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 9 of 13.
“I will make a few overarching points at the outset on the second group. It has been evident from the debate that there is a collective resolve to address the climate issue, and many have thanked the Minister for the work that the Department has put in to get us to this position. It is, however, somewhat disingenuous of Members opposite to claim that the Minister was prepared to introduce climate legislation only subsequent to the commencement of the private Member's Climate Change Bill, given that Ministers from other parties effectively blocked this Bill's inclusion for discussion and approval at the Executive for months. Indeed, in the debate, some Members appear to have managed to blame the global climate crisis on Brexit.”
“Such a course of action has support in the agri-food sector, the UFU and elsewhere, including the FSB. For those reasons, I will support the key elements of the Bill as they are.”
“Of course, unrealistic targets will not just impact on our agri-food sector. It has been evidenced that there would be a much greater risk of fuel poverty should we move away from CCC advice. Climate action should be bound up with sustainability and long-term viability for every sector, including our agri-food sector. I firmly believe that that should be the driver behind our efforts as we strive towards net zero. <BR /> <BR />Amendments tabled by the Minister take on board issues raised throughout the Bill's passage. I thank him for that, and I support amendment Nos 55 to 75 in the group. <BR /> <BR />It is incumbent on us all to strike the correct balance between the competing interests of carbon reduction and future economic impacts. The answer is to be found in reliance on the sound evidence of the CCC and the best available science.”
“A target of 33% is a significant reduction that is ambitious but, most importantly, achievable. <BR /> <BR />What is not achievable is the sort of figures advocated in the amendments tabled in group 1. For Members to advocate targets that will mean an 86% reduction in the national herd, in real terms, is, frankly, scandalous. The economic impact of a reduction in Northern Irish beef cattle, for instance, of over one million by 2045, from 1·3 million to 180,000, would be devastating for rural communities and those whose livelihoods depend on the farming industry. There would be 13,000 job losses at a farm level and £11 billion of lost economic output by 2045. Bankrupt farms and lost livelihoods will be the result of overambition if we fly in the face of realism on those issues.”
“<BR /> <BR />Fundamental changes to clause 1, such as those proposed in amendment Nos 1 and 2, have been repeatedly rejected by the CCC and others. As I stated at Second Reading, it is important that we are boldly ambitious whilst retaining a sense of pragmatic realism about our targets. I welcome the fact that the Department is keen to stretch beyond the comfort zone of what could be referred to as "quick win" reductions based on best practice models in the likes of the agriculture sector and into more ambitious quarters such as going beyond 20% decarbonisation. Going on the CCC baseline that stems from the most detailed and scientifically credible analysis of the agriculture sector, methane or CO2 equivalents would reduce from a figure of 6·6 million tons to 4·4 million tons.”
“There are parallels in that respect when considering legislation — the legislation before us today or, indeed, any legislation. We must be informed and guided by the experts. From the evidence received by the AERA Committee, it is evident that the Department was guided by the science and subject experts when forming this legislation. The 82% carbon reduction by 2050 target in the Bill is evidently grounded in the recommendations and advice of the independent UK Climate Change Committee and is entirely consistent with the Paris agreement. To put it simply, therefore, any path contrary to the goal of 82% by 2050 is not grounded in the sound evidence that has been made available to the House as part of the consultation with the necessary sectors and stakeholders.”
“The dates and percentages approved in the Bill will impact on the lives of many. In some cases, they will likely make the difference between business sustainability and business collapse. People's livelihoods are bound up in the legislation, and the path chosen by Members today will have long-term implications for Northern Ireland and its citizens. <BR /> <BR />It is fair to say that we are all committed to carbon reduction and to working towards net zero, as legislators and as a society in general. However, we must ensure that we build on firm foundations if we are to effect meaningful and lasting change towards sustainability. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, we have been reminded of the necessity of being guided by the science and the subject experts.”
“It goes without saying that the setting of targets is key to any climate change legislation that will be agreed by the House now or in the future. Indeed, there are two key decisions to be made by Members: first, the date by which our emissions target has to be met; and the minimum reduction that is to be achieved. Those two factors are the major points of difference between the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill and the private Member's Bill in the name of Ms Bailey. <BR /> <BR />Amendments Nos 1 and 11 testify to the debate between the 2050 and the 2045 cut-off and the percentage reduction rates to be set. The AERA Committee spent considerable time receiving evidence on both those issues. At the outset, I acknowledge the gravity and solemnity of what is involved in the content of those clauses and potential amendments.”
“I welcome the opportunity to address some of the issues raised in the first group of amendments, which deal with targets, carbon budgets and nitrogen balance sheets. The Bill offers an opportunity to deliver on the commitments in 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA) and to create the necessary legislative framework for a balanced pathway towards carbon reduction across Northern Ireland. It is important that the Bill's content is viewed alongside what is already being undertaken by DAERA in the green growth strategy, the draft environmental strategy and the Department for the Economy's energy strategy. <BR /> <BR />The work that is ongoing shows a clear commitment, particularly by my party colleagues, to advance carbon reduction.”
“Minister, have you managed to improve and shorten response times since taking up office? Is there still room for improvement?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. With COVID, many people have wanted to explore and engage more with nature and the landscape. For example, they have been hillwalking and open-sea fishing, to name but two. Do you agree, Minister, that this support will enable these organisations to better protect our citizens?”
“What supports does the Minister have for over 25s who want to retrain and learn new skills in the new growing sectors?”
“If that is not being done or has not been done, why has NICIE not been held to account? I do not see any additional role for the Department, particularly not in the sort of terms outlined at clause 8(2), for example. The maintenance and protection of the ethos of an integrated school, as with any other school, is a matter for individual schools in that sector. <BR /> <BR />I have no difficulty with an integrated education strategy in and of itself, however, and amendment Nos 33 and 34 are sufficient to establish such a strategy.”
“The education estate must meet the needs of the local community that it serves. Need is met by a range of contextual factors, including parental choice. It is not the job of the House to dictate to parents and young people which school should be attended. Clause 7 amounts to such. Choice is healthy, and all considerations for new schools should be based on demand and on ensuring that the best education can be provided to young people with the support of parents. <BR /> <BR />On clause 8, I agree with the comments made by Mr O'Dowd at Second Reading. Surely the budget already provided to NICIE is to ensure that it can:”
“The clause is extremely wide in scope and has no regard to the current framework as laid down by the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. How, practically, could all educational establishments in other sectors ever achieve such a provision, for example? Such a clause should have relevance only to a Department, as stated at article 64(1) of the 1989 Order. <BR /> <BR />On clause 7, I am in full agreement with the Minister and her Department that such a provision should not stand part of the Bill unless qualified by the provisions in amendment No 29. To prohibit the establishment of a new school other than one from the integrated sector would not be a sustainable position to request the Department to maintain without consideration of the demand for such.”
“I support and will speak briefly on a number of amendments laid by the Minister. <BR /> <BR />Clause 6 states that all education bodies:”
“I am very happy to support the concept of integration and the integrated sector, but not to the detriment of all else. <BR /> <BR />The outworkings of clauses 4 and 5, if they receive support from the House, will have a profound effect on how education is provided across Northern Ireland. If we have to disadvantage other sectors, we must conclude that the Bill is not good for the education system as a whole and therefore not good law. As such, I will oppose clauses 4 and 5.”
“<BR /> <BR />I acknowledge that the sponsor's amendments have gone some way to address a number of my concerns, but, unfortunately, my principal concern still stands: the impact of additional duties on the Department in respect of integrated education, be they described as promotion or support, and the subsequent impact that this will have on other sectors, a point highlighted multiple times at Second Reading. <BR /> <BR />With an ever-diminishing budget, there will be an ever-diminishing pot of money for allocation. I ask Members how they expect principals of controlled and maintained schools in their constituency to react when it becomes impossible to fund their school's enhanced programmes or to provide additional money in their budgets because their sector is at the bottom of the new hierarchy.”
“That would pit the integrated sector against the other sectors. I agree with that assessment. That is how I see the outworkings of clause 4 in particular and the onus on the Department "to encourage, facilitate and promote". There is no way that such promotion will not create a hierarchy of education provision that will have to be evidenced in everything that the Department does, from policy on area planning to funding allocations for each sector.”
“As we consider these clauses, particularly clauses 4 and 5, we need to be mindful of the practical implications that will flow from their wording. I have great concerns that the outworkings of clauses 4 and 5 will serve only to encourage educational discrimination. I know that that is not the Member's intention, but I fear that it would be the result. <BR /> <BR />In its elevation of the integrated sector above all others, clause 4 will create a hierarchy of education provision in Northern Ireland in which children attending schools in our two main sectors — Catholic maintained and state controlled — will be at the bottom. That was the main concern highlighted throughout the Committee's evidence sessions. <BR /> <BR />Representatives from CCMS stated:”
“As it stands, the private Member's Bill before us, although succinct, represents possibly the greatest shift in education policy for many years. If such legislation were to receive approval, it would very much call into question the rationale behind the ongoing review. We would do well to avoid placing the cart before the horse. Co-education is something that we all support and have signed up to. The DUP's objection to this private Member's Bill, as introduced and even if amended, is that it clearly prioritises and elevates one sector above all others. This is unfair and inequitable.”
“It is evident from this debate and previous education debates that there is clear and collective support for the concept of educating our young people together. The concept is not in dispute. The process for achieving the concept, however, is, particularly when it harms other sectors in achieving its aim. We can all appreciate the importance of educating our children and young people in a shared and integrated environment, both for future societal benefit and their individual personal development. The Assembly has made that aspiration clear in the past, and, indeed, the Executive have already begun work to bring it to the fore through the ongoing NDNA education review. As far as the DUP is concerned, that is the proper process for effecting change in education moving forward.”
“Given the impact of COVID on our supply chains, particularly food production, and the energy crisis that faces Northern Ireland citizens, does that not once again highlight the important role that farmers play in our society?”
“First, we must be mindful of the trauma that flock keepers are going through at this time. Given the high viral load in the wild bird population, whose responsibility is it to dispose of dead birds or, indeed, to ensure that bird welfare is monitored and appropriate action taken?”
“Minister, during my time on the Education Committee and as a constituency representative, I have not heard anything positive about the GTCNI. However, now that a decision has finally been made, it might prompt some support for it. Does the Minister anticipate any challenge to her decision?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. Elderly constituents are also finding accessing the system particularly hard. Will your Department also look into that for me?”
“<BR /> <BR />It should also be noted that it is not just DAERA that may have a role in the legislation. Input from the Department of Justice, the PSNI and the Department for Communities is likely to be required if workable legislation is to be achieved. Pressures will undoubtedly be placed on police resources to enforce future legislation in the area, when considered against other priorities such as rural crime. I therefore urge Members to bear enforcement issues in mind during their deliberations. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I hope to engage constructively with the Bill when it reaches Committee Stage, and I will be happy to do so. I will, however, not be supporting the Bill today. That having been said, I acknowledge the Member's genuine intent, and, on a personal level, I wish him well in his endeavours.”
“I appreciate that the consultation was conducted in accordance with the usual Assembly procedures, but the lack of data from respondents has severely weakened it. The Assembly needs to consider that issue more widely. Moving forward, we need to close down the potential for consultations to be manipulated by lobby groups from around the world, due to the lack of data supplied by respondents, such as, for example, their address. <BR /> <BR />The motives behind the Bill are understood. Little detail has been supplied, however, on the benefits or, more importantly, the likely effects of the legislation on those who stand to be most affected: for example, gamekeepers, who may lose their job, or those responsible for breeding and training dogs.”
“I note that the Member previously pointed to the threshold of organised use for human entertainment as being an effective tool in limiting the scope of the Bill and ensuring that it does not become so encompassing as to include the "one man and his dog off the lead" analogy. I remain to be convinced of the viability of the legal practicalities of that point, however. Many in our rural communities have serious concerns about the future impact of the Bill on other countryside activities, including shooting and pest control, for instance. <BR /> <BR />Issues have been raised about the efficiency of the consultation process, and I have to acknowledge my concerns about the process and the results received.”
“<BR /> <BR />Opponents of the Bill argue that it raises more questions than it provides answers. It will be for the Member, working in conjunction with the Committee, to seek to address some of the practicalities that will be faced by the rural community. Attempts have been made in the Bill to close several of the loopholes that have been in evidence in England and Wales since similar legislation was enacted some 15 years ago, and that is to be welcomed. Even with the inclusion of a ban on trail hunting, however, it is difficult to see how future breaches could be identified and addressed. <BR /> <BR />Similarly, issues with the scope of the proposed legislation have been highlighted.”
“Relatively small numbers of hunt groups operate in NI, and those engaged in the activity usually have long-held family connections to it. Hunts are currently regulated not only by the few registered bodies that conduct them but by external factors: for example, hunts gain access to farmland only with the consent of the farmer or landowner. That means that landowners are able to decide their position on the hunt and its place in the countryside and regulate usage accordingly. Many will be aware that the Ulster Farmers' Union has a long-standing memorandum of understanding with the Countryside Alliance and the Northern Ireland Masters of Hounds Association, meaning that problems can be raised by landowners and rectified quickly through legitimate bodies.”
“The Ulster Farmers' Union and other organisations have drawn attention to the fact that the fox population requires constant management because of the danger that foxes present to domestic poultry flocks and lambs especially. The Member for South Antrim mentioned alternative methods of fox control, such as fox-proof fencing, ultrasonic pest devices and artificial scents, which deter foxes. Those are likely to be considered impractical by farmers in Northern Ireland. Various representations from the sector have already been made to me on that point. In any event, it can be assumed that landowners would seek government support for the funding of alternative methods of fox management, should the Bill be enacted. <BR /> <BR />It is perhaps worth bearing in mind that hunting with hounds is not seen as a major activity in Northern Ireland.”
“This private Member's Bill represents an attempt to address what is undoubtedly an emotive issue for many. I am sure that, like me, Members across the Chamber have been dealing with a huge amount of mail and engaging with constituents on both sides of the debate. <BR /> <BR />Since the Bill was first drafted, I very much sympathised with its intent. I am not a hunting man, and that activity, in any shape or form, has never appealed to me, especially as an entertainment. That said, I know many to whom it does appeal, and I also know the benefits that flow from the activity both for those involved and, more widely, for our rural communities. It is no secret that, like it or not, the hunting of mammals using dogs has been employed by farmers for centuries as a method of pest control.”
“We approach the end of the transfer test for September 2022 admission. Given that some children may not have been able to sit one or more of the tests because of COVID, is the Minister in a position to outline what may happen in that situation?”
“There is much more that we can do to prevent, deter, detect and prosecute crime against animals. There is a strong case to increase funding for local animal welfare services, and a further review of sentencing provisions would also be beneficial. We must exhaust all avenues and efforts to make progress on the wider issue of animal cruelty, inclusive of the creation of an offenders' register, complex though that may be. I am pleased that Finn's law is before the House, and I very much hope that we shall soon see it on the statute book. I thank the Minister for his commitment to the legislation. I support the Bill.”
“The Bill, should it be passed — I have every faith that it will — will principally amend sections 4(1) and 4(3) of the 2011 Act, thereby mirroring the changes that are now in place and working effectively in other parts of the UK. <BR /> <BR />For our part, the DUP is dedicated to ensuring that animals in our society are cared for, that those who abuse animals are punished and that those with legal responsibility for animal care have the support and resources that they need. As a result of this and other recent legislation, the UK as a whole will have one of the toughest sentencing regimes against animal cruelty in the world. I am pleased that the House has played an active role on that journey. <BR /> <BR />Our ambitions, of course, should not end with the passage of this legislation.”
“It is about ensuring that our service animals and their handlers have the legal recognition and protection that they deserve. As they serve our community, those animals do invaluable work in unpredictable and often dangerous environments. As legislators, it is our job to ensure that they are adequately protected in law. <BR /> <BR />Over the summer, the Department carried out a consultation on the Bill. The responses showed that 98% of respondents were in favour of the policy proposals set out in the consultation. The AERA Committee has been happy to add its backing to the Bill. I am pleased to see the support that it has received, particularly among service organisations such as the PSNI and others that train and use service dogs daily. The support that has been shown underlines how keen everyone is to see the new law in place.”
“In other regions, legislation has been changed to provide that, in cases involving service animals, those defences can be disregarded. <BR /> <BR />By now, Members will know the story behind the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Act 2019 — Finn's law — and the work undertaken by Finn's handler, Constable Wardell, and various charitable organisations to highlight the lack of protection for service animals. They have had success across the UK in achieving greater legislative protection. Finn sustained terrible injuries to his chest and head while engaged by his handler, but, at that stage, only criminal damage charges could be brought against the dog's attacker. The Bill is, therefore, about protecting Finn and all our service animals as they dedicate their lives to keeping us safe.”
“I support the Bill and its accelerated passage through the House. As has already been indicated, the Bill addresses a legislative anomaly that arose as a result of the absence of a sitting Assembly. The Bill is short, uncontroversial and straightforward in its intent. I am delighted that it commands overwhelming public and political support. <BR /> <BR />Currently, as in the rest of the UK, it is an offence in NI to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal, under the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. When determining whether the suffering is unnecessary, regard can be given to whether the conduct that caused the suffering was to protect a person, property or another animal. However, the law in other parts of the UK now differs in its application to situations involving service animals.”
“Minister, was learning shared by individual Administrations on their specific approaches to tackling the COVID pandemic?”
“Furthermore, as we seek to entice more people out of the car and on to public transport, it may be counterproductive for how we green that journey to the hospital. <BR /> <BR />I will conclude my remarks. I trust that we can tease out some of the issues further in consultation with staff and all other stakeholders. Our ambition through the Bill is to have fairness for all users of the health service, but we need to look more closely at how that is best delivered and protect our services. As we transform our healthcare, the conversation can be had across a range of services. We are up for that debate, and we hope the Minister can lead the debate sooner rather than later in order to bring about the changes that are so badly needed.”
“We need to establish how a blanket ban on charging would impact on clinical care budgets on a day-to-day basis. At the very least, there needs to be a stipulation that any shortfall in funds for maintaining free parking facilities cannot be made up from funds allocated to front-line services. The Committee might wish to explore that during its deliberations on the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I suspect that another consideration that may need attention is how hospital car parking, if free, would be policed. In many towns, HSC sites are in locations that are tempting for shoppers or commuters, with many car parking sites under capacity pressures. Their use would only exacerbate the problem. We need answers about how that would be managed in order to ensure that the generosity offered to staff, patients and families will not be abused.”
“I believe that we need to do much more research into the impact that these charges could have, and we should look at an options paper that considers possibly listing a range of free users and those who would continue to pay. We need to see how that would work in practice and look into the administration of such a scheme while being cognisant of its cost burden. Certainly, the case for staff and chronic care patients is much more robust than that for irregular users and occasional visitors. <BR /> <BR />Of course, behind those questions lies this one big question: what is the impact of losing that revenue stream from the services provided by our health service? We cannot ignore the fact that while our desire is zero cost, zero cost does not come with zero impact on income and zero impact on how that income is then spent on delivering care.”
“Do the concessions that we already offer go far enough and include the right people? Might a better approach be to look again at the concessions available and seek to increase them, rather than lose all the revenue garnered through charging some users?”
“We regret that free parking offered to healthcare staff at the start of the pandemic was withdrawn by the Minister. That was premature and, at a time of such pressure, exhaustion and self-sacrifice by staff, sent the wrong message. Nurses and others on the front line look at car park charging policy and say that it would mean a lot if parking was free. It would be a gesture that reflects our gratitude to them. We should be looking at that. It would be a timely boost to terms and conditions and an added incentive to attract more people into the service. Let us not forget that our cars are parked outside this Building free of charge, so why should a nurse pay while on a 12-hour shift of mayhem? <BR /> <BR />We need to consider the service user, too: the patient and, indeed, their loved ones.”
“As it is right to do with any Bill that has such financial implications for the public purse, we have to ask ourselves whether this is the best approach. If it is feasible, what are the unintended consequences of the Bill's admirable aims? <BR /> <BR />I want a fair system, and the current system is unfair. We have disparity in costs between sites, with someone in Ards paying a different fee from someone in Armagh or Antrim. That is wrong. After all, the health service is about equal access to healthcare. The Bill would streamline arrangements across the board and ensure that patients and staff, regardless of where they lived, the distance they travelled, the nature of their illness or the length of shift, received fair and equitable access. <BR /> <BR />This party recognises the need for reform.”
“First, let me be absolutely clear: we share the same common purpose as the Bill sponsor, that being to alleviate the cost for those who work day after day in the health service and for those who, in the midst of illness and requiring the health service, also face hospital car parking costs when attending for care. That is a commendable objective. We do need to support staff. My goodness, after the 18 months that they have endured, they deserve absolutely everything that we can possibly do to support them. For those visiting hospitals or other care sites, we want no obstacle — certainly not a financial one — to their attendance and receipt of the care that they need. <BR /> <BR />We look at the Bill and say, "Yes, we support the objective, but do also look at the Bill".”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware that there is growing demand for electric vehicles and, especially, charging points. Does he have plans to commit additional budget to that area in the coming year?”
“Minister, will you outline what the pressures are in the education budget for next year? If the Department gets its baseline again, what will that mean for education in Northern Ireland?”
“The Minister will be aware that many children walk along rural roads without footpaths to the bus pickup points or, indeed, even to the school itself. They are often unaccompanied. What consideration is given to pupil safety in rural areas? Will the Minister provide an update on the review of home-to-school transport? In what circumstance is a parental allowance offered in lieu of a seat on a bus?”