Edwin Poots
South Belfast · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I call Mr Eóin Tennyson. Again, this is Mr Tennyson's first opportunity to speak as a private Member, so I remind the House that it is convention that a maiden speech be made without interruption. However, if you choose to express views that provoke an interruption, you are likely to forfeit that protection.”
“Sorry — Ms Armstrong. My apologies. <BR /> <BR />That the Assembly could, in some way, get that money out when it is a UK Government responsibility. The UK Government have distributed it directly in Scotland and Wales, not through the Welsh Parliament and not through the Scottish Parliament.”
“I have not got time; I am sorry. <BR /> <BR />Ursula von der Leyen, who was in the Republic last week, made some of the most ridiculous claims about the British Government, who have supported Ukraine in a way that no other Government in Europe have and who have never engaged in the activity that was suggested by Ursula von der Leyen.”
“Today, a lot of statements have been made but there has not been a lot of fact behind a lot of what has been said. We have Michelle O'Neill, who walked out of her role as Health Minister — not for six months but for three years — and abandoned her position when we had Bengoa and there were all the problems with nursing that led to the str…”
“I need to deal with the issues first. <BR /> <BR />He referred to the Budget that he produced. No party supported that Budget. The Alliance Party did not support it, because it did not cover policing and prisons. Infrastructure did not support it, because it would not allow it to do the basics of what had to be done.”
“We had a circumstance where Sinn Féin repeated, month after month after month, that there were hundreds of millions to give to the public when that did not exist and when, in reality, Minister Murphy was racking up debt that will roll into next year, which will ensure that that will be a difficult financial year.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,549 lines we hold for Edwin Poots, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 71.
“We have had significant engagement with the UK Government and with the Ministers who have been involved in the negotiations. At this time, a lot of Australian beef and New Zealand lamb etc does not get past south-east Asia, because there are better markets in south-east Asia than in Europe for that material. We will have to observe closely what the real threat will be. At this time, the threat has not materialised as anything more than a threat, and we will continue to monitor that. <BR /> <BR />I will point out to the Member that she represents a constituency called Mid Ulster, and that constituency is known for manufacturing mining equipment.”
“Over the years, there has always been a debate about protectionism and free trade, and most of us believe that it is positive to have opportunities to trade across the world. Therefore, the agreements that the United Kingdom comes up with will ultimately balance out to ensure that Northern Ireland will have a larger pool of countries to export to and, indeed, a larger pool of countries to import from. As a consequence of that, trade should rise, not go down, and the ultimate benefits should be to the Northern Ireland economy as a whole.”
“<BR /> <BR />In my assessment, the Australia and New Zealand free trade agreements will offer little benefit to Northern Ireland's agricultural exporters, as those countries have a considerable advantage in terms of prices and are world-leading exporters in many of the agricultural products that our agri-food industry exports. However, free trade agreements that are in negotiations or are planned for the future could offer a significant exporting opportunity for Northern Ireland's high-quality food and drink products, and my officials are working with their counterparts in the UK Government to ensure that Northern Ireland's interests are reflected in the new trade arrangements.”
“The UK Government signed a free trade agreement with Australia on 17 December 2021 and, prior to that, reached agreement in principle with New Zealand on 20 October 2021. In addition, the UK Government are seeking to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) trading bloc, have commenced negotiations on a free trade agreement with India and aim to commence negotiations with Canada and Mexico shortly. The UK Government have made it clear that Northern Ireland exporters will be able to benefit from the terms of the new free trade arrangements. The legal text of the Australia free trade agreement does not treat Northern Ireland exports differently from those from the rest of the UK, and there is no reason to believe that that will be the case for any other new arrangements.”
“The fact that people in here support this — they do not come out and say that they support it; they conjure up other forms of words — is the height of madness on their part. It beggars belief.”
“I thank the Member for the question. The point that he makes is that, if we had the full implementation of the protocol, there would not be enough vets in Northern Ireland to cover it. Vets would be taken away from abattoirs, where we need vets to ensure that countries that buy our beef have the confidence to buy it. Vets on the ground treat animals. Vets are involved in all aspects of the food industry. We do not have enough vets, so I am not sure where, the EU thinks, we will magic all those vets up from. It takes five years of training for specialist individuals to become vets in the first instance. Taking a vet from key front-line work to check goods that, frankly, pose no threat — not even a minimal threat; zero threat — to the European Union single market is bizarre.”
“We have not got a bill for that, but I assure the Member that the cost of the legal advice will be zero point zero zero something per cent of the costs that we pay for people to stand at the ports checking goods that were perfectly good two years ago to come into Northern Ireland and are perfectly good to come into Northern Ireland today. Is the Member suggesting checks on supermarket goods and driving up the costs of supermarket goods for the lowest-paid people, who are struggling to make ends meet? We heard Tesco at the weekend indicating how much of a proportion food costs are for the lowest-paid and those in the lowest economies, which makes up a lot of people in East Belfast. Is the Member suggesting that that is a good thing? I certainly do not believe it is a good thing to drive up the cost of food for those people.”
“It is not a fact; it is a prediction. I prefer to deal with facts, and the UK is growing faster than the economies that it left. Unemployment is lower in the UK than it has ever been, to the point where we need to bring people in from other parts of the world. Let us be clear: the UK is not on its knees as a consequence of Brexit, in spite of the desires of the "Remoaners".”
“The Member may wish to deal with predictions. I prefer to deal —.”
“I wish that Members would join me in demanding the removal of the European Union's demand that the medicines that are currently coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will not be blocked by the European Union and the protocol.”
“At the moment, the biggest threat to animal welfare standards is the Northern Ireland protocol, because it does not want us to bring medicines in from Great Britain. The British Veterinary Association has written to me to express its concern that, if the grace period ends, 40% of the medicines that are currently available to vets will no longer be available. The Member supports something that is bad for animal welfare, for people's pets and for the agriculture industry, because, owing to the EU's position on veterinary medicines, we will not have the tools available to provide the care for animals that we otherwise would have.”
“The figure that Mr Allister came to is correct, but he may add to that the cost of the councils' work that is being carried out, which is borne by the Food Standards Agency. That is another cost to the public purse. Then, we have the cost to business, because businesses have to acquire all of those common health entry documents (CHEDs) and employ people to do that. Then, we have the further cost of the Trader Support Service (TSS). The costs of the protocol to Northern Ireland are huge and extensive. That is why we need solutions. Nobody can realistically argue that the protocol, as it exists, is good for Northern Ireland. You cannot have that burden placed on businesses and that cost placed on the taxpayer and claim it to be good.”
“<BR /> <BR />On 30 October 2020, Her Majesty's Treasury (HMT) advised the Northern Ireland Finance Minister that, as part of the UK Government's commitment to supporting the unique circumstances of the protocol, it had agreed funding for 2020-21 to cover the infrastructure and resources required to implement the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) checks. HMT also confirmed that the UK Government would cover any additional funding required for Northern Ireland to meet the UK's obligations under the protocol, with that being limited to the costs associated with reaching the required level of compliance. The EU has an expectation that Official Controls Regulation (OCR) costs incurred should be borne by businesses.”
“The most recent dates for which data is available are the period from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021. The cost for the additional staff needed to complete the checks required by the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol during that period was £4,447,580. The staff cost is made up of £1,215,231 for Department staff at Belfast, £2,182,195 for those at Larne and £98,617 for those at Warrenpoint, with a further £953,337 being spent on agency staff deployed at Belfast and Larne ports. The running costs of the current contingency inspection facilities at Belfast, Larne, Warrenpoint and Foyle ports and the service contracts for the seal checks at ports in Great Britain are a further £4·2 million over the same period.”
“The future agricultural policy, the green growth strategy, the ammonia strategy and the peatlands strategy are all interlinked. The teams that are working on them cross-check with each other to identify issues that may arise. Our Department is working very cohesively to ensure that we cover that area.”
“Dry peatlands are not vibrant peatlands, and we therefore need to look at how we can wet those peatlands again. That will deliver an uplift of over 50% in the quality of the peatlands. The greater burden comes from the dryness of the peatlands, not the ammonia.”
“We have a team looking at that, which is led by Dr Alistair Carson, the Department's chief scientist. My Department spends a considerable amount of money on research, and that is one of the areas that we are focusing on. We need to ensure that we have better ways of managing ammonia. For example, for dairy and beef farms, simple things like locating tree belts close to the source of ammonia can take out a lot of ammonia that would otherwise travel. <BR /> <BR />The Member comes from an area where there are a lot of special protected areas. As she will know, those areas are vital for tourism and for biodiversity. Two things need to be done to ensure that we give good protection to those areas: reduce the ammonia burden and bring our peatlands, in particular, up to the certain levels of wetness.”
“The owners of pig and poultry units who wish to modernise are being held back from doing so and from reducing levels of ammonia at the same time. That is clearly illogical. <BR /> <BR />I should also say that a recent planning application was submitted, which would take all of Moy Park's chicken litter off-farm and deliver a significant reduction in the levels of ammonia. Advice has also come to us from the universities sector that our means of measuring ammonia have been surpassed and that there are better measurements for ammonia. That indicates that our current measurements are on the high side.”
“It is incredibly difficult for a farm to expand. We need the message to go out from the Assembly to young people that there is a future for them in farming. However, if we are telling them that they will have to do things in the same way for the next 20 or 30 years, they will not have a future in farming, because they will not be competitive and will not be able to provide the necessary efficiency. <BR /> <BR />One of the fatal flaws in the Shared Environmental Services (SES) approach on ammonia is that it is still recommending refusals for planning applications that will deliver improvements and reduce the levels of ammonia. That is an illogical situation. It is associating those decisions with the habitats directive, but that is not sustainable.”
“That adds around 30% to the cost of a unit. A typical unit costs £500,000 or £600,000, so another £150,000 to £200,000 would need to be put to that, which would be a huge burden to apply. However, we need to look at all mechanisms to reduce ammonia. The captured ammonia can also be used to produce hydrogen, so that is another opportunity.”
“The problem for farms in the constrained areas and within 7·5 kilometres of them is the condition of the peatlands, or of the areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs) and the special protection areas (SPAs). We therefore need to ensure that we can enable people who wish to expand their farm to do so in a way that does not have an impact on those areas. Therein lies the problem. We could look at scrubbing ammonia in chicken houses and pig houses, although, that having been said, the pig and chicken sectors are not the biggest contributors of ammonia: the beef and dairy sectors are. There is the capacity to install such equipment in pig and poultry houses, because everything is within a unit.”
“They are complicated issues, or else they would have been solved long ago. That is the reality. People think that stopping all kinds of agricultural development is the answer. I believe that there are other solutions. FBIS tier 1 will help us deliver a 25% reduction in ammonia. The Member may not think that that is significant, but for most people it is. There is potential to ensure a 43% reduction in on-farm ammonia, which would be a very significant contribution to reducing that burden right across Northern Ireland, improving, as a consequence, the quality of our peatlands.”
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 2 and 9 together. <BR /> <BR />My Department has developed a comprehensive ammonia strategy that I am currently finalising for publication. The draft strategy will propose a series of farm measures to reduce ammonia, conservation actions to improve the condition of habitats and a revised operational protocol for the assessment of air pollution effects. The ammonia reduction element of the strategy will build on the significant support provided for low-emissions slurry spreading equipment in tier 1 of the farm business improvement scheme (FBIS) capital scheme. I intend to publish the ammonia strategy for consultation before the Assembly rises, pre-election.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does that not prompt the Member to recognise the folly of outsourcing energy and importing it from other countries, including Russia, which can turn it on and off as they please? Therefore, is it not a particularly foolish exercise to suggest that we not only outsource energy production but also food production for much of the United Kingdom? I want to see these islands having both food and energy security and producing most of their food and energy locally so that they are not as open to the variables of world markets and to dictators and regimes that are less than favourably disposed towards us?”
“I would, of course, like to see proper scoping out and consultation be done before such a body is established, but I am not in favour of allowing important sectors and communities to suffer because of ill-informed and poorly judged decisions being taken by politicians on the basis of aspiration alone. As such, I will not oppose the amendment. <BR /> <BR />To conclude, I am strongly in favour of our achieving a just transition. I note that the Members who have pushed for the unevidenced net zero target have all said that there will not be negative impacts on agriculture, so I look forward to seeing them stand by those statements in the months and years ahead and when it comes to securing further funding and taking further action.”
“Doing that would also afford us time to pay the appropriate and essential attention to detail that such a commission requires. <BR /> <BR />To achieve a just transition, particularly for the agri sector, we will need to provide high levels of financial support, given the unfortunate decision taken last Tuesday to take forward the amended emissions target, so perhaps a just transition commission can help get across to Members just how much it will cost to deliver a just transition in the light of the target. With all the evidence that is available, I have tried to do so, as has the Climate Change Committee, but perhaps another body that Members agree to establish will be able to convince them, even if the best available scientists could not.”
“Finally, Mr McGuigan, Dr Archibald and Mr McAleer tabled amendment No 53, which is about establishing a just transition commission. As I highlighted when I spoke to Mr McGlone's amendment No 50 for a just transition adviser, a commission would ideally need to be scoped out and costed properly and its functions clearly defined in order to offset any duplication or incoherency in advice etc that the commission might give. Although, given the circumstances, I am not against the principle of establishing a just transition commission, the proposed amendment is lacking in detail about how the commission would be established and funded, what powers it would have and what its structure would be. It would therefore be better to be given time to scope out and develop that.”
“<BR /> <BR />In drawing from my new clause 16A, under amendment No 38, amendment No 52 covers more than just transition, as it touches on small business impact assessments and nature-based projects. Given that my amendment already covers those issues effectively, has no questionable or pointless elements and was agreed with the AERA Committee, I do not support amendment No 52 and urge you to reject it.”
“The amendment from Mr McGlone draws largely from my amendment but contains additional elements that are not necessary and add nothing. The references to the Programme for Government and to international targets and obligations are misplaced. The proposals and polices referred to are those that will enable us to make carbon budgets. If we do that, we will meet our domestic and international commitments. <BR /> <BR />Again, I am not clear about the purpose of the reference to the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. Is it to add to the responsibilities of those bodies, in which case it would not be appropriate in this Bill, or is it merely to indicate that the bodies should be used to support Ministers in what they are already required to do, in which case the provision would not do anything and is unnecessary?”
“No such committee currently exists, therefore it is not appropriate to refer to it. <BR /> <BR />Given that there are potential issues with the content of the amendment that I have outlined, uncertainty as to the cost involved and uncertainty as to whether the adviser is to replace or work alongside a just transition commissioner, I cannot support it. <BR /> <BR />It is clear that, with amendment No 52, as with some other amendments that we discussed in a earlier debate, there is no common or agreed understanding of what exactly "just transition" means, even among the Committee members who pushed for it heavily. I had already tabled amendment No 38, which creates new clause 16A to cover just transition and other elements covered by amendment No 52, and it was agreed last week.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have concerns about some of the provisions in the amendment, including references to the North/South Ministerial Council, British-Irish Council and:”
“Yes. The Member raised that repeatedly last week, in fairness to him, to the point where some were getting annoyed at him for doing it. The fact is there: we see our carbon emissions, and they are considerably less than those of others. Brazil has already said that it wants to increase its cow herd by millions. The consequence of little Northern Ireland putting on this hair shirt will not be the achievement a reduction in carbon emissions overall; it will lead to an increase in carbon and Northern Ireland exporting that carbon elsewhere. <BR /> <BR />I say again that a separate just transition adviser and just transition commission on top of everything else are a waste of public money, as they would carry out, as far as I can see, similar functions. I am not necessarily against one, but I am certainly against having two.”
“Over the last number of years, we have introduced carbon marking on farms, identifying how much carbon is produced. Our beef and dairy farms are coming out with figures of between half and a quarter of the emissions that are produced in other places in Europe and in North and South America. The vote last week will ensure that there is more carbon in our environment as a consequence of doing away with carbon-efficient farms in Northern Ireland and exporting those jobs to South America, North America and other parts of the world. Where is the logic in that? I certainly can find none.”
“The outcome of that is that we will simply engage in carbon exporting.”
“Under the Climate Change Committee's proposals, Great Britain picks up that 0·75% so that Northern Ireland does not have to. Instead of sharing that around and recognising the high value that the rest of the United Kingdom puts on the quality food that Northern Ireland supplies to it, Members want to do away with that option.”
“There are a host of opportunities to address the issues in a sensible and rational way, but the punitive way that is being imposed on the farming community, which is bearing the brunt of the proposals, is wholly unnecessary. I remind the Member of the figures that were quoted last week. I thank the Member for engaging in the debate, because I note that Sinn Féin Members are not engaging in it today, which indicates how defeated their arguments are and how they are picking up on the resentment from the public for what they have done. <BR /> <BR />I remind the Member of the figures. I do not have them in front of me, but I remember them. The difference between meeting the 82% target and the 100% target is less than 0·75% of the UK's contribution.”
“I am glad that the Member raised that point, because Ms Bailey has a habit of saying that the do-nothing option is not an option. That is why we made the proposals in conjunction with the Climate Change Committee. Nobody is proposing to do nothing. The proposals that were brought to us by the Climate Change Committee are quite onerous, but Members say, "No, that hair coat is not hard enough for us to wear. We want a bigger one". However, it is not us who will have to wear it; it is mainly the people in the farming community who will have to wear it. <BR /> <BR />I accept that we need to do something. I support our doing something.”
“It does not exist, and, consequently, those proposals may just be a bluff to try to persuade farmers that those Members are doing something to help them.”
“I thank the Member for raising that. I will remind him and others of a wee saying in the country: you cannot take the breeches off a highlander. If the money is not there, you will not be able to deliver a just transition. <BR /> <BR />The reality is that the Members who are proposing the just transition and saying that the funding package be produced are the same Members who will stand up on other occasions and complain bitterly about the lack of money for everything that they have to do now. They want more money for the Department for Communities, the Department of Health, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice, and so it goes on. Where will they get that money from? I am afraid that there is no magic money tree at the bottom of the garden.”
“We cannot throw money at bodies and advisers that have unknown roles and functions or that will duplicate the functions of another body. Where is the logic and sense to that?”
“I agree with Mr McGlone that, in trying to deliver a just transition, we need to have the right supporting structures in place. We are also debating the establishment of a just transition commission today, so I question the need for a just transition adviser on top of that. I hope that instead the Member and the Assembly see that the just transition adviser is essentially the same thing as a commission. <BR /> <BR />As politicians, it is our duty to the public to have some sense when it comes to the creation of those new roles and bodies. If the intention is to have a just transition adviser as well as a justice transition commissioner, I do not think that we can responsibly commit to the establishment of both without having properly considered how they would interact and what the different functions would be.”
“We need to be careful when committing to the establishment of any new body in legislation that has not been fully scoped out or costed, where other bodies already perform the relevant functions or where there are commitments to establish such bodies.”
“Which Departments will relinquish funding from their budget to make up the billions needed to meet that unevidenced target by 2050 and, indeed, beyond? A just transition cannot be tackled by a short-term or one-off fix. <BR /> <BR />Some of the original amendments in the group have been dealt with by virtue of the debate and votes on the amendments in group 2, including my amendment No 38, which was passed. Therefore, I will not address amendment Nos 43, 44 and 54. <BR /> <BR />Mr McGlone has proposed two amendments in the group. The first is amendment No 50, which deals with the establishment of the just transition adviser. The second is amendment No 52, which deals with the just transition principle. Amendment No 50 is one of several from members of the AERA Committee that would establish new bodies and roles.”
“That will have the biggest impact on our sectors and communities. <BR /> <BR />I pose these questions: who will pay for the just transition and who will pay for more commissioners and advisers? My goodness, how many commissioners does this country need? We will soon have more commissioners than farmers. That is how ridiculous it is getting. Given the decision to support a non-advised, unevidenced and morally wrong net zero target, other parties will have to step up to take forward and fund action that will support the sectors, communities and people that will be negatively impacted. Look at the cost of going for an unevidenced target: it is clear from the Minister of Finance that the funding will likely have to be taken from our block grant.”
“Craigavon, Dungannon, Cookstown, Enniskillen and Omagh are all places where thousands and thousands of people rely on the agri-food industry for their jobs. To gain popularity with certain sectors, however, Sinn Féin, Alliance, the SDLP, the Green Party and People Before Profit voted to deny those people the opportunity to have jobs. <BR /> <BR />Some Members who have tabled amendments on just transition principles seem to believe that the inclusion of some just transition principle wording in legislation will somehow solve all of society's problems and enable the achievement of any target: it will not. It will, however, be useful in outlining relevant considerations when developing policies and programmes and delivering actions. The actions that we deliver and how successfully we deliver them are what matter.”
“Therefore, as a result of the decision taken by the Assembly to support a net zero target, it will be difficult and, indeed, extremely costly to deliver a just transition. It will cost hundreds and hundreds of millions. We simply do not have the money to pay everyone who will be overly negatively affected by that target. I have to ask whether it will include people who work in factories. If 13,000 farming jobs are lost and there is an 80% reduction in the meat or dairy sector, there will have to be a corresponding reduction in jobs in the processing sectors, which employ tens of thousands. There are more jobs in those sectors. Essentially, what Members voted for and supported last week was the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in rural towns and villages across Northern Ireland.”
“It is because you are taking something off them. What are you taking off them? Their livelihoods. The truth of what is being proposed today is as if you took a loaf of bread off the family table last week and are saying today, "Here are a few crumbs that might keep you going". It is not a just transition. I do not mind supporting it, because it may be helpful to some families, but you cannot mitigate the damage that was done as a consequence of ignoring the science and the voice of the farming community last week. Well might Sinn Féin Members sit with their heads down today. They should be ashamed of themselves, and people who are ashamed of themselves sit with their head down. <BR /> <BR />A just transition cannot be delivered if a completely unrealistic target is set.”
“<BR /> <BR />What we hear from Mr McGuigan about trade deals is just a deflection. If the trade deals are as bad as that — time will tell — how much worse will it be when this is imposed on top of them? How much worse will it be when farmers in Australia, who will not have to reach the same exacting standards, can export while our farmers are being crucified as a consequence of what is being imposed on them by Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Green Party, People Before Profit and Alliance — thank you for reminding me. That is the reality that faces farmers and farming families. <BR /> <BR />Now we come to a just transition. Why do you need a just transition? Why are we proposing to take money from Education, Health, Infrastructure and Justice to give to farmers?”
“Hundreds and hundreds of farmers were here again last week, even though the BBC showed a much smaller protest on the news that evening and ignored the fact that many people had given up their working day to come to raise their concerns. There were hundreds of farmers on the steps of Stormont last week. I did not see Mr McGuigan, Mr McAleer or any of their colleagues out there, because they were afraid to speak to the farming community, which has genuine and real concerns. If people think that these concerns have been whipped up by me or anyone else, I am afraid that they do not understand farmers. They are quite discerning folk who will arrive at their own conclusions based on what they see, hear and know. They have arrived at the same conclusions as us, because that is the reality.”
“The problem is that Ms Bailey does not have anything to back up that statement. It is OK because she said it. All the evidence, however, leads to something else. The warnings from the Climate Change Committee, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the professional reports are all ignored, but it is OK because Ms Bailey said so. It is also really good news for the farmers this week that Sinn Féin will stand by them. Where was Sinn Féin last week? We all heard that Mr McGuigan had another appointment when the farmers asked him to meet them in Loughguile; he bravely sent some secretary from his office.”