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 13 of 71.
“<BR /> <BR />Having annual greenhouse gas emission targets and carbon budgets is incoherent: you should have one or the other, as they serve the same purpose of setting out a pathway to a long-term target. Indeed, I reiterate that tackling climate change is a long-term, strategic challenge: actions take time to embed, and the results of those actions may not be seen for many years. Due to that issue, as well as there being obvious incoherency, I see no value in additional annual greenhouse gas emission targets. It is also important to note that amendment No 74 does not mandate a cross-departmental approach. Meeting the targets and carbon budgets in this Bill requires all Departments to carry out action. That omission is a major flaw in the amendment.”
“<BR /> <BR />In amendment No 74, Mr McGuigan and two of his party colleagues propose adding a new clause 28H which requires five-year climate action plans, to include annual targets for greenhouse gases and air quality. As I said earlier, clause 16 of my Bill already requires that five-year reports be produced setting out how we will meet five-year carbon targets and the greenhouse gas emissions cap set within those. Meeting carbon budgets is our pathway to meeting the Bill's interim and 2050 targets. It should also be noted that my Department will consult widely on the reports required under clause 16. They will be major cross-cutting reports affecting the general public and all of our key sectors, so a thorough consultation process will have to be conducted as part of normal government processes.”
“Tackling climate change is a long-term strategic challenge, and neither the actions nor the impacts from those actions are likely to change significantly on an annual basis. I do not, therefore, see the benefit of having yearly climate change action plans, as proposed by the amendment. A much more sensible approach, and a better use of resources, is to set out five-yearly action plans, as per clause 16 of the Bill on reports, and continuous five-year adaption programmes as set out in the UK's Climate Change Act 2008, a duty that is complemented by this Bill, so that we can focus our resources on effective climate change action. Therefore, I do not support amendment No 70, and I urge Members to do the same.”
“Policies and actions to effectively tackle climate change take time to develop, agree and embed, and it takes time to see their effects.”
“I cannot support having two of the same thing at a public cost. It does not make any sense whatsoever. <BR /> <BR />I would now like to move to amendment No 70, where Member Gerry Carroll proposes duties for an annual climate action plan to be laid before the Assembly. The amendment is entirely unnecessary because clause 16 of the Bill requires the publication and laying before the Assembly of a report detailing how Northern Ireland, through policies and proposals, will meet the greenhouse gas emission caps set out in each five-year carbon budgetary period. These reports are essentially climate change action plans for reducing our emissions. <BR /> <BR />It is important to note that, in that context, the carbon budgets are five-year pathways or stepping stones in the interim towards the 2050 target in the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />I now move to amendment No 68, which John Blair tabled, requiring the Northern Ireland Executive to establish an independent office of climate change and environmental protection. Establishing an independent office of climate change is, I repeat, best done if a consultation, scoping work and an assessment of costs are undertaken that show that it would be more effective and cost-effective. More fundamentally, the issue with the amendment is that the Office for Environmental Protection was formally established following UK Environment Act's being granted Royal Assent in November 2021. Subject to the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Office for Environmental Protection will become the oversight body for Northern Ireland, so why would we establish two offices for environmental protection? I pose the question.”
“There are dozens of other public authorities beyond local councils, with multiple authorities in the areas of health and social care, harbours, education and training and industrial relations, to name just a few. There has been no engagement or consultation to date with the vast majority of those authorities regarding the proposed duties under this amendment, so why should all those other affected public bodies not be allowed to have some input before duties are imposed upon them? It is proper government process to carry out scoping and costing of new policies and to allow impacted stakeholders that have not had an opportunity to voice their opinions to be consulted before such duties are put in place.”
“<BR /> <BR />Although I fully recognise the essential role that public bodies have in tackling climate change and that they are an integral part of the climate change solution in Northern Ireland, I do not believe that to impose such duties without proper consultation and an assessment of the costs involved is the right way to do things. The proposers may say that some public bodies or local councils have given support to their amendment No 60 proposal. That may be true, but it is not the case for the vast majority of public bodies that would be impacted on if the amendment were to be agreed. <BR /> <BR />The amendment sets extra duties on the public authorities that are listed under the Public Services Ombudsman Act (Northern Ireland) 2016.”
“We cannot try to shoehorn in a new body without knowing anything of the cost, where the funding might come from or how it will operate after it has been established and then hope that it will work out. Therefore, I cannot accept these amendments. <BR /> <BR />I would now like to address amendment No 60, tabled by Ms Bailey and Ms Woods, which aims to impose duties on the public sector. There are a number of issues associated with the amendment. Again, most fundamentally, is that it is a prime example of an uncosted, open-ended imposition on Northern Ireland bodies without the policy behind such an amendment being consulted upon, scoped or costed to any degree.”
“So, I have to ask, how would the necessary funding be secured to establish a completely new advisory and scrutiny body within the time frames put forward by other Members in their proposed amendments? The sponsor of the private Member's Climate Change Bill had sought to establish a climate change commissioner's office, but no underpinning financial modelling has been provided to the Department of Finance by Ms Bailey or the other proponents of the Bill, and no thought given to how such a body would interact with the Climate Change Committee, the Office for Environmental Protection and other relevant statutory bodies. <BR /> <BR />The lack of regard for effective management of public money concerns me.”
“The level of funding that we are currently being offered by the Department of Finance will not, disappointingly, get us anywhere close to achieving the net emissions reduction target of at least 82%, never mind the aspirational target of net zero by 2050 that was passed yesterday by the Assembly and that, I may add, is unevidenced and, as the chair of the UK Climate Change Committee stated, morally wrong as a target, because it is aspirational and unreal and is misleading the general public.”
“Such proposals by Members would result in open-ended and uncosted bodies that would not have a clearly defined role. Public finances here are very stretched, and it is already very difficult to secure funding for vital services, so I question whether we should potentially be wasting money on setting up costly bodies when we do not have a clear idea of their functions. <BR /> <BR />From engaging with the Department of Finance on the Executive's green growth strategy, on which my Department leads, I already know that it is very difficult to secure the funding that we need in order to take proper and effective climate action.”
“<BR /> <BR />I turn now to Members' amendments. Amendment Nos 69, 71 and 73 have a similar theme, which is that of aiming to establish a climate office and a climate commissioner. Similarly, amendment No 72 aims to establish a climate adviser. Those amendments have not followed the proper government consultation and impact assessment processes. It is clear that the establishment of a new scrutiny or advisory body in Northern Ireland has not been costed, nor has its relationship with other, existing bodies been fully explored or considered by those who tabled the amendments. Doing that would require feasible options to be identified and widespread engagement to take place before any recommendations or decisions could be made.”
“<BR /> <BR />Although the consultation will need to be carefully designed, I envisage, at this early stage, that the options under consideration are likely to be for the UK Climate Change Committee to continue to be an independent advisory body, as it currently functions, and for it to have an office based in Northern Ireland, with an expanded scrutiny and oversight role here, or for us to have a separate independent body that would be altogether in addition to the Climate Change Committee and would work alongside it to provide scrutiny of and advice on climate change in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />To ensure that we follow the process of good consultation, which is a fundamental part of good government, and that we adequately protect the public purse, I ask Members to support my amendment No 67.”
“Under the amendment, my Department will have to prepare a report on the outcome of the required consultation on the matter, lay it before the Assembly and publish it within two years of the Bill's receiving Royal Assent. Once the report has been produced and laid before the Assembly, it will ultimately be for the Executive to determine and agree the way forward on the basis of the information contained in it, such as information on costs, on value for money, on pros and cons, and on stakeholders' and the public's views on and support for various scrutiny options.”
“<BR /> <BR />Considering all of that, I am sure that Members can appreciate that, in order to make an informed assessment of the need for additional Northern Ireland-based scrutiny and advice, we need to provide for a scoping exercise to determine how any new structures or approaches would align with or complement the functions of other statutory authorities, such as the Climate Change Committee and the Office for Environmental Protection that was established under the UK Environment Act 2021. <BR /> <BR />I have, however, listened to the concerns of the AERA Committee and stakeholders. My amendment No 67 will place a duty on my Department to consult on that important issue so that the House can make an informed choice on the appropriate level of and mechanisms for independent scrutiny.”
“<BR /> <BR />When I was developing the Bill for introduction, I ensured that the Climate Change Committee was given a range of important and robust scrutiny and reporting functions, in line with its role in the rest of the UK. Although, as I have stated, I am not against having additional scrutiny of climate change matters or, indeed, potentially looking at expanding the work of the Climate Change Committee in Northern Ireland, those matters could not have been effectively scoped out, costed, approved and delivered as part of the process of passing this important legislation within the time constraints that we are under.”
“The UK Climate Change Committee does an excellent job for Northern Ireland. It has engaged widely and effectively with various experts locally, nationally and internationally and with stakeholders, officials, the AERA Committee and the Executive over past months to push for climate change legislation here. The messages that the Climate Change Committee has delivered have been clear but challenging for us as politicians. We need to do a lot more in Northern Ireland. We need to start taking substantial action now in order to have any chance of achieving the emissions reductions that it has recommended. As I stated, the CCC is certainly not known for holding back or for telling any of the nations of the UK that everything is fine. In fact, it is quite clear that all nations need to do much more.”
“The targets recommended by the Climate Change Committee took on board the specific circumstances in Northern Ireland, because each part of the UK has different characteristics, challenges, opportunities and issues to overcome.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Climate Change Committee also provides excellent value for money, given the comprehensive nature of its expertise, analysis and advice; in fact, its analysis and advice pathways for the whole of the UK are the most comprehensive in the world. Despite other parts of the UK having powers to establish their own scrutiny bodies, none of them has expressed any desire to do so, because the Climate Change Committee performs its functions with such cost-effectiveness and expertise. <BR /> <BR />It was advice that I received from the Climate Change Committee that enabled me to set evidence-based targets in the Bill when it was introduced.”
“It provides advice on all aspects of climate change, including reducing emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change. To date, the advice provided by the Climate Change Committee has been taken on board by the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments in setting their current and past emissions reduction targets in their local climate change legislation; indeed, Scotland and Wales have worked with the Committee to get updated evidence and information to help inform the setting of any new targets. All of the targets were set following the Climate Change Committee's advice. Those nations of the UK have achieved great results in reducing emissions with the advice and scrutiny of the Climate Change Committee. We need to recognise the work that it does.”
“Indeed, some members of the committee are co-authors of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which further shows its level of expertise and highlights its ability to engage internationally, as well as nationally and locally. It is extremely demanding in its recommendations and is never slow to criticise, openly and publicly, the work being undertaken by the UK Government and the devolved Administrations where it considers that work to be inadequate. It has extensive experience and integrity. We should be happy to have such an organisation advising us and providing independent oversight and scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />The Climate Change Committee is the independent statutory advisory body on climate change to the UK and the UK devolved Governments.”
“However, as I will set out clearly, that is a misconception. <BR /> <BR />The Climate Change Committee was incorporated under the UK Climate Change Act 2008, which extends to the whole of the UK, including Northern Ireland. It is required to provide advice and recommendations to each part of the UK on appropriate climate change targets and other climate change matters. It is important to emphasise that the Climate Change Committee is entirely independent. It is certainly not, in any way, politically affiliated or unduly influenced by any Government. The Climate Change Committee is a world-renowned, respected and highly competent group of expert statutory advisers.”
“I have said on numerous occasions that I am prepared to listen to credible evidence that can help informed decisions to tackle climate change to be made; indeed, that is one of the many reasons why I tabled amendment No 67 for Members to consider. It is not a case of kicking the can down the road; it is a case of gathering evidence before making a decision. I also want to provide the public with value for money. I do not want to be in a position where we have a public body in Northern Ireland that does not add value to the excellent work that the Climate Change Committee already carries out for Northern Ireland. The excellent work of the Climate Change Committee will be enhanced under the Bill. Some Members have said that there is a lack of independent oversight and scrutiny in climate change matters in Northern Ireland.”
“I fully recognise and understand that some members of the AERA Committee and some of our local environmental stakeholders have indicated a strong preference for establishing a bespoke independent scrutiny and/or advisory body for Northern Ireland. I am certainly not opposed to exploring the need for establishing a bespoke independent scrutiny and advisory body for Northern Ireland or looking at options for additional Northern Ireland-based scrutiny and advice. I am also not opposed to establishing such bodies if investigations show that there is a need to.”
“<BR /> <BR />My amendment No 62, which will also amend clause 21, further ensures that the importance of transboundary considerations of climate change are taken into account by public bodies and that those bodies also have regard to coordinating their proposals and policies with the corresponding proposals and policies in other parts of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland or elsewhere. I urge Members to support my amendment Nos 61, 62 and 63. <BR /> <BR />My next amendment is No 67, which creates a new clause that would require a Department to carry out a consultation on the requirement for a Northern Ireland oversight body or an extension of existing scrutiny.”
“<BR /> <BR />The AERA Committee asked that an amendment be made to the Bill that would place a duty on the Department to make such regulations within a specified time frame. I thus tabled amendment Nos 61 and 63. The amendments will ensure that clause 21 places a duty on my Department to lay regulations within 18 months of the Bill's receiving Royal assent. That allows my Department to conduct the necessary and proper processes, including developing and carrying out a consultation and developing the regulations. <BR /> <BR />I make it clear that I understand the importance of public bodies playing their part in reporting on climate change activities, but I cannot accept, as some suggest, that we impose those duties without proper consultation and a level of co-design with the bodies affected.”
“However, I assure the Assembly that it was always my intention, as soon as the Bill was agreed and enacted, to instruct my officials to use the power to make regulations to make it a requirement for public bodies to report on their actions to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change in the exercise of their functions. <BR /> <BR />A number of public bodies are already focused and are doing great work in delivering their services in a better way so that they can reduce their carbon footprint and adapt to climate change impacts. It is important that we work with them when designing and bringing forward legislation, rather than merely inflicting duties on them without proper consultation and engagement.”
“However, in order to follow due process, it is also important that my Department consults the public bodies that it intends to place reporting requirements on so that they can help to co-design the reporting duties. <BR /> <BR />Had there been more time in the mandate, I would have consulted widely with our many public bodies and included a provision in the Bill covering the detail of reporting requirements. That provision could have come into effect on the Bill's receiving Royal Assent. Unfortunately, I am not in that position. If I had conducted a full and thorough policy development process on public body reporting duties, we would have had no evidence-based climate change legislation introduced to the Assembly in this mandate.”
“I will begin by outlining the amendments that I have tabled. I tabled all of them after in-depth discussions and agreements with the AERA Committee during the Committee Stage of my Bill. I tabled amendment Nos 61, 62, 63 and 67 to strengthen my Bill on oversight, governance and accountability duties, and they include but are not limited to amendments to clause 21. <BR /> <BR />I fully recognise the essential role that public bodies have in tackling climate change, and they are an integral part of the climate change solution in Northern Ireland. Clause 21 provides my Department with the power to make regulations that would impose reporting duties on specified public bodies. It is important that all public bodies focus on how they can adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change.”
“The amendment is also, presumably, required only if other amendments on sectors are passed, but it is not clear exactly what amendment it links to. In any event, I do not support amendment Nos 79 and 80. <BR /> <BR />To sum up, my proposed new clause 16A, which is amendment No 38, will cover coherently and in one place so many of the other amendments that Members tabled. I am a little disappointed that so many similar, albeit incoherent, amendments have been tabled by members of the AERA Committee, which spent several months deliberating on the Bill and which agreed to my amendment during those deliberations. I cannot support the majority of those amendments as they do not add anything to the Bill. They make it less coherent, less operable and more restrictive.”
“The Republic of Ireland does not have a target for net zero by 2050 either, so if we aligned with the Republic of Ireland target, we would perhaps need to remove what was voted for yesterday because it is going for carbon neutrality. That is an interesting nuance, but it is not net zero by 2050, and I want to point that out to Members. <BR /> <BR />We clearly want plans and policies that work best for us, and we want to align them with the plans and policies of whatever jurisdiction is having the greatest success in tackling climate change. We also want to ensure that Northern Ireland Departments have the ability to make their own decisions about their actions. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 80 inserts a new definition for "sector" that has the same issues that are in amendment No 46.”
“The amendment is unnecessary, however, as transboundary coordination is already covered by amendment No 38, which I tabled. There are also potential competence issues with the amendment, because it would, effectively, require Departments to follow what is done in the Republic of Ireland. Clearly, that is not appropriate. I would also like to highlight that the legislation in the Republic of Ireland does not contain any similar requirements. Thus far, the Republic of Ireland has a very poor record in reducing emissions. It has actually increased its emissions since 1990, unlike Northern Ireland, which has reduced its emissions.”
“I will not support the proposed amendment, as my amendment adequately covers coordination with other jurisdictions and does not have any questionable or pointless elements. <BR /> <BR />The final two amendments in the group were tabled by Mr McGuigan, Dr Archibald and Mr McAleer. Amendment No 76 attempts to amend clause 29 to place a requirement on Departments to:”
“The references to the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council are unclear and inappropriate. The responsibilities and duties of those bodies under Part V of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are placed on Ministers, mainly the First Minister and deputy First Minister, rather than on Departments. <BR /> <BR />The references to the Programme for Government and international targets and obligations are misplaced and unnecessary. The proposals and policies referred to are those that will enable us to meet carbon budgets in Northern Ireland, and, if we do that, we will meet our domestic and international commitments. Parts of the clause are consequential on a climate change commissioner and a climate office being established under proposed new clause 28F.”
“We can prevent carbon leakage by supporting our agriculture industry, instead of the food that we currently produce being produced on the other side of the world and possibly even on land that was once part of the Amazon rainforest. However, because of the misjudged position adopted in the House yesterday, I will support the amendment, and I aim to tidy it up for Further Consideration Stage, so that it makes some sense. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 51, tabled by Mr McGlone, deals with transboundary coordination in the context of preparing the clause 16 reports. Through my proposed new clause 16A, amendment No 38, I have covered transboundary engagement, and, indeed, the Member's amendment pulls across the relevant text from clause 16A. The additional elements in the amendment do not add anything, and some are problematic.”
“Ms Bailey has indicated that she is happy to offshore food production and reduce the size of our agriculture sector, yet, with this amendment, she tries to address carbon leakage risks. That, plainly, does not make sense, and neither does most of the amendment. If you look at subsections 16H(2) and 16H(3), you will see that it is not clear from them what is meant by "carbon leakage". The terms "substantial" and "unreasonable" are not defined, so how will we know whether such carbon leakage has occurred? <BR /> <BR />My position on this is clear: if we set the right targets in the first place, we do not need such provisions.”
“Similarly, amendment No 48 covers impacts on small business, or, at least, that is what the title says, but, again, I have tabled amendment No 38, agreed with the Committee, of which Ms Bailey is a member, which covers requirements to assess the impacts of proposals and policies on small businesses. Amendment No 48 actually covers all businesses and communities, so it is misleading and much broader in scope than is suggested. I will not accept or support amendment No 47 or amendment No 48. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 49 purports to require the risk of carbon leakage to be taken into account when setting policies and proposals under clause 16, despite the fact that the Members who tabled the amendment support a target that the experts indicated is likely to lead to carbon leakage.”
“That is not a recognised sector anywhere. The list of sectors is not consistent with the sectors used by the Climate Change Committee for the purposes of its analysis and recommendations, which over 90% of respondents to the green growth strategy consultation indicated that they support. I cannot support that amendment. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 47 covers nature-based solutions. I tabled amendment No 38, agreed with the AERA Committee, which covers a requirement to support nature-based projects. The proposed amendment from Ms Bailey and Miss Woods does not improve on my amendment in any way.”
“Furthermore, the list of sectors is deficient, because it indicates that one of the sectors is:”
“I am happy to withdraw that remark, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 46 is technically deficient. Unfortunately, again, it highlights the fact that Ms Bailey and Miss Woods do not understand what carbon budgets are or what their purpose is. It is clear that Ms Bailey's Bill tries to provide for both annual greenhouse gas targets and carbon budgets; you have either one or the other. Let me be clear: carbon budgets are the maximum amount of total net emissions that Northern Ireland can emit over five years. The amendment tries to require policies and proposals to ensure that each sector achieves the relevant carbon budget. It should require that emissions across all the sectors combined do not surpass the overall carbon budget.”
“Perhaps the Members could have explained, for example, which soil quality and biodiversity targets we should set in order to emit less than 100 megatons of CO2 equivalent gases over five years. They did not do that because they cannot — no one can — so why put it in there? Given the lack of a coherent link between the proposed target areas and carbon budgets, I do not accept that amendment and question why it was not dismissed, given its scope issues. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 46 is technically deficient, and, unfortunately, again —”
“The amendment that I tabled was agreed with the AERA Committee, and I do not support that pointless minor amendment to it as it does not add anything of substance. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 45 to 49, tabled by Ms Bailey and Miss Woods, attempt to link to clause 16. Through amendment No 45, it is clear that Members are trying to incorporate into this Executive Bill some of the wider environmental elements from the Climate Change Bill that they sponsor. However, the amendment does not work. There is no way to directly link soil quality and biodiversity targets within specific amounts of emissions of greenhouse gases, such as what a carbon budget would outline.”
“Will that fund cover the potential billions — not millions — that will be needed to compensate our farmers for the reduction in livestock numbers that will be required to meet the net zero target that other parties have supported, even though that is at the expense of other priorities that those parties may support? Those are the consequences of our actions if we take decisions like the one taken yesterday. If we agree to set up a just transition fund for agriculture, it needs to deliver and to be funded properly in order to do that. <BR /> <BR />I do not support amendment No 42, tabled by Mr McGuigan, Dr Archibald and Mr McAleer, which attempts to make a very minor amendment to amendment No 38.”
“As I do not support the other elements of amendment No 41, I would prefer it to be part of a vote on the specific amendments in group 4 on the just transition fund for agriculture. Perhaps the Speaker can confirm whether we need to support amendment No 41 in order to express support for the establishment of a just transition fund for agriculture, as amendment Nos 44 and 54 will be deemed mutually exclusive to amendment No 41. If so, I will support that amendment. Otherwise, I will support one of the later amendments that is designed to set up such a fund. I would appreciate a response before we take the vote. <BR /> <BR />Regardless of whether we support an amendment to establish a just transition fund for agriculture, I have to ask from where the funding will come.”
“I do not see all that happening in order to do this and to make it happen. Therefore, making vague proposals that you cannot fulfil are entirely meaningless and misleading, and I have a real difficulty with that. <BR /> <BR />The proper thing to do, in the first place, would have been to agree the right target: the target backed by evidence that can deliver a just transition. We would then have been able to work with the sector, which employs over 100,000 people and which is very important to our economy, in order to help it to do what it can to deliver emissions reductions. Had we done that, we would not need to have a just transition fund for agriculture. However, given what occurred yesterday with that target being supported, I will support an amendment to establish a just transition fund for agriculture.”
“I can also assure Members that, despite anything that is put in legislation, it will be very difficult to obtain the necessary funding to finance such a fund and even more difficult to keep the fund going indefinitely. Given the lack of funding from the Department of Finance to support the green growth strategy thus far, I see no evidence whatsoever either that the funding will be made available or, indeed, that the Assembly, at some future point, will say, "We're going to reduce the number of operations that are required. We're going to reduce the number of support packages for people who need care. We're going to reduce the number of places that are available in schools. We're going to increase class sizes in schools. We're going to reduce the number of police officers".”
“The stark reality is that 2050 net zero will require that, whilst, in 2050, there will be billions more people in the world to feed. How will that work in the long term? What will those farmers do, and what will the future generations of farm families do? We saw, yesterday, the young people who were at the protest and wore T-shirts that read, "Hands off my future, Clare Bailey". It spoke volumes to see those young people who know that something that has been passed for generations before will be denied to them as a consequence of the actions in this House. <BR /> <BR />I am in regular contact with people in the agriculture sector, and I can assure Members that they do not want to be paid not to farm. I know that, and the Members who tabled the amendment have heard the same messages.”
“The additional objectives are unnecessary, especially as definitions for terms such as the "future generations principle" are so vague as to be meaningless, and our compliance with it would be impossible to measure. I am not in favour of incorporating those additional aspects as they do not add anything to what has already been brought forward. The amendment also aims to establish a just transition fund for agriculture, despite Ms Bailey already putting forward the same proposal separately through amendment No 44. In addition, amendment No 54 covers the same issue. <BR /> <BR />Both those amendments are in group 4, so we will hear about them in a later debate. I simply do not see a situation where we should pay farmers not to farm just to aim for an unrealistic target.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 40 seeks to omit representatives of the interests of business and industry from the process of engagement to develop consensus. In the context of a just transition and the achievement of just transition objectives, that plainly makes no sense, as Departments should be engaging widely to develop consensus on appropriate actions to be taken. Why would anyone seek to omit certain groups from the process of engagement? Is that really what MLAs are thinking would achieve good democratic process? I do not think so. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 41 seeks to incorporate other objectives into my amendment; however, my amendment already covers poverty, inequality and support for those most affected by climate change.”