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 14 of 71.
“The results of the public consultation will have to be provided at an earlier point than that to allow our Committees etc to scrutinise how the results are being used to inform updates to the reports. In summary, I do not think that we need to incorporate that pointless and flawed amendment. Therefore, I do not support it. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 39, 40 and 41 have also been tabled by Ms Bailey and Miss Woods. Their purpose is to incorporate additional just transition objectives into my proposed amendment No 38. Amendment No 39 seeks to incorporate the additional term "climate resilient" in the context of jobs, but the definition of climate resilient is defective. It does not make sense in this context. For example, how can a job have the ability of social, economic and environmental systems to adapt to climate change?”
“Similarly, amendment No 37, tabled by Ms Bailey and Miss Woods, is unnecessary. My Department will be consulting widely on the reports under clause 16. Those will be major cross-cutting reports affecting the public and all our key sectors, so a thorough consultation process will have to be conducted. It will take several months to analyse the responses to the consultation, update the report in the light of the responses and then get all the relevant Executive approvals for the report. The reference to "10 working days" and the terminology used of "ending on a period" is pointless and incoherent. The proposal to lay the report at the same time as the results of the public consultation has not been fully thought through.”
“The term "sector-specific advisory groups" is also not defined anywhere in the Bill or in any of the amendments, so that makes no sense. Furthermore, it is not good practice to limit the extent of any consultation. Therefore, while I do not oppose the principle, there is no need for the amendment, and it is defective, so I do not support it.”
“That will include consultation with all relevant sectors. Other Departments will also consult on their own policies and proposals as appropriate.”
“In the past number of months, my Department has already brought forward an environment strategy, a peatland strategy and a green growth strategy, all of which cover land use elements. In addition, work streams continue to be taken forward through the sustainable agricultural land management strategy, including a soil nutrient health scheme. There is, therefore, a lot of ongoing work in this area already, and I do not believe that we need to commit to a new and separate land use strategy. Therefore, I do not support amendment No 27. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 36, tabled by Mr McGuigan, Dr Archibald and Mr McAleer, is unnecessary and defective. As part of normal processes for taking forward such wide-ranging and important reports, my Department will already be consulting widely on the draft reports.”
“My general position is that I cannot support that range of amendments, given what is already covered in the Bill, the issues with the drafting and the lack of alignment with the sectors used by the Climate Change Committee. Sectoral plans can be more effectively developed as each Department develops its plans and policies for the carbon budget implementation reports and as part of the work on implementing the green growth strategy. That will create a less prescriptive and better-thought-through process than the amendments. <BR /> <BR />Mr Blair, Mr Muir and Ms Armstrong have also put forward amendment No 27, which would require my Department to produce a land use strategy.”
“<BR /> <BR />There are also drafting issues and a lot of vagueness in some of the provisions in the amendments, but I appreciate that you will not want me to labour those points, Mr Deputy Speaker. Some of the amendments cut across policies that are still being developed. It might be more appropriate to allow that development to take place in the context of the 2050 target that was agreed yesterday. I also highlight that some of the amendments deal with areas outside the remit of my Department, and it is therefore difficult for me to support or provide informed comment on amendments in respect of energy, infrastructure, industrial processes, transport and active travel.”
“In addition, the Bill already requires all Departments to take action and to contribute policies and proposals towards meeting the targets and carbon budgets, and those duties will cut across and cover a wide range of sectors. However, as I also highlighted, the sectors covered in the amendments do not align with the current sectoral emissions data collected across the UK or with the sectors identified by the Climate Change Committee for the purposes of its analysis and advice. I highlight it again that, in the recent consultation in respect of the draft green growth strategy, over 90% of respondents indicated that we should follow the Climate Change Committee sectors when developing plans, so why would we diverge from that?”
“I urge Members to support my amendment, as it will ensure that Departments take forward actions to reduce emissions in a manner that ensures that the impacts of such actions are fully thought through and taken into account, with relevant support being provided to those who need it. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to the amendments proposed by other Members. Mr Blair, Mr Muir, Ms Armstrong and Mr Dickson have tabled amendments around sectoral plans. Amendment No 18 covers sectoral plans in general terms, while amendment Nos 19, 21 to 26 and 28 cover requirements around sectoral plans for specific sectors. As I highlighted, I am not against sectoral plans in principle, as the draft green growth strategy developed by my Department on behalf of the Executive very much takes a sectoral approach.”
“In particular, objectives are set out in relation to just transition, including the provision of support for sectors and persons most affected by climate change and the need to support low-carbon investment and infrastructure and environmentally and socially sustainable jobs. Because of the decision made yesterday, we are in a difficult position regarding our ability to deliver on the objectives set out in the amendment, but we have to take all necessary actions to do so. The commitments set out in the green growth strategy, if the Department of Finance steps up to fund them, will be a key driver and a good starting point in that regard.”
“There is also a need to have regard to a just transition principle and objectives and the desirability of using and supporting nature-based projects, and there is a need to assess the impact of proposals and policies on small businesses. <BR /> <BR />As I have indicated, many Departments across the Executive will already be taking a number of those things into consideration when developing policies. However, the amendment will make it a legislative requirement for all Departments to adhere to the provisions set out in clause 16A when developing policies and proposals to meet carbon budgets.”
“<BR /> <BR />All Northern Ireland Departments already have general processes to follow when developing new policies, such as conducting public consultations and completing the necessary impact assessments. Those are important in the context of ensuring that new policies and programmes deliver outcomes in a positive way. My amendment No 38 would add a new clause, 16A, to the Bill and make it a requirement for all Northern Ireland Departments to have due regard to the additional and complementary aspects that I have mentioned when contributing to the development of the clause 16 reports. Departments will have to have regard for the need to consider the desirability of coordinating proposals with those in the Republic of Ireland, other parts of the UK and beyond and to consult persons considered appropriate in those jurisdictions.”
“Those are all things that my Department already does, and, having listened to those who are in favour of having such things front and centre in the Bill, I tabled an amendment to capture that. <BR /> <BR />Clause 16 places a duty on my Department to prepare and publish a report that sets out the proposals and policies for meeting each carbon budget. The report must set out proposals and policies covering the areas of responsibility of each Northern Ireland Department to provide my Department with proposals and policies in its areas of responsibility and to assist my Department in preparing the full report. As I said, those are key action reports that will help to deliver against the Bill's targets.”
“I was also focused on identifying and delivering practical mechanisms and actions through the green growth strategy that will help to ensure a just transition. Having done both, I was more than happy to table an amendment that incorporates just transition objectives into my Bill and ensures that those objectives will be an important factor when developing and implementing actions to deliver emissions reductions. <BR /> <BR />In addition to just transition, the AERA Committee requested that I consider incorporating other elements around transboundary cooperation, the assessment of the impacts on small businesses and the encouragement of nature-based projects to deliver emissions reductions.”
“The decision made yesterday to support a net zero target for Northern Ireland makes it difficult to deliver a just transition, but we will all have to play our part in taking forward and funding action that will support the sectors that will be negatively impacted as a result of the flawed position adopted on targets yesterday. <BR /> <BR />Some stakeholders, MLAs and the AERA Committee indicated that they want the Bill to further supplement the overall support for a just transition by incorporating a just transition principle and some relevant objectives into the Bill. My focus, when developing the Bill, was to ensure that the targets in it can enable the delivery of a just transition.”
“It is important to be clear about this: a just transition cannot be delivered if a completely unrealistic target is set. Therefore, as a result of the decision taken yesterday to support a net zero target, it will be difficult and, indeed, hugely expensive to deliver a just transition. We cannot simply enforce an unrealistic and economically damaging target and think that we can pay everyone to make it all seem OK. That is entirely illogical. First, we do not have the money to do so, and, secondly, a lot of people do not want to be given money; they want to be given choices. You will not buy the farming community, Mr McGuigan.”
“The issue is that, if you take £11 billion out of the economy, how do you deliver that just transition? I pose that question to the Member. I hear about the opportunities for green jobs and all that, and there will be, but will those opportunities overcome the removal of the £11 billion? What about the people who are skilled in agri-food and whose skills in crop and animal management have been honed over generations? Will they just divert to other opportunities? <BR /> <BR />A just transition is very difficult to achieve, and a fundamental aspect of ensuring a just transition is to ensure that the targets that are set are ambitious and challenging but also achievable. The targets in my Bill were originally based on the Climate Change Committee's balanced pathway and thus were set at a level that can be achieved through a just transition.”
“A just transition is at the heart of the draft green growth strategy that my Department recently published for consultation. Indeed, one of the key actions that is to be taken forward under that strategy is the establishment of a just transition commission in Northern Ireland. Delivering a just transition is also at the heart of the evidence that informed the original targets in my Bill.”
“My amendment No 38, however, introduces just transition principles to the Bill, so I have to speak to it now so that Members are fully aware of them. Other amendments in group 2 that propose amendments to my amendment No 38 also cover just transition elements. <BR /> <BR />A lot of people have loosely used the term "just transition". Some Members who tabled amendments on just transition principles seem to believe that the inclusion of some just transition principles in legislation will solve all of society's problems and enable the achievement of any target. That is a totally simplistic view and a totally unachievable aim. Effectively, a just transition requires us to deliver the transition to a greener, more sustainable economy and environment in a balanced way in which everyone is adequately supported.”
“It is through successfully meeting carbon budgets that we will be able to restrict our overall emissions level and stay on track to meet the targets in the Bill. Clause 16 is therefore the key action clause, and the reports required under it will cover proposals and policies relating to all our key sectors. A number of amendments in group 2 attempt to expand on the requirements of clause 16 and proposed new clause 16A, which I propose in amendment No 38. <BR /> <BR />I will set out why I tabled amendment No 38 and then provide my view on the amendments in the group that other Members have tabled. In doing so, I will have to touch on the issue of a just transition. I appreciate that the amendments that form group 4 in this Consideration Stage debate cover the just transition principles and a just transition fund.”
“I heard what was just said about trade deals elsewhere in an attempt to deflect. We are talking about the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill today. I am happy to address the issue of trade deals, but the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill, as amended, will do harm to primary producers in its own right, and I will table amendments at Further Consideration Stage to try to undo the damage that has been proposed. I hope that Members will support those amendments, having not supported the evidence-based proposals that I put forward yesterday. <BR /> <BR />Clause 16 is important, because it requires all Northern Ireland Departments to work together to bring forward and agree reports at the start of each five-year carbon budgetary period that set out the policies and proposals for meeting the carbon budget for that period.”
“Yesterday's decision is more likely to cause more emissions on a global scale, because it will reduce efficient farming in Northern Ireland, which is already farming at a lower carbon intensity than most of its competitors, and lead to that carbon being produced in higher-intensity farms in other parts of the world. It will drive jobs from the Northern Ireland economy and families from the farms that have been in their name for generations. Again, the Members who supported that, despite all the lobbying that was carried out by the agriculture community, should hang their head in shame.”
“The decision taken yesterday will dilute the importance of some of the other issues that we are discussing today. My aim is to ensure that the Bill provides the right structures and mechanisms to deliver emissions reductions, even if they are unlikely to be at a level that will enable a net zero target to be met.”
“First, I highlight my disappointment at the decision taken yesterday to pursue a 2050 net zero target. That will cause significant harm to our agri-food sector and the wider economy. I hope that the parties that supported it will do more than pay lip service to such a target and will support the funding of the action that will be needed to get us on a pathway to anywhere close to that target.”
“I thank you for giving way again, Mr Muir. Does the Member recognise that an awful lot of the planning applications that are being held back are applications for renewable energy? The planning system has become so emasculated that it is now a deterrent to tackling the issues around climate change. It is ironic, but many of the people who object do so for environmental reasons, yet the absence of a decision causes environmental harm.”
“The green growth strategy is already in operation: it is an Executive strategy, and all Departments are feeding into it. The green growth strategy's course of work is the engine and driving mechanism for tackling environmental issues. We are already doing that, and Departments are feeding in issues and providing the joined-up working that is required.”
“I totally agree with what the Member is saying about Northern Ireland Water. We need to enable Northern Ireland Water to do the job that it needs to do. It has a vital role in protecting the environment from sewage overspill. Quite rightly, Mr Aiken mentioned storm drains: so many dual storm drains are connected to sewage outlets. Consequently, when flash floods occur, that material ends up in our waterways. Northern Ireland Water needs real investment, and the Assembly has hampered that investment for many years. As a body, Northern Ireland Water is one of the most forward-looking organisations when it comes to the steps that it is taking on renewable energy, and it needs to be fully supported in delivering that. <BR /> <BR />Is the Member not a little behind the curve on sectoral groups?”
“I have corresponded with the Infrastructure Minister about electric vehicles a number of times, impressing on her the need for action. Action certainly does not lie with my Department, but I can see the evident benefit of it. How are we supposed to encourage people to move away from vehicles that use fossil fuels when the infrastructure for the vehicles that are now available is not there? It is important that the Department for Infrastructure acts to ensure that electric vehicle charging points are available across Northern Ireland. The Department needs to act promptly. We would all love to hear what it plans to do, because it has been very slow at coming forward.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I do not have any objection in principle to sectoral plans, but it would be helpful if the Member explained where he got the sectors from. They do not fully align with the standard sectors that are used by the Climate Change Committee (CCC) for the purposes of its advice and analysis. In a recent consultation on the draft green growth strategy, over 90% of respondents indicated that we should follow the Climate Change Committee's sectors when developing plans. Will he consider changing those to the sectors that the Climate Change Committee uses so that they align with the sectors that are covered by the green growth strategy and with what over 90% of the populace who contributed asked for?”
“I have to reiterate once more that the targets will help to deliver UK net zero and are consistent with the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are consistent with the Paris agreement pathways and ambitions and are consistent with the preferred option of the respondents to the Department's public consultation to support an evidence-based target in Northern Ireland's first climate change Act. I commend my Climate Change (No. 2) Bill to the House.”
“If he goes through the wrong Lobby, that is how long the promise will have lasted. <BR /> <BR />I ask Members to support all the amendments that I have tabled, including the consequential amendments, and therefore the evidence-based targets in my Bill, which will deliver the UK net zero ambition, deliver significant changes and emission reductions in Northern Ireland and deliver for the Northern Ireland economy and environment. As an Assembly, we need to do the right thing and ensure that we tackle the complex and urgent issues of climate change collectively and in a way that gains support and maximum buy-in from all the sectors. <BR /> <BR />The targets that I have proposed, based on the best available independent science and evidence, will do that.”
“In summary, there are two amendments from other Members, amendment Nos 15 and 16, that I am happy to support. I cannot support the other amendments for a range of reasons, not the least of which is that some are entirely unnecessary, given what the Bill covers, while others are not entirely clear in their intent. Most fundamentally, I cannot support the amendments tabled to clause 1 of my Bill or those that relate to the interim targets in clauses 2 and 3. I urge Members to reject those amendments and support instead the amendments that I have tabled. <BR /> <BR />I noted that, in a newspaper at the weekend, Mr McAleer said that — I will find the correct quote — his party would never support climate change legislation that could have a detrimental impact on the agriculture sector. That lasted well, from Saturday to Tuesday.”
“With anything short of that, we will end up with a non-granular, unintegrated approach that will not be robust and that will widen the uncertainty around estimates. That will result in obvious issues. Standing up to scrutiny, being open to challenge and providing the supporting evidence for application in a regulatory context will be extremely difficult. <BR /> <BR />If the Members are genuinely interested in having the work progressed and seeing effective results from it, it can continue to be taken forward without legislation, or I can table an amendment at Further Consideration Stage that covers the requirements outlined but commits us to timescales in which we can deliver the right result. As the amendment stands, I do not accept or support it. <BR /> <BR />That concludes my comments on the amendments grouped for debate.”
“<BR /> <BR />Turning to amendment No 34, tabled by Ms Bailey and Miss Woods, I understand that AFBI is looking into having nitrogen balance sheets for some sectors. I am also aware that work on that has been taken forward in Scotland. Based on the work being undertaken at the moment and the experience in Scotland, 18 months is not an achievable time frame. To pull aspects together in order for the whole system to cover agriculture, food production, waste, transport and energy will require more data gathering and will rely on access to data from all sectors, data manipulation and modelling, as well as on getting input through stakeholder engagement. A more realistic time frame is probably 36 months.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 35, from the same proposers, attempts to place a requirement on each Northern Ireland Department, when developing policies under clause 16, to ensure that they are consistent with the targets set out in the carbon budget. Again, this amendment is entirely unnecessary, as it merely duplicates what is already required by clause 16(1), and there is already a duty on all Northern Ireland Departments under clause 29, which is applicable to both the targets and carbon budgets, to carry out their functions in a manner that is consistent with achieving those targets and budgets. Therefore, I do not support this amendment, and I hope that the proposers do not even move it, as it would be a waste of Members' time to even consider a vote on it.”
“Notwithstanding the fact that those qualifying terms are not defined, the Members have proposed a target that experts have indicated is likely to lead to carbon leakage. You cannot propose something that will lead to carbon leakage by offshoring food production to places that most likely have more carbon-intensive farming practices and then add a few words to the Bill to say that the risk of that has to be considered — doublespeak again from the Members. The thinking around the amendment is clearly confused. The amendment itself is unclear in its intent, and the Members should have instead considered the risks of carbon leakage before going for an unevidenced, unscientific target.”
“That further confuses things, as an "emissions budget" is not a term that the Bill uses. The proposers are basically butchering the Bill with a poorly worded amendment. I assume that they intended to set out considerations to be taken into account in the context of setting targets rather than carbon budgets, as the title suggests, but the clause is incoherent, and the amendment should probably have been to clause 31. I highlight once again that the carbon budgets have to be set at a level that is consistent with the targets, so the key is to get the target right. On that front, the relevant Members who tabled the amendment support a target that does not take account of a number of considerations that their amendment outlines. In particular, I note that one of the considerations is:”
“On those grounds alone, the amendment should not be supported, and I certainly will not support it. <BR /> <BR />To some extent I agree with the principle of what the Members are trying to achieve with amendment No 32, but there are a number of issues with it that mean that I cannot accept or support it. Fundamentally, the drafting does not make sense, and I highlight that because it is important in the context of the proposed amendment. The title of proposed clause 13A refers to factors relating to the "Setting of carbon budgets", while the first sentence refers to "setting targets". Those are two different things in the context of the Bill. Subsection (1)(a) then refers to:”
“The Department will also have to take into account consideration of developments in scientific knowledge about climate change and in UK or international climate change law, so any advice or reports from the IPCC will already be taken into account. Of course, the Climate Change Committee already considers such matters when providing advice to the UK Administrations, so we are already covered in that regard. In addition, the amendment purports to cover the seeking of advice from those bodies "on other environmental issues". Including such a broad requirement as that is not appropriate in this context, because there will be other statutory bodies that are responsible for providing advice on certain other environmental issues, and other legislation will cover that.”
“Furthermore, my Department will, as a matter of normal business and in line with the relevant processes, also consult on any regulations made under the clause, so the amendment is both pointless and defective. Therefore, I cannot support it. <BR /> <BR />I do not agree with amendment No 30 and will not support it. Fundamentally, it would not be appropriate to place a requirement on my Department to take advice from bodies that have no jurisdiction in Northern Ireland on such matters. The Climate Change Committee's role in advising on matters such as carbon budgets is already based in statute and, under my Bill, the CCC will have to advise on the setting of carbon budgets.”
“The regulations under clause 11 will be subject to the agreement of the Executive, so there is no need to require engagement with other Departments. <BR /> <BR />The references to engaging with the climate change commissioner and the just transition commission are obviously dependent upon decisions taken on other amendments. In any event, they are not necessary, as relevant engagement would naturally happen as a matter of government and departmental standard engagement with such bodies, if established. It is also important to note that, as per clause 14, the first three carbon budgets have to be set by the end of 2023, while the climate change commissioner may not be established, if the relevant amendment is agreed, until 2024, so the timings do not align.”
“Carbon budgets are the maximum amount of total net emissions that Northern Ireland can or is allowed to emit over five-year periods once we put that into legislation. As per the requirements in the Bill, they have to be consistent with the interim and 2050 targets set in the Bill. The Climate Change Committee advises each of the other UK Governments on the appropriate level of carbon budgets where applicable and will advise Northern Ireland on the appropriate carbon budget levels for Northern Ireland. The Bill also requires that regulations setting carbon budgets are made under draft affirmative resolution, so it is not necessary to state that again or to state that my Department should lay the proposals in the Assembly.”
“It is not that we are not going to achieve 80% soon, but 2030 is too quick. The 70% target is a reasonable target, and, if we achieve more, that is good. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the amendments tabled on carbon budgets. Mr McGuigan, Mr McAleer and Dr Archibald have tabled amendment Nos 29, 30, 32, 33 and 35. I will deal with amendment No 29 first. I am in favour of consulting widely and consulting effectively when it comes to new policies and regulations. However, while I support the principle of consultation, I have to question the need for this amendment. Perhaps, in the first instance, the Members who have tabled those amendments are not entirely clear about what carbon budgets are and what they entail.”
“Therefore, the actual proposition should be that regulations must set a limit and that the limit must not be more than 25%. <BR /> <BR />Mr Blair, Mr Dickson and Mr Muir have tabled amendment No 20, which seeks to place a duty on the Department for the Economy to ensure that at least 80% of electricity consumption comes from renewable sources by 2030. This is, obviously, outside the remit of my Department, and, as far as I am aware, it does not align with the targets in the recently published Executive energy strategy, which was supported by those Members' party leader. I believe that the target was 70%. I have spoken to the Minister for the Economy on this amendment, and I have to say that this has the ability to threaten people's electricity supplies in that we will not have adequate electricity supplies.”
“Before I explain what needs to be fixed with this amendment, I have to highlight the fact that it is ironic that Members are so focused on reducing emissions through the process of purchasing carbon credits from other countries. It is not a good credited to our emissions account. <BR /> <BR />The clause also provides the option for my Department, through the regulations, to set a limit on the amount of such units that can be used to contribute to Northern Ireland meeting its emissions targets for a period. However, the proposed amendment removes the words that connect with the optional power to set limits in 9(1). By doing so, it imposes a limit on the reduction in the account per se. Moreover, the regulations do not themselves specify reduction; rather, they set out a mechanism for calculating the account.”
“It is ironic that two of the Members who have tabled this amendment indicated, as part of the AERA Committee's deliberations on the Bill, a preference for not investing in such technology or, at the very least, delaying investment in such technology. These people seem very confused. <BR /> <BR />Ms Bailey and Ms Woods, through amendment No 16, appear to be putting forward a limitation on the percentage of our emissions reductions for a period that we can achieve through the purchase of carbon credits. I am happy to support this amendment in principle, but the drafting is defective and will have to be fixed at Further Consideration Stage.”
“Clause 9 currently provides a power for my Department to introduce regulations setting out the circumstances in which carbon units may be debited. With the green growth strategy, it is very difficult to secure the funding that we need for the most immediate interventions, and the support that we are currently being offered will not get us anywhere close to achieving the ambitious targets in my Bill. I am not sure where the funding for the future use of this technology will come from because the Department of Finance, led by a Sinn Féin Minister, has not been so good at divvying up when it comes to the environment, when it comes to climate change, when it comes to sustainability and when it comes to green growth.”
“Based on the level of carbon credits that the Members propose we could use, they are acknowledging that their favoured targets are unattainable and that they think that even the target that I have put forward is too challenging for them to meet without carbon credits. There will be a cost associated with the purchase of carbon credits, a huge cost, and it is likely to rise as demand for carbon credits increases as countries try to beat their own local targets. I am content to accept the Members' amendment, albeit it will require some drafting to make it operable.”
“We are telling people that we are reaching 100%, and then we are going across the world to buy in 25% of it, or up to 25%. I am proposing that we do 82%, and more if the science is available to demonstrate to us that we can.”
“Although it is right and proper that we provide ourselves with flexibility, it was my expectation that, if we had set the right target in the first place, we would not need to rely on purchasing carbon credits at all, as we could deliver the reductions through our own actions. Instead, the Members seem to think that their 100% target is so unrealistic that a shocking 25% of the emission reductions would have to be met through the purchasing of carbon credits. Let us understand that. I am hoping to get to at least 82% without purchasing any carbon credits, yet Members are proposing that we set a 100% target and allow ourselves the space to purchase up to 25%. It is back to school for some Members. When I was at school, when you took 25 from 100, you were left with 75. We are involved in some sort of a con job.”