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 15 of 71.
“to the categories under reasons for Northern Ireland removals of a gas. Clause 7 provides the power to amend the definition of "Northern Ireland removals of a gas", so we have the capacity to add further categories as and when we come to use them. We do not currently use such technology, but, nonetheless, I am content to accept the amendment. <BR /> <BR />I highlight once again, however, the costs associated with such technology. It would cost hundreds of millions of pounds per annum, and the geographical conditions in Northern Ireland for its deployment and use are suboptimal. I know from engaging with the Department of Finance around the green sign that it thinks that we may have to rely on that approach in order to meet our emission targets and budgets for a period.”
“<BR /> <BR />Ms Bailey and Miss Woods tabled a virtually identical amendment to clause 4, with the only difference being the addition of "only" in two places. As we have heard, however, they will seek to withdraw that amendment. Thankfully, they have realised that the addition of "only" is not necessary and does not change the effect of my amendment. We should not be seeking to add superfluous words to legislation. I therefore urge Members to support my amendment No 9 to clause 4, as it will prevent future targets being set that are less ambitious than the current or future updated targets. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to clause 7. Mr McGuigan, Mr McAleer and Dr Archibald tabled amendment No 15, which seeks to add:”
“During the Second Stage debate on the Bill, Members raised concerns that that power could be used to set less-ambitious targets. I made it clear that the power was intended only to increase the ambition of targets, not decrease them. That matter was further discussed during Committee Stage. Although, on the basis of current and predicted trends and evidence, the power could be used only to increase a target, I am more than happy to bring forward an amendment that would restrict the use of the power in order to ensure that the targets could be updated only to bring them forward to an earlier point or to set a higher percentage reduction. That amendment to the Bill would make it clear that the intended use of the power was to amend the targets in the Bill to make them more ambitious.”
“Absolutely. We are in a position from which we cannot backslide, but we can go higher. Should the science suggest that we go higher, that is what we will do. That is the sensible and rational way forward, rather than hurting some of the lowest earners in our society. <BR /> <BR />Regulations made to amend emissions targets must also be laid before the Assembly in draft form, so Members will be responsible for the approval of such regulations, and Executive agreement for making any changes will be required. The targets could therefore not merely be amended by my Department. My Department would simply be responsible for making any relevant legislation to reflect such decisions by the Assembly and the Executive, as a duty for making regulations has to be placed on a Department.”
“Yes. <BR /> <BR />— UK or international law or policy relating to climate change. Should such developments take place, we will be in a position to make the targets more ambitious in the future. I am hopeful that that will be the case.”
“In summary, clause 4 allows for the targets to be modified should updated advice from the UK Climate Change Committee recommend that, or if the Executive consider that it is appropriate to do so as a result of significant developments in scientific knowledge, technology —”
“With every piece of legislation, Further Consideration Stage allows for further amendments to be put to the House, and it is for the House to accept or reject those amendments. I reserve the right to table amendments should things not go with the evidence-based scientific legislative proposals tonight. <BR /> <BR />I will turn to clause 4. An important element of any legislation that sets targets for several decades away is to ensure that there is flexibility to update those targets as circumstances change. Clause 4 provides the power to amend the targets in clauses 1 to 3 as the scientific evidence changes in future years. Use of the power is subject to a number of restrictions, which are set out in clause 31.”
“Yes, I will. <BR /> <BR />I urge all Members to reject those amendments and instead support the amendment that I have tabled to clause 1 and support the evidence-based target that will deliver on the UK net zero ambition, which will lead to real global emissions reductions and deliver a sustainable Northern Ireland economy whilst protecting and enhancing our environment. I will give way to Mr Muir.”
“For the reasons that I have outlined today, I cannot and will not support any of the amendments that have been tabled by other Members to clause 1 of my Bill or to the interim targets in clauses 2 and 3.”
“Indeed, during the AERA Committee's voting on clause 1, there was majority support for the evidence-based targets in this Bill, unlike with the net zero by 2045 target in the private Member's Bill, on which there was a split vote, with only one Committee member other than the three Bill co-sponsors voting in favour of the net zero target. As politicians, it is our job to make the right decisions based on the best evidence available, and that is what I have done. <BR /> <BR />Dr Archibald suggested that the IPCC is against our Bill. The IPCC has confirmed that our Bill is consistent with the Paris agreement. Members should not be misled on the issues. I have to be very clear about the facts, and I have to deal with facts and nothing else.”
“<BR /> <BR />Some Members who tabled amendments to clause 1 have indicated that there has been widespread support for a net zero target, but there has not been. In the only official consultation, which was carried out by my Department through a proper process, the preferred option of respondents was an evidence-based target. In the AERA Committee's call for views on the two climate change Bills, one resulted in no majority position in favour of any target while the other resulted in a small majority in favour of a net zero target. There is no consensus among stakeholders, and it is plainly wrong to suggest otherwise.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Blair and some of his Alliance colleagues have also tabled an amendment to meet net zero carbon dioxide by 2045. Again, that is not backed by or based on any evidence, and, therefore, I cannot support it. The amendment is inconsistent with the Executive's recently published energy strategy. As I highlighted earlier, aiming for such a target could lead to us having to deploy energy technologies before they are commercially mature and thus at a much higher cost than is otherwise needed, which will exacerbate fuel poverty. Let us have a go at the farmers and, in particular, hill farmers, and then we will go for the people who are experiencing fuel poverty; that is what those Members are doing.”
“The Climate Change Committee has already provided advice — it is science-based advice, of course — on what the targets for 2030 and 2040 should be. It also advised that the only way that we could go beyond its recommended targets is to either make huge cuts to our livestock sector or to invest massively in engineered greenhouse gas removal technology, even though the geographical conditions are not optimal for its deployment in Northern Ireland. During the AERA Committee's deliberations on my Bill, the two Members who tabled that amendment indicated that we should not look to take forward either approach at an early point. I fail to see what has changed for them. Why did they say that in the AERA Committee and then propose this today? It is more doublespeak, I suggest.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Blair, Mr McGuigan and Mr McAleer, who are supported by other Members and their parties, also proposed amendments that seek to change the target in clause 1 to a target of reaching net zero by 2050. Mr McGuigan and Mr McAleer also tabled an amendment that would require my Department to set new interim targets for 2030 and 2040. As co-sponsors of the other climate change Bill that is passing through the Assembly, I am pleased that they have seen some sense when it comes to moving away from the 2045 net zero target that they originally supported, but, unfortunately, they still need to move a bit further towards the evidence, advice and science. <BR /> <BR />I do not believe that their amendment, which requires my Department to set targets for 2030 and 2040 that are in line with the 2050 target, is necessary.”
“<BR /> <BR />In contrast, the Climate Change Committee and the other scientists who carried out the analysis, who have expertise on those issues and who considered all the relevant facts, confirmed that the target that is in clause 1 of my Bill aligns with the Paris agreement and is entirely compatible with the agreements on the global pathway ambition to limit warming to below 1·5°C and with the advice from the IPCC. They have strongly cautioned against pursuing a net zero target partly because conditions in Northern Ireland are suboptimal for greenhouse gas removal technology, which means that we would have to rely on deeper and more extensive reductions in other areas such as agri-food in order to try to meet that target. There are a number of factors, including economic reasons, in why a net zero target should not be pursued.”
“<BR /> <BR />People have tried again today to convince us that the target that I propose is purely an economic decision and that an alternative net zero target is based on the best available science, but nobody produced that science or, indeed, any proper evidence to support such a target. I have heard Ms Bailey saying things like, "Scotland and Germany are aiming for a 2045 net zero target". When I went to school, that was not science; that was geography.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have already outlined the advice from the Climate Change Committee about the potential costs of reaching the net zero target by 2050 and the increased likelihood of carbon leakage that is associated with such a target. The difference between the evidence-based target and a net zero target is less than three quarters of 1% of global emissions. On a global level, that is around 0·0075% of emissions — 0·0075% — yet you will drive 13,000 farmers off their family farms. What does that say? If we shut down our efficient agri-food sector and shift food production to somewhere else in the world that has more carbon-intensive farming, we will be adding to global emissions and doing the exact opposite of what people are setting out to do and what we are collectively trying to achieve.”
“Turning to the amendments that other Members tabled on targets, carbon budgets and nitrogen balance sheets, as you heard, Ms Bailey's amendment No 1 was not moved. As a result, amendment Nos 7 and 8 will not be moved. I am glad that we will not be asked to support those three unevidenced targets. However, I note that, instead, Ms Bailey, along with some other Members, will now support a 2050 net zero target. I am disappointed that those Members are unable to see reason and to understand and accept the evidence that has been provided to them. That evidence makes it clear that aiming for such targets at this stage would be completely unrealistic, hugely costly and likely to disengage some of the people who can help to deliver positive outcomes.”
“Why would any of us want to put those on the lowest incomes in a worse position?”
“The Economy Minister has confirmed his support for the targets in my Bill, highlighting the risks of aiming for an early target that could lead to Northern Ireland having to deploy energy technologies before they are commercially mature and, thus, at a much higher cost than would be otherwise needed, potentially increasing fuel poverty. That is critical. Today, we have received notification of a 33% rise in gas costs, and we know how people are suffering with the cost of fuel this year because of particular circumstances. Whilst we will move to renewable technologies — I am totally committed to doing that — we need to do so in a way that enables us to produce consistent and affordable renewable electricity and energy. That is at risk, and I am not prepared to take that risk. Our hard-working families are already feeling the squeeze.”
“The addition of that target requires additional consequential amendments to ensure that the Bill remains operational. The consequential amendments are amendment Nos 12, 13, 14, 17, 31, 55 to 59, 64 to 66 and 75. They ensure that the Bill sets out the baseline for the carbon dioxide target; identify how we will determine whether the carbon dioxide target is being met; specify how any purchased carbon units will be apportioned towards the carbon dioxide target; and update any relevant reporting requirements, so that progress against the target for carbon dioxide is also captured. <BR /> <BR />The addition of a supplementary 2050 net zero carbon dioxide target is also consistent with the Department for the Economy's new energy strategy, which aims to achieve net zero emissions from energy by 2050.”
“While it is important that we reduce all our greenhouse gases, the IPCC has been clear that, in particular, we need to address emissions from long-lived greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Those gases accumulate in the atmosphere, meaning that continued emissions of them will lead to continually increasing warming. Reducing that warming requires the active removal of long-lived greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. <BR /> <BR />The AERA Committee recommended an amendment to clause 1 to include a separate net zero target for carbon dioxide. I support that recommendation, as it aligns with the advice from the Climate Change Committee. Therefore, I tabled an amendment to clause 1 to add a supplementary 2050 net zero target for carbon dioxide.”
“In recommending the target, the Climate Change Committee took into account all of the key factors relevant to the Northern Ireland environment and economy, as well as global and UK drivers for addressing climate change. Nobody else has carried out that type of analysis or delivered any alternative evidence, so why would we move away from the evidence base? <BR /> <BR />I turn to the amendments that I propose to clause 1. In recommending a target of at least an 82% net reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050, the Climate Change Committee indicated that Northern Ireland would need to reach net zero emissions of carbon dioxide by 2050. We have a net zero target in the Bill, and it is achievable. Achieving that reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is consistent with the advice and evidence from the IPCC.”
“He was clear when he corresponded with me and, indeed, Executive colleagues that legislation should be ambitious and deliverable, so that we achieve the best possible outcomes, and that it needs to be evidence-based. I have not heard the evidence for the 100%. I have offered Members the opportunity to provide it to me, but they have not done that. He also stated that it should be underpinned by financial modelling. Nobody has suggested how they will meet the bills that I have brought before the House and warned it about. <BR /> <BR />According to the evidence and the science, the target in clause 1 is the only evidence-based, long-term target that Northern Ireland can soundly commit to and realistically deliver on at this time.”
“Do we really want to ask the people of Northern Ireland to do more than their fair share for no overall benefit, given that we will still reach 100% net zero? Moreover, I have to ask this yet again: if we do, how can we fund it? <BR /> <BR />I have consistently highlighted to Members that the right thing to do is to follow the independent evidence and science. We should set an ambitious target and take effective and sustained action to meet and, hopefully, go beyond that target. If the evidence supports it, we can update and increase the target at a future point, as the UK, Scotland and Wales did in their approach to climate change legislation. That is the proper way to deliver effective legislation on this crucial, long-term issue. <BR /> <BR />That view is rightly shared by the Finance Minister — in his writings anyway.”
“The Finance Minister has confirmed that it will be for the Executive to agree and fund the climate change programme from their overall Budget, even if that programme costs more than any equivalent Barnett consequential. <BR /> <BR />It is further indicated that, should funding be provided by the British Government that is conditional on its use for climate change, any additional costs will have to be borne by the overall Executive Budget.”
“Under the "at least 82% reduction" will not in any way lag behind other parts of the UK. Shame on those people who call that community "laggards". Shame on you. We are delivering effective policies and emission reductions across our key sectors. Therefore, the narrative put forward that we are climate laggards is false. <BR /> <BR />The Climate Change Committee has also indicated that setting a net zero target for Northern Ireland might not lead to additional overall reductions in UK greenhouse gas emissions but rather act to shift a greater share of the UK-wide cost of reaching net zero to Northern Ireland. Again, I ask: where will the funding for that come from? Are our finances in such a good state that we can effectively subsume a greater share of the costs for UK net zero than has been recommended or is, indeed, needed?”
“Northern Ireland is very poorly geographically positioned to physically enable deployment of such facilities due to limited access to space that can be used for CO2 storage, unlike Scotland, which is extremely well positioned. There is the science of, "Scotland can do it, so we can do it". I will leave that with you. <BR /> <BR />The Climate Change Committee has confirmed that, if greenhouse gas removal deployment capabilities are removed from its revised emissions reduction targets for each region of the UK under its balanced pathway, and the differences in land use and agricultural production are taken into account, the real emissions, reductions, aims and ambitions are similar in each sector in Northern Ireland with what is required in all other regions of the UK to meet UK net zero.”
“The additional cost until 2050 will be several billion pounds more than the costs of aiming for the targets in clause 1. The costs could be anything from £10 billion to £25 billion extra depending on when and how quickly we start to deploy that technology. Let me be very clear: that is only the cost until 2050. The cost of those technologies will persist at a similar level for many years after 2050. <BR /> <BR />Furthermore, the Climate Change Committee has confirmed with my officials that no part of the UK can reach net zero without engineered greenhouse gas removals. However, not every part of the UK can physically house greenhouse gas removal facilities and geological CO2 storage.”
“The Department of Health has a lot of needs, and it cannot afford to hand money back. Is it the Department of Education, the Department for Infrastructure or the Department of Justice? What Department will hand back money? Members are making a decision that will impose spending requirements. <BR /> <BR />The Climate Change Committee has indicated that aiming for net zero by 2050 and relying on engineered greenhouse gas removal technologies could cost up to £900 million per annum by 2050, a cost that will continue to be incurred every year after 2050 until we are somehow able to remove those residual emissions through other means. At present, the other means identified are limited to greatly reducing our livestock sector, which I cannot and will not support.”
“In addition to that, the agri-food sector is critical to rural areas and balanced regional development. Some 86% of agri-food processors are based outside the Belfast City Council area, and almost 26,000 farm businesses operate in rural settings. We must support and protect such an important sector for our economy and the communities concerned. <BR /> <BR />If the Assembly decides to vote for a higher target than is set out in clause 1 and chooses to rely heavily on engineered greenhouse gas removal technologies instead of or in combination with cuts to our livestock sector, the costs will be colossal, with no end point. Who is paying for that? What Departments will hand money back? Is it the Department of Health? It is the wealthiest Department and receives the most money.”
“It concluded that the impact could be beef, dairy and sheep herd numbers falling by 86% and pig and poultry herd numbers falling by 11%, representing a 54% decrease in farm employment alone, with around 13,000 jobs lost in that primary agricultural sector, not to mention the tens of thousands of jobs lost in the processing sector. I want to be clear that simply shifting the net zero target to 2050 for Northern Ireland, as some have proposed through amendments, will have similarly devastating impacts. It is just delaying them for a few years. <BR /> <BR />Our agri-food sector is the largest manufacturing sector in Northern Ireland. It is ranked second when it comes to exports outside the UK. In other words, it is a very significant part of the economy.”
“The response to the requests that have gone in is minimalist in tackling environmental issues. So, we have more doublespeak. Farmers can bear the brunt of the pain of this, and we will not even release the finances from the public purse to help people to achieve what we are telling them that they have to do. <BR /> <BR />Although amendment No 1 has not been moved, I want to highlight that KPMG recently published a report on the economic impact of the alternative target proposed by some Members of this Assembly to be net zero by 2045.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Climate Change Committee further highlighted a number of risks of going for a higher target, including the potential for carbon leakage and huge costs associated with a massive reduction in our livestock sector or much greater reliance on the use of engineered greenhouse gas removal technologies than is appropriate, or, potentially, the costly combination of both. I want to be clear that the costs associated with both those potential impacts will be huge. <BR /> <BR />When we have sought money for green growth, which will be the engine for tackling all those issues and producing a much better environment in Northern Ireland, it has been amazing how the Sinn Féin Finance Minister has been very slow at coming forward to release the purse strings.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is worth dwelling on the phrase "technically possible", as some Members have used it throughout the wider debate on Northern Ireland targets. Lots of things are technically possible, but the practicalities of them are very different. If we had an infinite budget and if we had no concern for the livelihoods of people who live and work here, it is technically possible to make reductions beyond the balanced pathway. However, when you consider the actual circumstances that we are faced with, "technically possible" becomes "practically and financially impossible".”
“At least 82% of all greenhouse gases in Northern Ireland represents equivalently stretching emissions reductions efforts to the targets legislated for in Scotland, Wales and England, once the differences in starting points and opportunities available to each region are considered. The Climate Change Committee advised that it considered each country's respective capabilities and the circumstances and opportunities in Northern Ireland, as well as what is deliverable through policies and actions in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />The Climate Change Committee has advised that further reductions beyond the balanced pathway are technically possible but unlikely to be achieved. So, why try to fool the public out there that we are going to do this 100% thing and get a headline if we do not believe that it is achievable?”
“Some Members here today have suggested that the target recommended by the Climate Change Committee, reflected in clause 1 of the Bill, is not ambitious enough and leaves Northern Ireland behind other parts of the UK and the Republic of Ireland. I want to reassure Members that that is simply not true. Achieving an at least 82% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 will be hugely challenging and will require substantial change across all sectors, but it will also allow us to deliver a just transition. <BR /> <BR />The Climate Change Committee has indicated that reaching net zero requires strong efforts in all parts of the UK.”
“It is also consistent with the aims of the Paris agreement and — listen up, folks — the recommendations of the IPCC in the recent report often quoted by Members as being code red for humanity. In other words, the target will deliver on the climate ambition at a UK and global level, which was recommended by the Climate Change Committee and the IPCC. Where are all the experts coming from on the other side of the House? Where is the science coming from?”
“Clause 1 sets the evidence-based target of at least an 82% net reduction in all greenhouse gases from the baseline position by 2050. That is the target that has been recommended by the UK's statutory independent and world-renowned advisory body, the Climate Change Committee. It has been clear in highlighting that the target represents a fair and equitable contribution by Northern Ireland towards the UK net zero target.”
“If we keep going at this speed, I do not know when we will get there. We have said and started a few things anyway.”
“I think that they will find that the biggest threat to hill farmers is Sinn Fein's support for the climate change legislation. You do not have to convince anybody in the House about that, Mr McAleer. Why do you not go down to the farmers who were on the steps and convince them? I have not had to convince them. They have been lobbying us and you. They have invited every Member of the House to come out and talk to them. A few have taken it up, but it is quite remarkable how many Members have shown utter contempt for the farming community, which represents 10% of our gross domestic product and employs over 100,000 people in the economy. It has been shown contempt by many MLAs. You should hang your heads in shame. <BR /> <BR />I had better get on with my written speech, because I am still on the first page, and there are 45 of them.”
“I will give way. This is about people's livelihoods and your willingness to play fast and loose with those livelihoods.”
“<BR /> <BR />In case you did not know what farmers in Northern Ireland were thinking, or what farmers in the Republic of Ireland are thinking as well, I am glad to have facilitated you. It aligns. This is not political: it is about people's livelihoods.”
“According to the United Nations, the world population is projected to grow from 7·7 billion in 2017 to 8·5 billion in 2030 and 9·7 billion in 2050. That is a 26% increase. That growth will drive global food demand, which is expected to increase anywhere between 59% and 98% by 2050. It is projected that 58% more milk and 73% more meat will be required by 2050, compared with 2010 consumption. In light of the increasing demand for food due to that projected population growth, any contraction of food production in Ireland, and indeed in Northern Ireland, to meet the emissions ceiling may simply be replaced by production elsewhere, potentially in countries with a higher emissions footprint, resulting in carbon leakage and higher overall global emissions.”
“Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. Personally, I do not mind — they can heckle away there — but, if you do, that is your call. <BR /> <BR />The IFA, which speaks on behalf of farmers and voters, says that:”
“Certainly the constituents that it will impact. The constituents —.”
“I know what the Minister is proposing. Being detached from your constituents is not something that belongs just to a North Antrim MLA.”
“I thank the Member for raising the point. The Irish Farmers' Association —.”
“I will — particularly people who live in the country, who should know better. They should know the impact and the harm that they are doing to individuals for whom farming is a way of life. It is precious to them. It is not about making tens of thousands of pounds; they will never make that. It is about their family heritage. You are taking that away from them.”
“<BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin has put up a few folks today from rural backgrounds to say how much they are concerned about farming. They are talking out of both sides of their mouth. They will support amendments that will be hugely destructive to farming. I had a conversation with my family about this. It is a bit like the Native American belief: the land does not really belong to us; we belong to the land. My parents worked darned hard to get it, with blood, sweat and tears. It has been lent to me by them, and I will lend it to the next generation. I am appalled that people would produce legislation and support such amendments, particularly those who live in the country —”