being told by climate scientists that methane is posing a more immediate and greater risk than carbon and that we need to go further and faster with methane reductions?”
“If not, it is just smoke and mirrors — a clever distraction — and we should not support it. The Green Party will not support it. <BR /> <BR />I look forward to a respectful and challenging debate, and I hope that Members can support strong, transparent provisions that set clear frameworks for the years ahead.”
“If the target is 82%, CO2 will be net zero; if the target is net zero, CO2 will be net zero. We feel that this amendment is pointless. Singling out one gas in that way sets the stage for other gases to be singled out for differential treatment. The science does not support that. We must be very careful with the standard that we set in legislation. Some may accuse me of catastrophising. Let us not forget, however, that, throughout the past week, we have seen an awful lot of spin, and this amendment has appeared in the media as a compromise. It has been framed as if it were something new; not exactly the same target as was already proposed. For me, the bottom line must be the science. The question is whether this amendment will credibly help to reduce climate change.”
“The Green Party will oppose these amendments. Splitting targets is bad practice and sets a bad precedent. It is not done in the rest of Ireland or in the UK. It is done in New Zealand, and we have seen how targets that were singled out have become vulnerable to lobby groups fighting to have a bigger slice of the emissions pie. If these amendments pass, it will make me very wary of what kind of imaginative accounting is to come as we start our journey towards net zero. <BR /> <BR />The CCC's balanced pathway, which recommended an 82% overall fall in GHG emissions, already requires net zero CO2 emissions, so we should all ask ourselves why a specific CO2 target is proposed and why it is being framed as though it is a compromise. It is a distraction, and not a very clear one.”
“With the exception of one technical amendment, the Minister's amendments in the group relate to the setting of a specific target of net zero CO2 by 2050. I will not speak to each amendment in turn, as many of them are consequential and technical amendments, but I will speak generally on the setting of a specific carbon dioxide target.”
“<BR /> <BR />We feel that nitrogen causes catastrophic damage to waterways, biodiversity and ecosystems, but it also turns into nitrous oxide in the air. Nitrous oxide is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas with a warming effect that is almost 300 times greater than CO2, which, of course, fits into the Bill. Leaving nitrogen out of the Bill leaves out a huge chunk of the problem that we face. We hope that amendment No 34 will help us to develop a vital evidence base and to determine a baseline for nitrogen use. In turn, that will support not only climate action but air quality and food strategies and future environmental policies. <BR /> <BR />I will briefly touch on other amendments in the group.”
“Losses of nitrogen to the environment through run-offs to rivers and lakes, through air pollution and through releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere have devastating effects on climate change, biodiversity, air and water quality and human health. Nitrogen use efficiency means the proportion of nitrogen that is used for intended purposes such as growing food compared with nitrogen that is lost to the environment. A large proportion of stakeholders who responded to the Committee's consultation on the Bill wished to see nitrogen use efficiency included in the measures put forward by the Department. However, it was not brought forward, as the Minister felt that it would better fit a separate law that covers biodiversity and ecosystem health.”
“The amendment was modelled on a similar provision in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which mandated the creation of a Scottish nitrogen balance sheet as a powerful new source of evidence to track how efficiently nitrogen is used in Scotland and to help to identify opportunities to improve that. Nitrogen is a basic building block of life, which is present across the economy and environment. It is very important for growing and producing food, which is why it is an issue that Northern Ireland in particular should be looking at, given our position as a food exporter. <BR /> <BR />The effective use of nitrogen is important. Correctly used, it has an important role to play. Think of applying manure to grass for livestock.”
“I thank the Member for that point. He is going back to part of the previous conversation. The climate does not care about the efficiency per unit produced. What matters is the total amount of emissions. It is the total amount of emissions that we must look to reduce. I will go back to what I said to the Member before: the post-Brexit trade deals are the biggest threat when it comes to the circumstances of which he speaks, rather than climate targets and actions. <BR /> <BR />I turn to amendment No 34, which looks at nitrogen balance sheets. Amendment No 34 inserts a new clause that creates a requirement on the Department to produce a nitrogen balance sheet:”
“I do not know what that scenario is, but I thank the Member for that point.”
“— just a second, please — to balance budgets by capping how many carbon units can be credited to the net Northern Ireland emissions account for a particular period at 25% of the total emissions for that period. While clause 9 provides for DAERA to set such a limit by regulations, it gives far too much power to one Minister and Department. The limit must be included in the Bill. I encourage all Members to support amendment No 16 to ensure that that is the case. <BR /> <BR />I will give way.”
“We cannot enter a process of decarbonisation with the intention of meeting our targets through clever accounting, carbon offsetting in other countries or other market-based solutions. The idea that we can purchase our way out of a climate emergency makes a mockery of our commitment to tackle the crisis in legislation. Reductions in emissions must happen within Northern Ireland. Amendment No 16 sets strict limits on offsets and carbon credits and how they are used —”
“The Green Party thinks that that is satisfactory, and we will not move amendment No 10 either. <BR /> <BR />Proposed amendment No 16 to clause 9 relates to the purchase of carbon units by the Department and carbon offsetting. In its current form, the Bill places no limits on the number of carbon offsets that can be purchased by the Department as a way of meeting carbon budgets. Our amendment No 16 seeks to deal with something that is vital to the operation of the legislation and places a limit on using the purchase of carbon credits as a way of meeting our targets. For example, the Department would not be able to say that it had met its targets if it had done that through the buying of carbon credits.”
“While we have been given assurances that that is certainly not the Department's intention, and we will, of course, take it at its word, it has always been the Green Party's position that there is no point in setting a target that can be lowered if, for example, we were not meeting it. The consultation that was carried out during the AERA Committee's scrutiny of the Bill showed that there was a clear strength of opinion amongst stakeholders that the Department should not, under any circumstances, give itself the power to amend the target year or percentage to lower ambition. Therefore, we support the Minister's amendment No 9, which will ensure that the target can be amended only to increase ambition, either by specifying "an earlier year" or "a higher percentage".”
“Sorry? That is all right. <BR /> <BR />I had intended to speak to the grouped amendments. I had finished speaking to amendment No 2 just before the break for lunch, so I would like to address the other amendments that we have tabled in group 1. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 7 and 8 relate to interim targets for 2030 and 2040. We will not move those amendments. Instead, the Green Party will support amendment No 6, which was tabled by Members from Sinn Féin and which provides that the interim targets for those years be set in line with the overall target within 24 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 10 addresses the lowering, or potential lowering, of targets. As drafted, the Bill allows the overarching target to be amended by the Department to be less ambitious.”
“OK. Thank you. I will wrap up on this amendment. As legislators, this is our decision. The targets are a political choice. We have to make a decision for ourselves. It goes beyond party political interests. It goes beyond short-term considerations. It goes beyond elections. It goes beyond the interests of corporate lobbyists. It is about securing a future for ourselves, for our children and for our grandchildren. It is about setting the framework and creating systems that will be fit for the future. I urge the House: please decide wisely; if you want to sleep at night and look your grandchildren in the eye, make sure that you can be confident in telling them that you did everything possible with the privilege that you hold.”
“I want to finish this. Am I only speaking to this amendment, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker?”
“I thank the Member for that. It goes back to what I have said already: we are a separate land mass, and the environmental impact is very different for us than it is on the GB land mass. We know that we, in Northern Ireland, are the climate laggards. We are the highest emitters across these islands. The biodiversity and the environmental damage being done here is not the same as that in GB. While we might be part of an overall UK net zero target, the environmental consequences of not reaching net zero that we will feel and the impact that that will have on our land mass will be very different from those in GB. Our biodiversity, our peatlands, our air quality, our water quality and our soil quality are all very different because we are a separate land mass. That needs to be taken into account.”
“The Member rightly raises the fact that different states across Europe have their own targets. While Europe has set a target of net zero by 2050, Sweden, for example, has increased that ambition; I think that its target is now to reach net zero by 2045. Finland has set a target for net zero by 2035, in line with your policy; maybe Finland has taken a leaf out of the Member's manifesto. Different states can implement their own legislation, but the overall target for Europe remains net zero by 2050. Setting that legally binding target is a worthy and appropriate target for Northern Ireland.”
“I thank the Minister for his ambition. If we are really leading the way and doing better, why stop that ambition and slow us down? Why not keep going? The European Union has introduced a 2050 net zero target. Northern Ireland cannot just become a solitary corner of Europe that is left behind. Net zero is possible. The chief executive of the CCC, speaking on 'Good Morning Ulster' in November, said that there is no technical barrier to Northern Ireland reaching net zero emissions and that, if net zero is the way that politicians want to go, of course you can go further than 82%.”
“They have been politically brave enough, however, to set themselves an ambitious target because they know that that is where we all need to be if we are to have any hope of surviving.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is obvious that we share a single biogeographic unit with the Republic of Ireland and that, no matter your position on political unions, we are a separate land mass from GB. Our water flows, nitrogen flows, air and ammonia — the list goes on — do not recognise borders. Therefore, what happens when our behaviours here start impacting on those in the Republic? We are being told that we cannot meet net zero because of the emissions from our agri-sector. Yes, agriculture makes the biggest proportion of our emissions — it contributes 26% of the total greenhouse gases that are produced — but, as mentioned, agriculture emissions make up 37% of total emissions in the Republic.”
“The UK Government can, and they should, support Northern Ireland's net zero ambitions and not leave us sitting as a dirty corner of Europe. <BR /> <BR />The UK Climate Change Committee has recommended that we set an emissions reductions target of "at least 82% by 2050". While the CCC is a highly respected advisory body, it is advisory. The CCC is not a policy-setting body. We are the legislators, and setting policy is our job. The CCC's advice does not make the case for Northern Ireland cementing its position as a climate laggard in law. Instead, it underscores that the UK Government need to step up and recognise some of the particular challenges that we face and to provide a greater degree of support and assistance like that that has been provided to parts of Scotland.”
“I thank the Member for her intervention. I am not sure if she was here at the start of the debate, but I was not present to move amendment No 1, which proposed the 2045 target, so I think that that is off the table already. <BR /> <BR />Money is flowing into Scotland because of the challenges that Scotland faces with decarbonisation. Why, then, is there the attitude at UK level, which we in Northern Ireland buy into, that, where Northern Ireland is concerned, the support will not be provided to help us reach net zero ambitions, even if we wanted to? In a UK context, a relatively small agriculture sector is much easier to support when going towards net zero than the extensive Scottish oil and gas industry. This is a political decision.”
“Setting the strong target is a political decision. We have only to look to our neighbours in Scotland to see how strong political decision-making on the issue leads to huge rewards. Scotland has set strong targets to be net zero by 2045 despite the fact that much of its economy is propped up by fossil fuels. Since that target was set in law, we have seen many innovative support streams from the green transition flooding into Aberdeen from the UK Government and the private sector.”
“I have tabled amendments, which I will discuss later, to establish a just transition fund for agriculture that is just like those in the Netherlands and Scotland, for example. I have tabled amendments to ensure that plans and policies that come under the Bill take account of the particular needs of our rural communities. I have also tabled amendments to ensure that climate action here does not simply move the production of emissions elsewhere through the carbon leakage that has been mentioned by some. We must ensure that that is a fair process that will give agriculture the best possible chance of being a sustainable industry well into the future.”
“I thank the Member for the intervention. Of course, food supplies will change as climate mitigations and climate change become even more apparent. What they will be remains unknown, but we need to really question whether it is Northern Ireland that will feed Brazil, if that was your example. I am not really sure about that or whether we would even have the capacity to do that. We are part of the food production chain, and nobody is saying that we should stop producing food, but what the food supplies will be remains unknown. <BR /> <BR />Climate action is not anti-farming.”
“I thank the Member for the intervention. Again, I will go back to what I just said. The imports from other trade deal negotiations being undertaken by Boris Johnson — the post-Brexit utopia that he envisaged — are the greater threat to Northern Ireland produce being able to continue to survive in GB markets. To continue down that path with blinkers on is insanity, given that we do not know what is coming. We have to clean up our act so that we can differentiate ourselves in the global market on the basis of our excellent environmental and carbon credentials. Otherwise, we are sacrificing the future of farming for the sake of corporate profits now.”
“Minister, when New Zealand and Australian agri-food products start to flood the GB market and when we start to look at Europe as a market for our produce, what happens when we cannot access that market because the EU has a net zero target and we do not? What happens to the Northern Ireland agriculture sector then? Citing climate change as the existential threat to agriculture is a red herring, and I urge the farming community not to be naive about that.”
“The report also touches on the threats posed to Northern Ireland farming post Brexit. I have spent the past weeks scrutinising how New Zealand and Australian trade deals are set to hugely displace Northern Ireland produce. It is naive of anyone to think that climate action is the threat here. Sir Peter Kendall's review is unequivocal: Northern Ireland must look beyond traditional markets for its agri-food produce, as the GB market is set to be flooded with imports from across the world as a result of those trade deals. Europe is the obvious choice as a market for Northern Ireland produce. That all points to post-Brexit trade deals, not climate mitigation and not climate ambition.”
“The report states that Northern Ireland's environment scorecard "makes for grim reading". The environment had "paid the price" for the success of Northern Ireland's agri-food sector. The report continues:”
“The Minister will be familiar with the report as he commissioned it, and it makes for startling reading. It states:”
“I thank the Minister for his intervention. Of course, had he listened to my words, I said that many countries that rely heavily on agriculture have set net zero targets, not that farmers in those countries were very happy with that. What he refers to in the Act that has been enacted in the South is that it needs the plans to go with it, and that is in motion at the minute. <BR /> <BR />The South will set its targets and its ambition, despite being even more reliant on agriculture than we are in the North. The Netherlands has set aside £21 billion of funding for its agriculture sector to help it to contribute to meeting the target. With the right supports, agriculture can lead from the front with the transition. <BR /> <BR />Last week, Sir Peter Kendall released his independent strategic review of the Northern Ireland agri-food sector.”
“The farming media and the Minister should really have a look at how they have left the agri-food corporates to dominate and frame the conversation on these Bills as a debate on farmers versus the environment. Farmers are custodians of the land, and they know nature better than anyone. Any farmer to whom you speak will tell you exactly that. The level of misinformation and scaremongering that has taken place, fuelled by some on these Benches and the agri-food lobby, is shameful. <BR /> <BR />Many countries that rely heavily on agriculture have set net zero targets, including the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland, whose targets have not signalled the end of farming in their countries. Instead, they have paved the way for funding and support to flow into the sector.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. Of course, that is the same KPMG that was found last week to be falsifying minutes and records in order to produce a report for the fossil fuel industry. Yesterday, we heard from KPMG that the figures that it gave in that report removed the public subsidies to the sector, which are up to 86%, when doing that assessment. It removed the public subsidy funding and did its economic assessment based on removing that because it said that it did not know what future public investment in the sector would be. Therefore, it did not put any of that in its report. The chair of the Climate Change Committee (CCC) has removed himself from the claims in the report of job losses, so it is a bit of a debatable report. <BR /> <BR />The net zero target will not be the ruination of Northern Ireland agriculture.”
“We should also want it because of the opportunity that it will bring. Net zero is possible for Northern Ireland, and it brings certainty and investment from a global market that is getting ever more focused on climate credentials for investment. What happens to our economy when GB and the Republic move ahead with net zero targets and we are left behind? <BR /> <BR />It is important to address the elephant in the room and the tractors at the door. I am sure that agriculture will be the focus of much of today's debate. First, the Green Party is pro-farmer. We want to see farmers and farming communities survive and thrive well into the future, but, in order to do that, the agricultural industry needs to be sustainable for future generations. Net zero targets will not be the ruination of agriculture in Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />We still believe that Northern Ireland needs strong and ambitious climate targets. We can no longer afford to be the climate laggard of the UK. Every indication is that we are heading down the wrong path. Right now, we are failing to contribute to an overall UK target. Climate legislation with an 82% overall target means that we will just about be contributing, but we will still be a drag on progress, relying on other UK jurisdictions to pick up the slack for us. Any change in context at a UK level will mean that we will be in a disastrous position. If — and, as I believe, when — the UK decides to accelerate its targets and ambition, we will not be in the best place to adapt to that. <BR /> <BR />We should not want a net zero target simply because we are afraid of being left behind.”
“I referenced 2045 because it is in the context of what the Green Party proposes. Of course, I am not moving amendment No 1, but the other amendments that we proposed to the Bill are all linked. I am speaking to the general debate rather than the amendment. I hope that the Member will allow me to do that, because almost every party present in the Chamber signed up to that commitment in the Climate Change Bill. Since that Bill was published, COP26 in Glasgow has underscored how urgently we have to act. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was declared a "code red for humanity". If the parties were signed up to it before then, we certainly must be signed up to it now. If that is no longer the case, the onus is on parties to explain that change. That is for them to do.”
“I will take the opportunity to apologise to the House. I was not in my seat, and I was not here on time. I am very sorry. Business has moved much quicker than scheduled today. I can only apologise. Thank you for allowing me to speak. <BR /> <BR />If it is OK, I will speak to the group as a whole. The amendments in group 1 relate to the targets and the interim target years. A strong and certain target will be absolutely key to providing and underpinning the emissions reductions that will follow in the legislation. <BR /> <BR />The Green Party's amendments propose 2045 as the deadline year for the emissions target. Almost every party present —”
“The historical failure of the Department to engage women and young people cannot be denied. Minister, as I listened to your statement, I noted that there was no mention of women or young people in it, which makes me wonder what is new about the framework. I listened to your reply to Ms Sheerin. Outside of meet-and-mingles in rural halls, Minister, what is the plan in the new framework to ensure that the historical failure to engage women and young people as programme beneficiaries does not continue?”
“The eyes of future generations are on us. The issue goes beyond party political interest, short-term electoral cycles and, certainly, the interests of corporate lobbyists. It is about securing our future and that of our children. For too long, Stormont has failed our people and our planet. It is time that we changed that.”
“<BR /> <BR />Every one of our rivers, lakes and coastal waters has failed to meet basic quality standards. We are the twelfth highest region in the world for biodiversity loss. We have the highest per capita emissions across these islands. We remain the only place in western Europe without climate legislation. It is 2022, yet we have no strategies on air pollution, ammonia or waste. The recently published energy strategy paves the way for blue hydrogen, yet we still invest public money in fossil fuels. We are the only part of these islands with no net zero ambition. <BR /> <BR />We can do better; indeed, it is morally just to do so. We must ensure that any climate legislation that the Assembly passes is ambitious enough to meet the scale of the crisis that we face and enables all sectors to move forward sustainably.”
“At COP26 in Glasgow, a few months ago, we heard that we are not on target to prevent temperatures rising by above 1·5°C, as global leaders pledged in the 2016 Paris Accord, because, so far, we have failed to make the changes required. <BR /> <BR />In Northern Ireland, we have been failing. While England, Scotland and Wales have made efforts to reduce carbon by up to 45%, Ireland, North and South, has not. The North has delivered less than that of GB; instead, we have chosen to continue with the business-as-usual model. We have failed to invest, to deliver and even to maintain an Executive for three years of this mandate. The South actually increased its emissions during that time and has now set its ambition to facilitating net zero by 2050.”
“Since 1998, the people of Northern Ireland have got used to being let down by politicians at Stormont. The traditional parties have offered us division, indecision and, far too often, the collapse of devolution itself. Tomorrow, we have a collective opportunity to show the courage and leadership that are needed to get us on the path to new ways of delivering the action that we need to safeguard our children and grandchildren's future. <BR /> <BR />The breakdown of our climate is the most urgent and important issue facing us as leaders, legislators and human beings. In December 2020, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told the world that we were at "code red for humanity".”