Roy Beggs
East Antrim · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I declare an interest as owner of 25 acres of agricultural land; also, my parents run a small agricultural business. <BR /> <BR />There is a shortage of fertiliser, and the Minister has referred to the present difficulties in Ukraine that are contributing to that. That shortage exists even at the exorbitant cost of £1,000 per ton.”
“of public bodies in Northern Ireland. That is vital in order to reassure the public that money is being spent appropriately. That is to be done independently.”
“There has been a very close working relationship and a close partnership. Where issues needed highlighted and where the Assembly, through its scrutiny mechanisms, needed to dig deeper to get better value and better accountability, that occurred.”
“<BR /> <BR />I also want to reflect on the close working relationship that there has been between the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Northern Ireland Audit Office, which the C&AG oversees and manages, and the Assembly, particularly the Public Accounts Committee.”
“As we consider this motion to nominate a new Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland, it is important that we reflect on the importance that the role has in any democracy. The C&AG in Northern Ireland is the head of the Northern Ireland Audit Office.”
“P&O has brutally cast its workforce aside in a Dickensian fashion. There was no consultation or notice, and the company delivered a live message by video link. Will the Minister clarify whether the P&O redundancy announcement is covered by maritime law, Northern Ireland employment law or GB employment law?”
The complete record
Every one of 1,772 lines we hold for Roy Beggs, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 36.
“Accelerated passage for legislation should generally be avoided and used only in exceptional circumstances and in a limited way. My Ulster Unionist colleagues and I accept that, in this case, it is correct that we allow accelerated passage to correct the ramifications of the Vnuk case. We accept that urgent change in the law is required. <BR /> <BR />The outworkings of the Vnuk case would result in an estimated £50 for everyone with private motor vehicle insurance to enable coverage to be provided for uninsured vehicles on private land. The policy was not originally designed to do that. It is highly questionable whether insured drivers should provide full cover for those on lawnmowers, quads, scramblers, trail bikes and a host of other examples.”
“Minister, in the absence of Executive approval, you are deciding how to spend £45 million and also holding back a potential £300 million. Yesterday, we had the Health Minister announce that he had consulted other Ministers and taken decisions to limit the risk of legal challenge. Will you do likewise to enable more funds to get on to the ground, and will you detail how the £45 million will be spent?”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive proposes to demolish the final block of multistorey flats in Larne. Will the Minister advise why the demolition of those flats was not directly linked to a fresh planning application so that social homes could directly benefit from the reduction in sewerage capacity and that those living in the flats could have the option of continuing to live in the adjacent area?”
“The Minister has spoken of the costs to date and the delays etc, but has there been any assessment of the costs of the disruption for the additional vets, when there is already a shortage, and the additional environmental health officers and the additional delays and bureaucracy that would result if the protocol was fully implemented?”
“Does the Minister accept that the five-year average is much lower because there are more cars on the road and much greater demand? The important figure is not the five-year average but the number of applications and the number of tests that are delivered.”
“As I said, in GB they have dispensed with light trailer testing, which frees up the testers to deal with the waiting list. Why are we not doing that? On top of that, there is no need for the drivers of wedding and funeral cars to have a taxi licence. I have even learned of advanced drivers failing the theory test, yet they are perfectly good drivers. We need to adopt what has worked elsewhere.”
“Like the Member, I have met that organisation. It indicated that there is a shortage of new vehicles and that more used cars are being sold by its franchises. Does he agree that there is an urgent need to increase capacity, because there will undoubtedly be more MOT demand?”
“— that wedding and funeral cars are subject to in order to create capacity.”
“What can we do about driver testing? I ask that we look at what is happening in GB, where the testing of light trailers has been dispensed with, and that we avoid the taxi licensing requirement —”
“There is no monopoly there. Private garages provide a service, and guess what? They provided that service the whole way through the pandemic. Great Britain has not experienced all these failures. Perhaps we need competition. Competition is good for improving standards, and that flexibility of competition is needed.”
“I do not want this to happen in the long term, but using TECs now is the only practical means of quickly dealing with the backlog and allowing the public to have a degree of normality. <BR /> <BR />What are the other options? I think that we have to free the DVA from the restrictions of the public sector, which are what is preventing it from paying the going rate for a mechanic. Recently, I was talking to some major vehicle retailers, and I know from them that they would generally advertise a job with a salary of £35,000, so are we surprised that we have difficulty recruiting staff? We have to free the DVA from the restrictions of the public sector so that it can get out there and meet the market forces. <BR /> <BR />We also have to recognise that there has been no difficulty in Great Britain throughout the period in question.”
“As the Minister will know, I have been asking why we are not using more temporary exemption certificates. Why are we not dealing with the bulge that is there? We are testing almost as many vehicles now as there is demand, but we need to remove the bulge. It takes about 10 weeks from applying to getting a vacant spot. I know that personally from having experienced it. A departmental road safety official who appeared in front of the Committee indicated that only 1% of accidents occur as a result of mechanical failure, and he also said that there is no statistical information pointing to any increased risk as a result of the use of temporary exemption certificates.”
“If we do nothing, there will be additional pedestrians, particularly ones walking on rural roads, where the private car is virtually the only means of transport. There will be an effect on the economy as people are unable to get to work. There is already an effect on NHS staff who are unable to work shifts and take up overtime opportunities because they perhaps rely on public transport and have not been able to get a test or keep their car on the road. There is also a shortage of staff in domiciliary care. To work in that sector, new applicants need a driving licence, and, without one, they are blocked from applying. The follow-on from that is bed-blocking, with patients unable to get support in their home. <BR /> <BR />What are the real options that we can suggest to address the backlog? This is what we are about.”
“I am saying that there is an endemic problem with the DVA. Even before then, there were usually periods during the year when we would hear of excessive waiting times. The DVA is a monopoly provider, and, as a result, the public have difficulty keeping their cars on the road. There has been anxiety as people try to get an earlier test. Many have been fined for failure to tax their car, and they cannot tax their car because it has not had an MOT test. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the fact that the DVA has trained additional dual-skilled testers who can carry out driving tests, but, again, there is huge demand. I recognise that considerable overtime has been worked. What therefore do we do? First, there are huge risks from doing nothing.”
“The pandemic has, obviously, created difficulties, but we are over the pandemic. The restrictions that had existed are over, as of the end of the summer. We need to meet the demand. There were problems pre pandemic as well. Due to the problem with the ramps, virtually all testing was stopped for a period in DVA, immediately after the Minister took office. That was not her fault, so I am not pointing at her.”
“Sadly, in recent months, the waiting lists have been growing. In September, waiting list numbers increased by 36,000 and, in October, by 22,000.”
“I, too, support the motion. I recognise the challenge that the DVA has faced in keeping the public and its staff safe during the COVID epidemic. MOT staff have worked a considerable amount of overtime. The DVA has attempted to recruit staff, but it has experienced great difficulty in doing so. I can see why there is a difficulty in recruiting, considering that a fully qualified mechanic with a minimum of three years' experience will, I understand, receive a salary of £23,500. Only three out of 10 who were selected and invited to start training actually turned up. The others probably got a job since they were initially assessed. Despite the efforts to date, waiting lists are growing. Others have referred to a comparison of five years. The only valid comparisons are of the demand and supply numbers.”
“Will the Minister agree that there is nothing just about legislation that is supposedly to reduce carbon emissions but will actually result in increased carbon emissions by increasing importation from places that are higher emitters?”
“Does the Minister agree that, if insufficient funding is available to any such commission, adviser or expert group, no matter what it does, it will not be able to deliver a just transition and it will have no chance of achieving what is meant to be its stated objective? Does he agree that the fact that there are not hundreds of millions of pounds available every year from the block grant means that it would be largely wasting the limited money that is available?”
“The Member who spoke previously, who would not give way, talked much about how there would have to be a just transition commission etc to ensure that it happens. The expected reduction in income to the agri-food industry will be hundreds of millions of pounds. Is the Member aware of what proposals there are to replace that fund so that no one will be worse off, or does he agree with me that there is huge danger that they are creating something that is unachievable?”
“Will the Member advise us of the budget that has been committed to the just transition commission or principle?”
“We support the independent UK Climate Change Committee's recommendations that we contribute our fair share of an 82% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions so that the UK can reach net zero by 2050. <BR /> <BR />We are on a journey. Industry, the rural community, planning — particularly in the countryside — and how we build and insulate our homes will all change going forward. Time will tell whether the ideals that have been set are deliverable and a just transition will happen or whether many will suffer because of what many consider to be unachievable targets.”
“The Assembly has decided to go beyond the 82% greenhouse gas reduction target set by the UK Climate Change Committee that would enable the UK as a whole to reach net zero by 2050. That means that we will bear a large part of the cost of reaching net zero by 2050, and, as a result, we may not be able to meet the stated objectives, because we may contribute to greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere. <BR /> <BR />Ulster Unionists recognise the need for a climate change Act that covers more than a decade so that we can play our part in protecting the planet. We are far behind England, Scotland and Wales. The rest of the UK has a credible legislative pathway and has already made substantial changes.”
“<BR /> <BR />On amendment No 53, Ulster Unionists also view the creation of yet another commission, namely a just transition commission, as overly bureaucratic and costly. We will oppose it. Bear in mind that there are likely to be insufficient funds to compensate the rural community for the loss of earnings that will be inflicted by the Bill. Accordingly, we do not want to put in another layer of bureaucracy that would absorb the limited funds and reduce the amount reaching the front line. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, when making legislation, it is important to set achievable targets and that appropriate levels of support be provided to assist those who have been adversely affected.”
“There is also the danger that the rural community will not buy into trying to reach a target that has been deemed to be unachievable, and because we are trying to do what we were advised not to do. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 50 creates the role of a just transition adviser. Ulster Unionists view that as unnecessarily costly and bureaucratic, and we will oppose it. The available funds should be targeted and go to those who will have been adversely affected. We need to make sure that funds are not absorbed by an additional layer of administration and bureaucracy. I suspect that there will be insufficient funds, and we do not wish to remove some of those from the front line to fund a just transition adviser. The same applies to amendment No 52; we view it as wordy and overly bureaucratic, and we will oppose it.”
“It would be helpful to be made aware of whether that is intended to be included in the scheme. <BR /> <BR />The concept of a just transition is a good one, but, again, I ask this: will it be deliverable? Will the expectations that have been mentioned be achievable? Where will the funding come from? How much will it be? Earlier, we were told that it is important that we do not do things to people. The UK Climate Change Committee voiced an opinion that net zero is not achievable for Northern Ireland, given that we feed 10 million people. I would be interested to know how the just transition fund for agriculture will work. Difficulties in the rural economy will undoubtedly result from trying to achieve net zero.”
“I declare an interest, as I am the owner of 25 acres of agricultural land, and my parents run a small family farm. <BR /> <BR />My Ulster Unionist colleagues and I support the concept of a just transition principle, but the question is this: is all of it deliverable? The objectives are laudable. Who would oppose the concept? We will support amendment No 44, the creation of a just transition fund for agriculture. I notice that it is being restricted to clause 16 objectives, which appear under the heading of "Carbon budgets". It would be helpful if clarity could be given on whether the scheme would include advice and support for other greenhouse gas budgeting. Methane is a major challenge to the agricultural sector, especially now that the impossible target, as many believe it to be, of net zero has been set.”
“So, I plead with you to rethink what you are doing so that there really can be a just transition and that we go with a planned transition, as indicated by the UK Climate Change Committee and as set out by the Minister in the Bill. I support the targets and the figures in the Minister's Bill.”
“So, I say, here and now, to the proposers of the amendments to the Bill, are you going to subsidise, to the value of hundreds of millions of pounds, those who may have invested in infrastructure that was built to last not for five or 10 years but for 50 or 60 years? That is the length of time that most in the agricultural sector expect to get out of their buildings. In my dad's small farm, we are still using some of the buildings that we found when we went to Carnduff in 1966. That is not unusual. What we are talking about here is decimating the income and making that investment in infrastructure redundant on many occasions.”
“I fear that we are not doing that. I fear that we are creating difficulties for us, the UK and the planet. <BR /> <BR />The UK is committed to reaching net zero by 2050. If we move ahead of it, and we can volunteer to do so, we will have to pick up the cost and the pain. <BR /> <BR />What is the scale of the just transition funds? The KPMG report states that the agriculture sector has net profits or income of £400 million to £600 million a year. If we were to reduce animal numbers by between 50% and 86%, one does not need to be an expert to work out the effect that that would have on the income of those who previously were producers. We would devalue their income by hundreds of millions of pounds.”
“— to be clear, we are talking not about CO2 but about greenhouse gas emissions —”
“Our limited block grant would incur extra costs to try to compensate that part of the economy. From where in the block grant would the money come to compensate it? Would it come out of health or education funding? From where is this wonderful fund to come? I fear that there will not be much more money and that mitigation is easier said than provided. <BR /> <BR />There is another aspect to all of this. We need to stand back and think about what we are doing. It is easy to go for a popular headline, but to do so will produce the opposite effect. It will not deliver. It will not deliver what some people say is on the tin. Rather, as I have illustrated, it will increase greenhouse gas emissions. <BR /> <BR />The Climate Change Committee said:”
“We could voluntarily carry a heavier load and pay the extra cost, but that would not decrease UK greenhouse gas emissions. It would simply mean that Scotland, Wales and England did not have to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to the same extent. Some people are under the impression that doing that would help global greenhouse gas emissions. It would not. The UK greenhouse gas emissions would remain at the same level, and, in fact, by offsetting our agriculture production elsewhere, we would be increasing global greenhouse gas emissions. That would be the net outcome of having a net zero target in the Bill. Members need to think carefully about what they are doing. <BR /> <BR />I asked the signatories to amendment Nos 2 and 3 to explain to the people of Northern Ireland why our agriculture economy would be binned.”
“You would be a very foolish farmer to invest in housing standards that are often better than other parts of the world. There are lots of knock-on effects. <BR /> <BR />I spoke about the Brazilian meat industry, which is actively pursuing a plan to increase cattle production by 10 million by 2030 — no doubt by cutting down its rainforests. We may well find that our customers, whom we will not be able to supply under the new targets, will be purchasing Brazilian meat in the future. <BR /> <BR />Furthermore, if we sacrifice our industry, or pay for carbon capture and take on a bigger share of the UK greenhouse gas emissions target, it will not result in any reduction in UK greenhouse gas emissions. People may feel good, but the target for net zero greenhouse gas emissions will remain a 2050 target in the UK.”
“The Climate Change Committee will pull in behavioural scientists to guide all this change. It is not said lightly. We are trying to grasp something that is unachievable, and are liable not to take the community with us, making it even more difficult to achieve, and causing even greater destruction. <BR /> <BR />One of the greatest aspects of this matter is our agri-food sector, which we, in Northern Ireland, are heavily reliant on. It has provided stability during times of difficulty. However, look ahead to what will be the result of the Bill. Who will invest in our agri-food sector? Who will invest to bring about improvements? There will be a real danger when people see a potential 86% reduction in the number of sheep and cattle.”
“The Committee report outlines Lord Deben's view that Northern Ireland could experience:”
“There may well be some UK transition funding but, if we voluntarily go at it faster and harder than is required of and suggested to us, I very much doubt that the Exchequer will say, "You decided to do that but that's OK. We'll give you some extra money." I suspect that we will suffer the related pain. Our industry and agri-food sector will suffer that pain. The huge potential reductions that are forecast may affect the whole viability of some of our industry, so we really should be looking at that. <BR /> <BR />In his evidence, Lord Deben stated that he is not prepared to suggest something that he knew could not be achieved. It is clear that he believes that net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 cannot be achieved in Northern Ireland given our background.”
“We will not be able to rely on that to carry some of the load. Whatever we put into legislation will have a bearing out there. As legislators, we must take great care as we set binding legislation. This is not an aspiration. <BR /> <BR />The Committee report on the Bill indicates some of the cost implications of the Bill, as drafted. There is an annualised resource cost peaking at some £300 million by the early 2030s. It is right that we will have to do that. The report refers to a cost of 1% of GDP, and a net cost of some £4 billion between now and 2050. Those figures are based on the Minister's Bill. I would like to know what the cost of net zero would be. I fear that it would be much more. Where would the money come from to justify net zero?”
“You can also look at our infrastructure, where you will see that we have a smaller gas network, and then there is the state of our housing stock. We still have the sizeable Northern Ireland Housing Executive housing stock of older, thermally inefficient houses and the fuel poverty that is associated with them. That needs to be addressed. <BR /> <BR />The Climate Change Committee indicated that we, as a location, are less likely to benefit from carbon storage. One amendment adds the issue of carbon storage, which I am supportive of, but do not save that up your sleeve as a solution that will solve everything. Carbon capture is expensive, and the technology is still not fully developed. There has been a clear message that, because we are a relatively small region, we are less likely to be chosen as a UK carbon capture storage area.”
“It is very important that the farming community buys into the target. You have to set achievable targets. My big concern is that, in going for net zero, you will not get the farming community to buy into it. I do not see how any farmer or any livestock farmer can buy into net zero. There is a huge danger that the farming community will not buy into it, and a warning has been given to us about that. <BR /> <BR />Another reason why our figure has been set at 82% relates to the particular land mix that we have. We do not have absorbents in our peatlands but emissions from our peatlands. We have to spend time and money to address and to stop them. We also have a much lower tree covering, so our starting point has a much smaller net carbon sink. Our particular topography makes life more difficult for us.”
“<BR /> <BR />Our emissions level is related to the fact that we provide food to other parts of the UK for some 10 million people. Those same people will still eat food, and they will eat food from other areas that emit higher levels of greenhouse gases. Lord Deben said that the 82% reduction would be:”
“I hope that there are, but if there are not, KPMG and I have laid out what is likely to happen. I would much prefer that we set challenging but realistic targets, such as those that are indicated in the Minister's Bill, and that those targets are aimed for. When we see where we are and work out what has to happen to achieve those targets, if we find that, yes, we can achieve them and that, yes, other technological changes can be made, we can come back to the target and increase it further. We can be even more ambitious about what we are doing, but if we set it in legislation, we all know that it will be very difficult to tighten that legislation. It is very difficult to go back on what you have approved. I urge Members to reconsider the proposal to reach net zero by 2050.”
“I have given way several times. <BR /> <BR />Worse than all that, I have continually highlighted that, by decimating our farming community and food production in Northern Ireland, we will increase global greenhouse gas emissions. The same food that is required in England or in other parts of Europe will be produced somewhere else with a higher level of greenhouse gas emissions, so the proposal is counter-intuitive. It will actually increase global greenhouse gas emissions. All Members should look very carefully at what they are doing. The figure is not aspirational; it is a figure that will be set in legislation, and, as such, Members ought to look very closely at what they are doing and be very sure about what will happen. <BR /> <BR />Some Members indicated that there will be new scientific discoveries.”
“I see heads going down when I highlight to Members what the implications of net zero will mean, but worse than that —”
“I suspect that public transport in rural communities will become even more difficult, because fewer people will live and be able to earn a living in those communities. As such, it will be even more challenging to provide viable public-sector transport routes in those rural communities. We need to look at all the after-effects.”
“I thank the Minister. This is alarming me even more. <BR /> <BR />Earlier, we talked about public transport difficulties in rural communities. The KPMG report estimates that, to get to net zero greenhouse gas emissions, dairy cattle and sheep numbers will need to drop by 86%. That will have a very direct correlation with farm incomes. I suspect that farm incomes will drop by even more than that because there is a certain fixed cost in any enterprise. That is the type of change to farming income that will happen if that net zero target goes through.”
“I fully understand that there are different viewpoints, but I examine the evidence and apply a little bit of common sense to what I read and see. If we are to have net zero methane by 2050 — that is a target that some wish to insert into this legislation — it will mean a dramatic reduction in the number of cattle. Cattle and sheep produce methane. I hope —”
“It warned of the dangers of import substitution. <BR /> <BR />As I highlighted earlier, but just so that everyone is very clear, the average carbon emission intensity of milk production in Northern Ireland is measured at 1·279 kg of CO2 equivalent per kilogram of energy-corrected milk. Figures from the United Nations and the Global Dairy Council show that the average global carbon emission intensity of milk production elsewhere is 2·5 kg of CO2 equivalent per kilogram. We have been given evidence that cutting our herds by half will not be sufficient, and the KPMG report indicated that the required reduction could be as high as 86%.”
“I fully accept the scientific evidence that methane is also a problem for climate change. However, I ask others to look carefully at what the Bill does and what it will do. If we set a net zero emissions target, we will export our methane production to South America, Australia and New Zealand. <BR /> <BR />A lot of muck has been thrown about, and people have mentioned Brexit and a lot of other things, including hill farming support subsidies. What happened in the past is in the past. We are here to make decisions that will affect our community, our farmers and our rural community today. If we go for a net zero target, we will decimate the rural community. <BR /> <BR />The Climate Change Committee indicated that a 50% reduction in the number of our cattle and sheep will not be sufficient and that it will have to be higher.”
“I suspect that a lot of Members are not picking up the details of the matter. One of the biggest greenhouse gas emissions is methane from animals in the agriculture sector. CO2 targets are not included in those figures. When you talk about CO2 figures, it is important to remember that. Yes, some energy is used by machinery and harvesting, but it does not take account of the methane that is produced by ruminants — sheep and cattle. I am very surprised that some Members have not appreciated that. The big issue about net zero for our agriculture sector is the methane produced by ruminants.”