Harry Harvey
Strangford · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Thank you for your statement, Minister. I am pleased to see the non-domestic rates element of the review, which we have called for as a party, progressing.”
“Thank you, Minister, for your statement. You highlighted the Change Maker funding programme and support for 65 grassroots organisations. I am sure that you will agree that it is vital that the benefit of schemes is seen at a grassroots community level.”
“Minister, the thrust of graduated driver licensing is to provide new and learner drivers and riders with better experiences and skills over time, doing so in low-risk environments. There was much consternation across the House and in Committee around the way in which the Minister first announced that plan.”
“<BR /> <BR />Further clarity will be required from the Minister and her officials on a number of proposals, particularly in relation to how the learner logbook will operate and how verification by a qualified driver will be policed in practice to ensure that there is limited opportunity for the abuse of that new element.”
“It is no secret that the cohort of 17- to 25-year-olds proportionately remains the age group with the highest involvement in serious injury collisions on our roads. It is against that backdrop that many of the changes that have been emphasised are to be welcomed as the Department seeks to increase safety on our roads.”
“<BR /> <BR />Minister, if you get a chance, I want you to tell us a wee bit more about the removal of the 45 mph speed limit. Maybe we could have a conversation about it at a later stage.”
The complete record
Every one of 612 lines we hold for Harry Harvey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 13.
“On the one hand, they have claimed to be opposed to segregation and the elevation of one education sector above the others, yet, on the other hand, they have supported a Bill, the clear outworkings of which will be to create such a situation. Decision day has now arrived. Members will either stand up for local schools and schoolchildren in their constituency or be happy to see children being disadvantaged because of the uniform that they wear and vibrant schools withering on the vine because they are in the wrong sector. An opportunity still exists for Members to support a petition of concern that has been tabled. That is an opportunity to support the 93% of children in Northern Ireland who will be left behind otherwise. <BR /> <BR />The people of Northern Ireland are watching the proceedings today.”
“<BR /> <BR />My opposition to the Bill has been long held and consistent and is due, fundamentally, to the systemic discrimination that will flow from the Bill against individual children and the schools that they attend outside the integrated sector. As I have said repeatedly throughout the Bill's passage and at every stage, I want to see children educated together. What is in contention in the House is not the integration of children from different faiths and none but the concept of the creation of a hierarchy in educational funding, policy and standing, which must be opposed. <BR /> <BR />Some Members have attempted to ride two horses on the issue.”
“As the Bill comes into the home straight of the legislative process, the time for decisions is upon us. We have reached the last chance saloon for Members to wake up to the realities of what the Bill will mean for their constituents and for the schools that are in their constituencies. I know that, over recent weeks, many have been listening to the growing voices in the controlled and maintained sectors as schools, teachers, boards of governors, principals and parents begin to assess the true impact that the Bill would have, should it make its way into statute. I plead with Members to not only listen to but act on their calls to oppose what is, in essence, bad legislation.”
“<BR /> <BR />I commend the Department and the Minister for their efforts throughout the process to ensure that key themes of the Bill and the amendments that they proposed subsequently were clearly evidence-based, in keeping with the expert advice from the UK CCC, the intergovernmental panel and the Paris agreement. Unfortunately, on occasion, Members have been headline-driven as opposed to science-driven. I trust that, as we move to consider the Bill in the name of Ms Bailey, Members will bear the science in mind.”
“Many often forget that, when we consider the agri-food sector, we are considering families and communities who have been the custodians of our countryside and environment for generations, long before it became popular, and long before the Green Party and the climate crisis lobby existed. The outworkings of the Bill should be to better equip and enhance the work that is ongoing, not to vilify and punish our farmers. Let us be in no doubt: the targets that have been set, thanks to amendment No 1, will be difficult, and there will be a price to be paid. They are ambitious, but, most importantly, they are realistic and based on science.”
“A clear opportunity was presented to the House to send a message to the rural community that its contribution to net zero would be fair and proportionate. Mr Allister called it a litmus test of whether Members were on the side of farmers or not. I am sad to say that the latter was evident in relation to amendment No 17. <BR /> <BR />As has been said repeatedly, our agri-food sector has always wanted to play its part in tackling climate change. Indeed, the industry has always been ahead of the House in its effort to enhance environmentally friendly procedures, practices and processes. The sector did not need us to tell it; it did it itself.”
“Amendments at Consideration Stage dealt a body blow to the Department's carefully considered Bill, changing it almost entirely. At Further Consideration Stage, however, some parties had a reality check. Amendments that were tabled by the Minister at that stage offered a lifeline to bring the legislation back into the realms of reality. I am glad that, to a certain extent, that lifeline was accepted, particularly in relation to amendment No 1 and the clarification on methane and its contribution to the net zero target. A degree of protection and support was won for the agri-food sector, and I know how much relief that brought to farmers across Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, it was hugely disappointing that amendment No 17 was not supported by Members.”
“It was clear that the right balance had not been struck subsequent to Consideration Stage. The outworkings of votes at Consideration Stage, if left unchallenged, would have resulted in an estimated reduction in the number of active farmers by 13,000, with job losses across the agri-food sector running into tens of thousands.”
“Throughout the passage of the Bill, I have continually sought to defend the agri-food sector against attempts by some in the Chamber to destroy the industry. Since the introduction of the Bill, it is fair to say that our farmers have been to the brink and back. The process has caused a lot of needless anxiety and concern for many who have watched on, aware of the potential of the legislation to destroy their livelihoods. There is a lesson to be learned here for Members, especially in light of the pending stages of the private Member's Bill still to follow: we must continue to remind ourselves that lives and livelihoods are bound up in our tackling of climate change. <BR /> <BR />As with so much that is considered by the House, striking the right balance is everything.”
“It is our role to ask why that is and whether the barriers that face women in reaching their full potential in the agri-food sector can be challenged. I know that that is very much the thrust of the Committee's efforts and that the Minister has always been willing to support women across the sector and will continue to work alongside the Committee to highlight that issue. <BR /> <BR />Reports have shown that government initiatives in other jurisdictions have borne fruit, with increasing numbers of women taking on job roles such as farming as a result. Hopefully, the report will better inform and enlighten debate on that topic and help to shape future support and government policy in the new mandate.”
“Whether it be in agriculture or any other sector or profession, there is no place for disadvantage being put on women. While much has been done and achieved over the past two decades to address the gender imbalance and associated issues, there is still work to be done. <BR /> <BR />Over recent months, the Agriculture Committee has sought to do exactly that with the commissioning of its 'Breaking the Grass Ceiling' report, a critical assessment of women's role in agriculture, which launches today. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of visiting a local farm shop business in my constituency with the Minister. That successful farm diversification business is managed by Emily McGowan, a very successful businesswoman and farmer. Unfortunately, Emily is the exception to the rule.”
“Like so many other job roles, farming has seen a rising number of women taking an active role in that sector, which, for centuries, has been seen as a man's domain. Now more than ever before, women are stepping forward, not only to support the farm business but to run, own and manage it. That needs not only to be celebrated but encouraged. It must be remembered, however, that women have always played an important role in the farming and rural community, which, although it has often been unrecognised, has always been equally vital to the continuity and viability of many farms across the country. <BR /> <BR />That said, unique challenges face women who decide to play more of a fundamental and managerial role in the sector. We should not only be alive to those issues but seek, where possible, to highlight and tackle them head-on.”
“One such area has been engineering. That is evidenced by the rising number of females who are entering that profession. Greater numbers of women across those sectors that are traditionally reserved for men have shown that, no matter what your gender or identity, anyone can achieve their goals in whichever field they wish to pursue them.”
“As Members have said, it is very fitting that this motion is being debated on International Women's Day. It goes without saying that women contribute so much across society, in traditional roles and, more and more, in roles that would have been less popular for them in previous years.”
“Do the devastating developments in Ukraine not further highlight the need to retain food production capacity in this region and to not rely on others?”
“There is now an opportunity for Members to provide the sector with certainty and a bespoke road map to reassure it that it will not be used as a sacrificial lamb in achieving net zero. <BR /> <BR />I urge Members to put votes to their words of support for agriculture and vote, in particular, for amendment No 1.”
“Even those who supported net zero can support amendment No 1, and they should do so as it protects and preserves the overall net zero target, which was the will of the House. Amendment No 1 will protect the net zero target whilst ensuring that the impact on our agri-food sector is closely monitored and consistent with the advice and guidance of the experts. Many in the House may want to vilify our agri-food sector, but we all need to support the sector and recognise that farmers, rather than being part of the problem, as many in the House would have us believe, are part of the solution. <BR /> <BR />A number of the amendments in group 1 will no doubt provide a degree of comfort to the agri-food sector after a period of immense concern.”
“It is necessary that the level of reductions in methane emissions that are outlined be consistent with advice from the IPCC, the UK CCC's "balanced pathway" recommendations on methane and the ambition that we should have to reduce emissions of it.”
“As has already been mentioned, over the past number of weeks, with the Ukraine conflict, we have been reminded not to depend on food imports. Now more than ever before, it is important that we have the ability to produce our own food. The House has a duty to the people of Northern Ireland to ensure that that is the case. The Department's amendment Nos 1, 5, 6, 15, 17, 18 and 19 speak to that. <BR /> <BR />It is intended that the outworking of amendment No 1 will be to place a safeguarding mechanism in the Bill to ensure that, in the context of aiming for overall net zero, disproportionate reductions in methane emissions are not pursued.”
“2) Bill will shape our economy and, more widely, our society for the future. It must protect jobs, rural communities and the production of high-quality local food whilst providing an ambitious road map for reducing carbon emissions and global warming generally. As such, I welcome the change in direction from Sinn Féin that is evident in the amendments that are now before us at Further Consideration Stage. It is a change of heart for the better and will be welcomed by the agriculture sector as a whole. <BR /> <BR />It is vital that we focus on ensuring that Northern Ireland is a world leader in global warming mitigation through the creation of a sustainable economy and an efficient, climate-friendly agri-food sector.”
“I will base the majority of my remarks around the fundamental amendment in the group, which is amendment No 1, and the other amendments that flow from it. Unfortunately, the Bill, as now amended, is a far cry from the Minister's original Bill, which was based on science and the recommendations from the UK Climate Change Committee. That having been said, I welcome any amendments that seek to reflect current science and return us from the politics of unrealistic pipe dreams to workable solutions for tackling our emissions. <BR /> <BR />Both amendment Nos 1 and 2 address the need to deal with methane emissions as a separate and distinct entity. That is a fundamental necessity if we are to achieve a workable piece of legislation. There is no doubt that the Climate Change (No.”
“It reinforces the need for clearer research to mitigate any unintended consequences of any policy changes. Does the Minister agree that we need to invest much more in pilot projects with robust scientific monitoring?”
“I thank the Minister for bringing the statement to the House today. Minister, I welcome this approach. However, will you agree with me that there are still a lot of unknowns?”
“When those within the integrated sector itself are not even fully supportive of the Bill, then neither should we be.”
“The amendments tabled by the SDLP, particularly amendment No 11, show where its focus is. There seems to be a fixation on supporting the smallest sectors, whilst pretending that the main sectors do not exist. I am sure that the maintained sector would dearly love the SDLP to speak up for it as much as it is sticking up for the Irish-medium sector at this stage of the Bill. In these amendments, we see further work by the House to establish and solidify an educational hierarchy that will severely hinder the 93% of children who attend controlled and maintained schools. <BR /> <BR />The amendments in this group do little to alter what has been bad legislation from its inception, a fact that is evident not least from the necessity for it to be continually rehashed at every stage of the legislative process.”
“<BR /> <BR />No amount of legislation supporting the integrated sector will change the decision of parents and pupils as to what school they attend. Are we seriously moving towards a situation in which educational funding will be channelled away from the majority in favour of the minority? That is not sustainable, let alone fair or equitable. In the promotion of the Bill, its sponsor and supporters talk about how this is simply a levelling of the playing field. How can that be, when the Department's new duties and the benefits of the Bill apply only to integrated schools? Where are the benefits of this levelling for controlled or maintained schools?”
“I will make a brief contribution on this group. <BR /> <BR />First, in relation to the funding of the education estate, amendment Nos 5 and 6 speak to the "overall sustainability" of the school estate. I appreciate the intention of the Member with these amendments, but they fly in the face of the clear outworkings of the Bill generally. <BR /> <BR />As the Minister rightly pointed out during the group 1 debate, many see the Bill as a mechanism for progress and moving forward, but that is not the case. The Bill will place an unworkable burden on the Department, its resources, staff and funding. Sustainability will definitely be affected by the legislation, and amendment Nos 5 and 6 hardly scratch the surface of the negative impact on sustainability that will be created as a result.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />As the Department and the Minister have told us ad nauseam, the money will have to come from somewhere else in education. I am interested to know where, the supporters of the Bill believe, the cuts should be made. <BR /> <BR />It is now the time to decide. There can be no more sitting on the fence: either Members support discrimination against the controlled and maintained sectors or they do not; either they are willing to see the popular and respected schools in their constituencies disadvantaged or they are not.”
“I am sure that many would refute those comments, but I point them to the Bill, as amended, which is the biggest and most fundamental piece of education reform here for decades. I ask these simple questions: where is the encouragement, facilitation and support for the rest of our education system? What about the 93% of children across the Province who are educated outside the integrated sector? <BR /> <BR />In amendment No 14 from Mr Butler, we see an attempt to address what will be the outworkings of the Bill. Of course, there will be a detriment to other sectors. As the Department —”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill is full of and overwhelming in its positive action for the integrated sector. Amendment Nos 4, 7, 8 and 9 will bolster that, and facilitation, support and encouragement of the integrated sector will run through the legislation. As we have stressed before, we are not against positive action for the integrated sector. However, we are against creating hierarchies and state-sponsored discrimination between young people depending on what school they wish to attend. <BR /> <BR />To support the amendments and the Bill is to say that pupils who attend maintained or controlled schools are less worthy of support than those who attend an integrated school.”
“As we come to the final legislative stages of the Bill, we are very swiftly entering the last chance saloon for Members to speak up for the education sectors set to be left behind thanks to the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I do not need to rehearse the debates at previous sittings. The comment was made that the Bill has been rushed, and rushed legislation never makes for good legislation, not least when it deals with such major reform. The fact that the Bill sponsor has proposed amendments at this late stage should ring alarm bells with those in this place. Not just one or two but 10 further amendments have been proposed by the Bill sponsor. Unfortunately, not one of them deals with the core issue of the negative effect of the legislation on other sectors.”
“Minister, I understand that the Department issued guidance to schools in December about remote learning. How is that being monitored? What advice was issued about examination classes? Can the Minister share with the House any information about the extent to which remote learning has been used?”
“I welcome the Minister's statement. Does he agree with me that farmers are key to delivering for the environment and that, without them, we would not have managed landscape, which creates the backdrop for wildlife habitats and biodiversity?”
“<BR /> <BR />I thank the Health Committee for its work in bringing about the amendments, and I thank its Chair, Colm Gildernew, for outlining them. They all strengthen what the Bill is trying to achieve, and I am happy to support them. The Bill has the ability to make real change in our communities, and the support that has already been shown for it is testament to how badly that change is needed and wanted.”
“<BR /> <BR />Many of my constituents in Strangford are concerned about the supports available to families, children, young people and adults while they await assessment and diagnosis. They are concerned about how long they will have to wait, not only to receive help but for that help to translate into support in their schools and their work environments. It can be an incredibly difficult time, and it is so important that we get the Bill right by ensuring that we have the service provision to meet the need. The Bill has the ability to translate that into practical help for the people who need it most and into opportunities to equip our incredible front-line staff with the training that they need. I am very pleased to support the Autism (Amendment) Bill and all seven amendments tabled by the Health Committee.”
“I thank my colleague Pam Cameron for bringing the legislation to the House. I also thank the all-party group on autism and Autism NI, which provides the APG with its secretariat, for their efforts in bringing the Autism (Amendment) Bill to the Assembly, 10 years on from the Autism Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. We all have loved ones, family members, friends, co-workers and neighbours who are on the autism spectrum. Unfortunately, many of us have witnessed them struggle to find essential information and support. The Bill aims to make practical changes to our systems in order to ensure that everyone in Northern Ireland is able to access appropriate services in a timely manner.”
“That should, in turn, allow them to receive the greatest benefit from the education system. As it has been proven that some children would benefit from a deferral of their commencement of primary education, that should be facilitated. I fully support the objectives of the Bill and commend the Minister for bringing it to the House.”
“I firmly believe that the parents of younger children are best placed to decide whether their child is ready for school at the age of 4 or whether there would be greater benefit in holding their child back to commence school the following year. I am delighted that the legislation will strengthen the pillar of parental choice on that specific issue. It is a shame that parental choice cannot be upheld in choosing which education sector a child attends, a choice that would be severely hampered by the Integrated Education Bill, for instance. However, I hope that the School Age Bill will receive support from across the Chamber. <BR /> <BR />It is important that we make the educational experience of our children and young people as suitable and as individualised as possible.”
“I echo the remarks made by other Members in thanking the Minister for bringing the Bill before the House. I am glad that the Education Committee agreed to recommend accelerated passage for it. Hopefully, that will ensure that greater flexibility will exist for the children who are due to start primary 1 next year. Legislation on the matter has been talked about for some time. I am glad that we are finally progressing to the stage of the necessary changes being made to the statute book. Having spoken to many parents, I know that the legislation will be welcomed across the board. <BR /> <BR />We all know from our experiences that children develop differently. That has never been adequately reflected in the age that children enter the education system.”
“It is all well and good establishing such a fund, and, unfortunately, such a fund will be needed, but we need to know where the money will come from. Subsequent to last week's votes, farmers are wondering how they will survive in business. Will the so-called just transition fund end up being a "transition to retirement" fund for many in the agriculture sector? <BR /> <BR />The Department presented a Bill based on sound expert evidence. The House has now decided to ride roughshod over that evidence and reject it in favour of positive political optics. The reality will not be so positive, and no amount of public funding will be able to mitigate that.”
“All that will be gained by a move away from the science will be the exporting of our carbon emissions elsewhere in the world, most likely somewhere with much poorer environmental standards and much higher carbon emissions. In 2030, people in the UK will still need to be fed. In 2045 and 2050, people in the UK will still need to be fed. Instead of increasing our environmental targets and reducing our carbon footprint, we will be importing our beef from halfway across the world, and likely destroying the Amazon in the process. How can that be viewed as tackling the climate crisis? <BR /> <BR />On the just transition funding elements in this grouping, I am keen to hear where MLAs think the funding will come from. Will the parties opposite reduce health or education budgets to create this fund?”
“Farmers in my constituency did not want just transition funds. They wanted to work with government to do their bit. They want to improve their processes to reduce their methane and carbon emissions, and they strive towards that which can be achieved, not towards some utopian concept. Without sectoral buy-in, this legislation is going nowhere. In case Members opposite have not realised, farmers have not bought into unrealistic targets. <BR /> <BR />In my earlier remarks, I emphasised the gravity of this legislation and its impact on society and our constituents. The votes thus far have proven that some parties are more interested in the optics and sound bites than they are in tackling climate change.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. No amount of transition funding will be sufficient to prop up an agriculture sector that finds itself crippled by unachievable targets and unable to compete with counterparts across the UK and on the world stage. <BR /> <BR />It is ironic that amendment No 43, for example, seeks principles that "support jobs and growth of jobs". That sort of window dressing will be meaningless against the backdrop of unachievable targets. Jobs will be lost, not grown, as a result of the Bill. That is the reality. The CCC made clear, time and again, why 82% by 2050 was the ambitious, yet realistic, target. I am firmly of the view that Members will rue the day that they ignored the expert advice on those issues.”
“Having now voted to reject the expert recommendations of the CCC and others, MLAs who are cheerleading for unrealistic targets now deem it necessary to include the establishment of public funding to offset the impending damage to the economy and, most importantly, to our agriculture sector.”
“Minister, do you believe that the rigorous implementation of the protocol that many in the House have called for is not in the best interests of all citizens of Northern Ireland?”
“Much of the content of new clause 16A was developed from concerns that were raised during the Committee Stage by consultees and, more importantly, Committee members. It is unfortunate that some have decided to proffer new variations of what was agreed at Committee Stage. That serves only to overburden the process. As such, I see little benefit to the amendments listed in the group, beyond those laid by the Department, which I will be supporting.”
“Many of the amendments in this group are an attempt to cover ground that is already covered in the strategy and in the amendments already laid by the Department, or, indeed, rephrased from within the content of the Bill. For instance, the bulk of amendment No 47 on nature-based solutions is already provided in the departmental amendment No 38, which defines nature-based projects as:”
“Such a commission will likely be of greatest benefit in the coming years, when the various sectors that will likely feel an impact as a result of the legislation at different times will require fluctuating levels of support. <BR /> <BR />However, the fundamental principle to all of that is that a just transition can only be delivered effectively if it relies upon correct targets. I fear that if Members are hoping for transition funding from central government to offset the pending pain of making beyond-ambitious targets, they will be bitterly disappointed. There may be some transition funding but nothing that will equate to the unachievable targets set by this place. <BR /> <BR />I have already referred to the green growth strategy.”
“Repeated mention has been made, by Mr Aiken and others, of the need for a just transition, and rightly so. It is hugely important that there is a just transition, particularly for those sectors that stand to be impacted on most by carbon reduction. The inclusion, in the new clause at amendment No 38, of the duty on all Departments to have regard to the just transition principle is a welcome addition. Members will be aware that the Department has already catered for just transition procedures in the green growth strategy. In that strategy, there is provision for the establishment of a just transition commission for Northern Ireland.”
“The relevance of Brexit to today's debate escapes me. The matter in hand is addressing the climate issue and its effects. That is what matters to those outside of this place. As we turn to consider the second group of amendments, we must be mindful of the purpose and intent behind the proposals and policies, as laid out by the Department in the Bill and the relevant amendments.”