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 6 of 53.
“The Ulster Unionist Party places on record its thanks to the Communities Committee staff and all those who have contributed to the work on the Bill, including the Minister and departmental staff. In particular, we recognise the valuable input from stakeholders and especially the many members of the deaf community who took the time to provide evidence and to share their lived experience, because that is what this legislation should, ultimately, reflect. Crucially, we also recognise the work of the Committee staff team who, as a number of Members have already mentioned, ensured that members of the deaf community were able to engage with the Committee Stage in a meaningful and impactful way. That engagement has clearly helped to shape the Bill in a meaningful way, and much of what is before us today reflects that excellent work.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way and for his indulgence on the issue. I am interested in the topic, and I have been liaising with my party colleague Andy Allen on it. We very much welcome the Bill and the changes that will be adopted. However, it occurs to me that the Bill's success will change how we communicate across the piece in Northern Ireland and that, for people who develop deafness, it may be better if that provision is in the Bill, because, in 20 years or 25 years, the whole tapestry will change drastically. It may be beneficial to put that in the Bill at this stage so that we future-proof it against the anticipated changes.”
“We must ensure that, if funding is deliverable, it is credible and sustainable; that support is fairly targeted and outcome-driven; and that Northern Ireland farmers are no longer left behind their counterparts in Scotland or the Republic of Ireland, particularly those who farm near the border. If we fail to act properly, we risk not just the loss of farm incomes but the erosion of our ANC and rural communities.”
“<BR /> <BR />There is also a broader strategic question: is the Bill part of a coherent, long-term agricultural policy, or is it a piecemeal response to mounting pressures? In my time as Chair of the AERA Committee, the sheep task force and representatives of sheep farming have said that they have felt very much that they have been left behind. There is a need for a targeted sheep support scheme; perhaps the Minister will refer to that. The Bill may represent a step in that direction, because I know that sheep farm numbers could be particularly impacted by the Bill. We must ensure that the Bill is just one of a number of significant steps. <BR /> <BR />The Ulster Unionist Party supports the progress of the Bill to its next stage, but we do so with significant caveats and questions.”
“If the Bill is to move forward, there is a chance to do more. If public money is to be invested, it should be linked to public good, carbon sequestration, biodiversity enhancement and environmental stewardship. Organisations such as the RSPB have rightly pointed out that payments should be tied to measurable outcomes. That is not a barrier; it is an opportunity to strengthen the Bill. <BR /> <BR />We should also ask how the proposal aligns with our wider environmental ambitions. We talk about 30x30 commitments, restoring nature and increasing afforestation rates, but, across Northern Ireland, progress has been slow. Could the proposal be part of the solution? Could it incentivise land management practices that deliver farm viability and environmental gain? Those are questions that are worth exploring if we get to Committee Stage.”
“The Bill refers to the role of ANC farmers in delivering environmental benefit but makes no requirement of those outcomes.”
“While it is commendable, there are areas to grapple with, and the Member who introduced the Bill will understand that. There are areas on which the Ulster Unionist Party requires significant clarity before it can move beyond conditional support. The first pillar of that is funding. Where will the money come from? Is it a reallocation of existing DAERA budgets, or is the Member proposing new investment? If it is the former, which programmes would lose out? If it is the latter, what discussions have been had, if any, with the Finance Minister to identify where the money could come from? We cannot simply shift pressure from one part to another. We saw that in the previous mandate when we brought forward legislation that simply did not stand up. <BR /> <BR />The second area is targeting and outcomes.”
“In recent years, the Government in the Irish Republic have allocated in the region of €250 million a year into its ANC programme, with €180 million to €190 million of that coming from EU coffers. Similarly, in Scotland, the less-favoured area support scheme payments, now transitioning into the new support mechanisms, have contributed around £60 million annually to farmers operating in challenging conditions. Questions need to be asked. How can it be right that farmers in Northern Ireland facing similar if not greater natural constraints are left at a competitive disadvantage? It is not just an agricultural issue; it is an issue of fairness, economic sustainability and rural survival for some of those farmers. <BR /> <BR />We welcome the intent of the Bill; the Second Stage is about looking at the intent of the Bill.”
“We have to accept that the Bill cannot be looked at in isolation from all the other events since 2017, and I put Brexit at the top of that list. The reality is that, since Brexit, farmers in Northern Ireland have not had access to established and specified EU funding streams that recognise the specific challenges faced by farmers in disadvantaged areas. That funding provided a degree of stability and predictability that is now sorely lacking. Meanwhile, in other jurisdictions, support has not only continued but, in some cases, strengthened. In the Republic of Ireland, the ANC scheme remains a central pillar for rural support. It provides hundreds of millions of euros annually with payments targeted specifically at those farming on disadvantaged and severely disadvantaged lands.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee further discussed the Bill's direct and indirect budgetary implications, its viability as enabling legislation and the Minister's confirmation that no funding for ANC payments is currently available. <BR /> <BR />There will undoubtedly be interest from the farming community in the proposals, and, should the Bill pass Second Stage today, the Committee will ensure thorough scrutiny and engagement with DAERA, farmers, producers and other stakeholders. <BR /> <BR />At its meeting on 16 March, the Committee agreed to reserve its position on the Bill. We look forward to considering it in further detail should it proceed to Committee Stage. <BR /> <BR />I will now make a few comments as the Ulster Unionist spokesperson on agriculture, environment and rural affairs.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee raised concerns around the financial implications of the Bill for other support schemes, as the commencement of the Act is the day after Royal Assent. The Member advised that the Bill establishes the legislative framework to enable ANC payments to be made and that identifying funding and advancing the statutory regulations will commence once Royal Assent has been granted. The Member also stated that the payments should not come from a reallocation of the existing farm sustainability payment (FSP), as it has already been subject to several reductions and there would be strong opposition to further cuts.”
“The Committee then took the opportunity to question the Member on several issues, including the limited detail in the Bill, the source of funding and the possible implications for other farm support schemes. The Member advised that the proposal was introduced as a Member's Bill because the Department did not include ANC payments in its sustainable agriculture programme, unlike that in the Republic of Ireland and Scotland. We heard that the Agriculture Act 2020 contains powers to make regulations to provide for ANC payments. <BR /> <BR />The Committee queried the assessment of costs in the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM). The Member advised that the scheme envisaged under the Bill mirrors the previous ANC scheme, which finished in 2018, as that was considered the most efficient basis on which to proceed.”
“We heard that lowland cattle finishers require cattle bred in upland areas and that ANCs cannot support pedigree herds due to the cooler climate. We were advised that the same was true of the sheep sector, which has already been subject to cuts to fund other schemes, and that sheep farmers cannot access many of the schemes that are available to other farmers. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was informed that, over the past decade, beef cattle numbers in ANCs had fallen by 21%, representing the lowest number in 25 years, with broader environmental and ecological consequences such as an increased risk of wildfires due to reduced grazing and land management. We heard that ANCs are complex agricultural ecosystems that play a pivotal role in maintaining biodiversity. The Committee saw that at first hand on a visit to Glenwherry Hill Farm Centre.”
“We heard that most stakeholders who responded to the Member's public consultation supported those objectives. We heard that those farmers could not switch to alternative enterprises due to the land and terrain in ANCs. For example, the Member advised that the DAERA census shows that there are only 10 cereal farmers in ANCs across Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also heard that previous ANC payments helped to sustain hill farming, support low-carbon livestock production and maintain areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONBs). The Member advised that ANCs are important for our red meat sector and that, of the more than 200,000 beef cattle in Northern Ireland, 100,000 are in ANCs and 64,000 in disadvantaged areas.”
“ease the burden of operating in challenging farming environments,”
“<BR /> <BR />The Member advised us that the intention of the Bill was:”
“An update following the public consultation was provided at the Committee's meeting on 6 November 2025. We received an introductory briefing on the details of the Bill at an extra Committee meeting on 16 March, and the Committee thanked the Member for that engagement, which was substantive. We heard that the aim of the Bill is to restore income from support payments that were previously vital to upland farmers in a range of ways that may be described as social, economic, environmental and financial. <BR /> <BR />Clause 1 places a statutory duty on DAERA to use its powers under Part 1 of schedule 6 to the Agriculture Act 2020 to make regulations for ANC payments, with subsection (2) requiring that to be done within 12 months. Clause 2 provides for commencement on the day after Royal Assent.”
“On behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this Second Stage debate on the first private Member's Bill (PMB) of the mandate. I thank the member of the Committee for bringing it forward. He should have declared an interest as a member of the Committee, as well as having a small farm. <BR /> <BR />Committee members fully recognise the challenges facing farmers today, with increasing economic pressures and significant environmental demands. We also acknowledge the additional layers of difficulty experienced by those farming in areas of natural constraint, otherwise known as "ANCs". The Committee was first made aware of the proposal by the sponsoring Member, Mr Declan McAleer, in November 2024, and was formally notified in July 2025.”
“I appreciate your giving way. We need to set the record straight when it comes to New Decade, New Approach. There are no signatures at the bottom of the document. It contains a series of commitments that were made by individual parties. What is at stake here is the blockage. It is not about New Decade, New Approach. We can debate and vote for or against the items in New Decade, New Approach; it does not really matter.”
“In fact, in many cases, they are the bulwark of environmental protection. They are absolutely central to it. Many have been stewarding the same land for generations and have a direct interest in protecting soil, water and biodiversity. It is in their interests. Any future governance structures must recognise that reality. Environmental protections must go hand in hand with sustaining agriculture.”
“That is an important point. A new regulator may strengthen oversight and enforcement, but it will not, on its own, resolve the environmental challenges that we face. That is why the terms of reference for any new agency must be rigorously defined. <BR /> <BR />If Northern Ireland moves toward a new environmental regulator, it must be capable of working across all Departments, coordinating effectively with existing bodies and enforcing standards where necessary. However, it must also be tasked with delivering practical and balanced solutions. Our environment does not exist separately from the communities in which we live and work. Northern Ireland's agri-food sector remains one of our most important economic pillars as it sustains rural communities across the region. <BR />Farmers are not separate from environmental protection.”
“That work has been subject to engagement with stakeholders from across society, including environmental agencies, industry, academia and the farming community. That breadth is essential, because environmental policy does not exist in isolation. It intersects directly with agriculture, infrastructure, planning and rural and economic development, and, when we examine the pressures affecting water quality and biodiversity across Northern Ireland, we see just how complex those interactions are. Agricultural activity, waste water infrastructure and septic systems all contribute to the pressures on our waterways, and that complexity is why governance reform must be approached responsibly. <BR /> <BR />I will again reference Lord Elliott, who observed in the previous mandate:”
“That warning remains highly relevant today. If an independent environmental protection agency is to be created, it must not replicate the existing functions nor introduce layers of bureaucracy that ultimately slow decision-making and confuse accountability. Independence is important, but independence in itself is not enough. It must be built on a clearly defined mandate, proper resourcing and strong governance. Otherwise, we risk simply changing the structures on paper whilst the underlying problems remain unsolved. <BR /> <BR />The review that has taken place has examined a range of options, including whether NIEA should evolve into a more independent regulator; how enforcement powers might be strengthened; and how environmental governance can be better addressed across departmental structures.”
“We are already dealing with that in the Committee that I chair.”
“The challenge before us is not simply about adding another institution into that landscape; it is about ensuring that any reform simplifies governance rather than compliance, which would complicate it further. That point was made very clearly in one of the last speeches by Tom Elliott, now Lord Elliott, when he was an MLA. He said:”
“The environmental decline of Lough Neagh has become the clearest example of what happens when responsibilities are blurred, enforcement is inconsistent and accountability becomes diluted across multiple organisations. That is precisely why reform is needed, but reform must be carefully designed and not rushed. <BR /> <BR />Northern Ireland already operates within a complex network of organisations with environmental responsibility. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency operates within the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, while councils, environmental health officers and the Office for Environmental Protection all play roles in regulation oversight.”
“To be clear, my party would be open to number one but not number two. We would be prepared for the Secretary of State to negotiate with the parties to move things along with the commitments that were made, because allowing the process to move forward is important for the environment. <BR /> <BR />The findings of the independent review of environmental governance were a long time coming. If Members took the time to read them, they would know that they make for difficult reading. However, while we support addressing the blockage in the appropriate way, we do so with significant and clear caveats. Our support should not be interpreted simply as a blank cheque for creating another body or an assumption that structural change alone will solve the challenges that we face. I agree with Miss McIlveen in that sense.”
“Will they outline how that does not interfere with our current structures, archaic and ugly as they are? The DUP is not the only party in the Chamber that holds vetoes and has used vetoes.”
“Thanks, Mr Gaston, in the corner, for your words of encouragement. I will take them in the manner in which they are probably not intended. <BR /> <BR />I am the Ulster Unionist Party's spokesperson for agriculture, the environment and rural affairs. We may well support the motion. I will get to the detail. We may well support it because we support the creation of an independent environmental body and agency, under certain rigorous circumstances. There has been some good work on that. However, I would like clarity from the motion's sponsors on the last sentence of the motion, which:”
“I thank the Member for his answer. It shows that the Assembly is a popular destination for many, but I am sure that Members would agree that there is still room to improve. There is nothing better, as Mrs Cameron said, than sharing the Building with the public who own it. <BR /> <BR />Does the Member agree that there seems to be a growing problem with cars parking up and down the avenues almost daily? That could prove to be a hindrance for people coming here, particularly for the first time, who may have mobility issues requiring them to park as close as they can to visit this fine establishment.”
“On that point, you are absolutely accurate about the wording: it says "suggests" and "expected". We want certainty when we legislate. To use the words "suggests" and "expected" suggests that those figures are a moveable feast, particularly the one penny or more on fuel, given the current geopolitical situation and the rise in oil and fuel costs. Does the Minister accept that that is not set in concrete?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. His are the same points that his colleague from South Antrim made. We are not against decarbonisation, but the SI will not generate a cent or farthing for the Northern Ireland maritime contingent from decarbonisation. The fact that we will not be able to get shore power for probably the next 10 years means that this is simply a tax, unless the Member has something up his sleeve by which we will expedite getting onshore power and cheaper fuel so that the ships that are able to run on such fuels can do so.”
“I think that the Member and I are on the same page in that regard, but does he not accept that, given the failure to be able to provide power to ships at the dockside and that biomethane is four times as expensive, this is not an incentive to decarbonise, which is what everybody wants; it is simply a carbon tax?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. She raises the spectre of the impact on businesses. Does she agree that there was absolutely no quantification of a reduction in carbon through discharge?”
“Revenue raised through the scheme will not be reinvested in Northern Ireland, directly into decarbonising our maritime sector or supporting operators to transition to cleaner technologies. If that link had been absolute and indisputable, there would have been agreement, but, unfortunately, it is not there. We should have learned by now the consequences of excluding Northern Ireland's voice from critical negotiations between London and Brussels. Instead, this proposal risks placing further pressure on our businesses, supply chains, economy and consumers, many of whom are already grappling with the lasting effects of a Brexit settlement that fractured our internal market. For those reasons, the Ulster Unionist Party will not be supporting the SI.”
“Around 90% of trade and passenger movements take place on our ferries and shipping routes. Those are not optional links. Rather, they are essential as an economic lifeline, yet the draft Order has failed to assess properly the unique impact and circumstances that the policy will have on communities in Northern Ireland. There is a glaring absence of Northern Ireland-specific data outlining the financial consequences for our businesses and the knock-on effect for our consumers. Even more concerning is the uncertainty around the carbon border adjustment mechanism exemption. Once again, we are being asked to accept vague assurances from a Government whilst the real economic risks remain unquantified: that is fact. <BR /> <BR />Let us be clear about what the measure represents: in practice, it is a carbon tax.”
“The Ayes were Declan McAleer, John Blair, Aoife Finnegan, Áine Murphy and Daniel McCrossan, while the Noes were Robbie Butler, Tom Buchanan, Michelle McIlveen and Gareth Wilson. In conclusion, I hope that Committee members feel that I have covered the extent of our scrutiny. The majority of the Committee therefore agreed to recommend that the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 be approved by the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />I will take a few moments to make a few remarks in my capacity as my party's spokesperson on such matters. The Ulster Unionist Party strongly opposes the proposed extension of the emissions trading scheme to domestic maritime activities. We do so because Northern Ireland relies more heavily on maritime connectivity than any other region across the UK does.”
“On the point about a delayed or phased introduction, officials responded that no discussions with the UK ETS Authority had taken place and that DAERA had not been aware of such concerns from the shipping industry until very recently. <BR /> <BR />Before I make a few brief points as the Ulster Unionist Party spokesperson, I will conclude my remarks as Chairperson of the Committee. The Question was put to the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that it had considered the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 and that it was content to support the SI as drafted. The Committee divided, and there were five votes in favour and four against.”
“They also noted that securing the 50% partial exemption for NI-GB routes was a significant concession achieved during the Minister's negotiations with the UK ETS Authority and said that, if ferry services to Rathlin Island or the Strangford ferry were brought within the scope of the Order, DAERA would seek exemptions at that time for what are termed lifeline services. <BR /> <BR />Members raised a number of issues, including that the UK ETS may operate as a carbon tax. Officials responded that, although the revenue generated will not be used to incentivise decarbonisation, other funding is available, such as funding from the Department for Transport's SHORE programme, from which over £200 million has already invested in order to address maritime emissions.”
“The Committee agreed to take more time to consider the evidence, and we met DAERA officials yesterday. Procedurally, we did feel under pressure, as, although we have had a considerable amount of evidence to look at and work through, the draft SI did come to us rather late. That was not the fault of the Minister or the Department. We are also aware that the Sewel convention does not apply in this case and that, if it is not agreed by the Assembly, the draft SI will not be made in any other UK jurisdiction. <BR /> <BR />Officials highlighted several matters, including the importance of the negotiations on the linkage of the UK ETS and the EU ETS, which is dependent on the inclusion of the domestic maritime sector. They also cited the economic impact from CBAM that will potentially arise from the failure to achieve that linkage.”
“They also highlighted a lack of access to the technologies needed to cut emissions, such as shore power, and said that biofuel is four times more expensive than the fuel that is used currently. The shipping industry called for a 12-month delay in implementation and for a three-year phased introduction, and representatives said that Northern Ireland should be given an exemption similar to that for the Scottish islands. <BR /> <BR />At our meeting on 5 March, the Minister briefed us on the DAERA corporate plan for 2025-27, and we took the opportunity to raise the issue of the ETS with him. He stated that the Order is essential for linking the EU ETS and the UK ETS, which will limit the impacts of CBAM and bring substantial cost benefits to Northern Ireland businesses.”
“The Committee heard that the shipping industry supports decarbonisation and has invested heavily in new technologies but that the Order would damage Northern Ireland transport businesses in particular. In the words of the representatives, it would guarantee ETS costs for Northern Ireland from 1 July 2026, with no guarantee that either EU or UK CBAM burdens will be avoided in 2027. The Committee heard further industry concerns that included no examination of NI-specific economic impacts and estimates of passenger fare rises of up to 15% and fuel rises of up to 30%, which will damage competitiveness, with the 50% reduction viewed as being insufficient.”
“However, the officials conceded that, as some of the alternatives for decarbonisation are limited in availability at the moment, it might be considered by some to be a tax. <BR /> <BR />The Committee agreed to invite Stena Line and the UK Chamber of Shipping, which had also contacted us, to give evidence on 5 March. In written correspondence dated 26 February, DAERA advised the Committee that the inclusion of maritime emissions in the UK ETS is essential for linking the scheme with the EU scheme. It also highlighted that the linkage of schemes will remove a barrier to trade and will lower costs for UK exports of goods that are within the scope of the UK CBAM, which are estimated to be worth in the region of £7 billion. <BR /> <BR />At our meeting on 5 March, the Committee took evidence from Stena Line and the UK Chamber of Shipping.”
“The future inclusion of international maritime emissions will, thereafter, ensure parity in the Irish Sea and remove the need for a partial exemption. At that point, officials also advised us that certain sectors will be exempted, including vessels in the fishing sector, in order to ensure that NI fishing vessels will not be disadvantaged over those that operate out of Irish ports. <BR /> <BR />The Committee raised industry concerns that the policy risked acting as a tax on activity, which, in turn, would be passed on to consumers. Officials responded that, based on the available evidence of a low increase in charges, that was the expectation. The stated intent of the policy is to make it more cost-effective for businesses to decarbonise.”
“However, prior to that date, we received correspondence from Stena Line, highlighting its concerns about impacts for NI businesses and, in particular, the agri-food industry, given its reliance on NI to GB ferry routes. <BR /> <BR />On 19 February, the Committee held an oral evidence session with DAERA officials, when we heard that the intention to include domestic maritime activities in the UK ETS was to help overcome barriers to decarbonising the sector and strengthen the incentive to adopt low-carbon fuels, fuel-efficient technologies and, indeed, operating practices. Committee members noted that an interim 50% partial exemption from UK ETS obligations will be introduced for routes between Northern Ireland and GB.”
“Minister Muir had given consent for the draft SI to be laid under the draft affirmative resolution procedure as an Order in Council before the Assembly. The draft Order has been approved by the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the House of Commons, and we know that the House of Lords will be asked to approve it on 12 March. <BR /> <BR />Members noted the history of the SI from March 2022, when the UK ETS Authority consulted on amendments to increase the decarbonisation potential of the ETS, including expanding it to the domestic maritime sector. In July 2023, the authority confirmed its intention to proceed, and it consulted on detailed proposals between 28 November 2024 and 23 January 2025, after which it published an interim and main response. Officials were then scheduled to brief us at our meeting on 19 February.”
“I rise on behalf of the AERA Committee to represent its scrutiny of and decision on the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026. The Committee's scrutiny has been very thorough, over a total of four meetings. I will not be able to do that work full justice today, but other Committee members will add to what I say now. <BR /> <BR />Our scrutiny began at the Committee's meeting on 15 January 2026, when we considered a notice from DAERA on the laying of the draft SI, together with the proposed amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020, providing for the expansion of the scope of the UK ETS to include the domestic maritime sector.”
“I thank the Minister for his update on the remediation strategy. He has rightly used the phrase "making the polluter pay" many times. Can he give us an update on how those responsible for the Mobuoy site will be held accountable for its remediation, where that is possible?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He mentioned the Assembly and Executive Review Committee (AERC). I note that it is mentioned in the amendment, which we will not support. The purpose of that amendment is to have the issue considered by the AERC. <BR /> <BR />Does the Member agree that the Good Friday Agreement was an incredible step forward for cross-community voting in how First Ministers were elected and that it was the St Andrews Agreement that embedded sectarianism in how we elected the First Ministers.”
“I thank the Minister for bringing this work forward. I assure the Minister that the Committee will be interested in scrutinising it as it goes forward. <BR /> <BR />Minister, you have announced wider enforcement powers and fixed penalty notices, including for septic tanks. What specific safeguards do you envisage putting in place, for instance, for households that may be entirely unaware that their septic tank is causing intermittent or low-severity pollution, particularly in rural areas where septic tanks are, perhaps, old and not functioning as they should?”