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 5 of 71.
“There are certainly issues with the wording of the provisions, which could have and would have been improved if all my relevant amendments had been selected, voted on and agreed. However, the purpose of the subsidiary power contained in amendment No 57 was to provide flexibility to enable the targets to be more precisely delineated. It was never stated or implied in any correspondence from my Department that the power was required to make clauses 12 to 21 — now clauses 13 to 22 — operable or that they would be outside competence without them. <BR /> <BR />Of course, the most significant and concerning aspect of the clauses on the sectoral plans and associated targets is the inclusion of the aspirational target, which does not align with the recently agreed Executive targets and has the potential to be hugely costly on delivery.”
“The purpose of amendment Nos 57 and 58, which I tabled at Further Consideration Stage, was to replace the content of what are now clauses 13 to 22 — clauses 12 to 21 prior to the Further Consideration Stage — and link it to the requirements on the production of climate action plans. That would have helped to ensure that the provisions in the Bill on sectoral plans were clear and effective and were applied and administered efficiently. <BR /> <BR />The reason why amendment Nos 57 and 58 were not moved is that the amendments to remove clauses 12 to 21 were not selected for the Marshalled List. Therefore, there was no point in moving amendment Nos 57 and 58. Notwithstanding that, I have indicated that the view of officials is that there are no legislative competence issues with respect to clauses 13 to 22.”
“Ms Bailey does not like to give me any credit for anything, but under my tutelage, and as a result of decisions that I have taken in the Executive, that will be reduced by 25%. I imagine that not many others would have been able to deliver such a significant reduction — 25% — in another Department in two years on something to do with the environment. I will accept any praise that she might have for that reduction in ammonia and for the proposals that I am putting together to further reduce ammonia emissions. That is important. <BR /> <BR />Mr Muir made an issue of my not moving amendment Nos 57 and 58. Mr Blair has, I believe, written to me on that issue as well.”
“The Climate Change Committee has given advice on that. It is different from what it would have been under the 82% target. Given that we have adopted the 46% methane target, the reduction will perhaps be less than what it would have been under the 82% target. Nonetheless, significant opportunities can be developed by the agri-food sector. Nothing stays the same: things change. We have built up a large dairy and chicken sector, in particular, over the past 30 years, and some of that will change. However, we will ensure that there is an opportunity for people to continue to live and work in the countryside and maintain the agri-food sector. Therefore, I can support the Bill in its current form.”
“Those things may seem far-reaching, but, over the next number of years, we will be looking seriously at crops like those in order to ensure that we can continue with food production in a significant way. There will be alterations, and I and the farming community accept and understand that. <BR /> <BR />Anaerobic digestion gives significant opportunities in horticulture because of the heat that is produced as well as the electricity. Many significant opportunities can be derived from growing crops like tomatoes, horticultural plants and so forth because we will be able to produce power and energy from animal nutrients and cattle slurry etc.”
“Instead of doing away with cows, we can capture more of the methane that cows produce and use it to heat people's homes and run vehicles. How is that not a logical solution for a food-producing country? How is it a better idea to grow thistles and weeds, which, by the way, does not help biodiversity, than to grow grass, grain and protein crops? There are opportunities to do more of those things. <BR /> <BR />I understand where Mr Allister is coming from. There will be a herd reduction as a result of the Bill, but that does not mean that there has to be a reduction in agricultural output. There are opportunities to grow alternative crops, including protein crops and foods such as kale, spinach and wild rice.”
“I was just about to respond on that, so the question did not need to be asked. I recognise that the agriculture and agri-food sector emits around 27% of carbon emissions. It has reduced its emissions over the years, but it has not reduced as much as some other sectors have. The energy sector's move from coal to gas production has helped significantly. As a consequence of things that are happening now, there is some movement back to coal, which is hugely regrettable. That regression is taking place because of circumstances that are beyond anybody's control. The agri-food sector is looking at the challenges and will meet them, but that needs to be done in a timely and constructive manner. <BR /> <BR />I mentioned where I was this morning and the opportunities that are to be derived from anaerobic digestion.”
“That is how she looks at the agri-food sector. I recognise —.”
“<BR /> <BR />Ms Bailey has always been critical of this DUP Environment Minister, but I have always said that, while the legislation gives us a framework, the green growth strategy gives us the engine and the transmission to drive all this forward. I stand to be corrected, so I will be happy to take an intervention, but I have yet to hear Ms Bailey complain that Mr Murphy did not give substantial enough support to deliver green growth and to deliver on the environmental agenda in Northern Ireland. She can quickly criticise the DUP Minister, but she is reluctant to criticise a Sinn Féin Minister. She can answer for that, although I note that she has not. <BR /> <BR />The Member also referred to the agri-food sector as the highest-emitting sector — not the highest-employing sector but the highest-emitting sector.”
“We have a growing number of people living in the world, and any policy under which you produce less food for that growing number of people is not a policy that any rational, sensible Parliament, Assembly or person should want to adopt. <BR /> <BR />The Member mentioned soil quality, but we are already ahead of the game. Planes and drones are out at this moment doing lidar mapping of Northern Ireland, and around 60% of that has already been achieved. We are already lidar mapping all of Northern Ireland so that we can see what is going on underneath the ground. We have a scheme over the next four years to analyse all the soils in Northern Ireland so that the appropriate nutrients to support food production can be introduced. We did not need legislation to do that; we needed common sense. That is being done.”
“I thank the Member for raising that issue. He is absolutely right about that. Ms Bailey talks so much about the problems in sub-Saharan Africa and other places. Those problems are here today, Ms Bailey. Maybe you do not realise that there is a massive problem in sub-Saharan Africa. When tenders for product are put out there, people do not respond. Tell that to the 120 million people in Egypt who are looking for food. They tender for that food, but there are no responses, and that is because there will be a shortage of food as a consequence of what is going on in Russia and Ukraine and food supply is already finely balanced. The policy that Ms Bailey wants this country to adopt is to produce less food. I say that that policy is mad.”
“Ms Bailey's Bill, which, I am glad, is now off the agenda, was a poorly drafted, economically damaging Bill. It would not have resolved issues around climate change. In fact, it would have done harm to the climate change agenda, because Northern Ireland would have exported its food production to other places that would have carried it out in a less environmentally friendly way and emitted more carbon to produce the same number of kilos of beef and the same number of litres of milk. That would have been the consequence of Ms Bailey's Bill. All that she would have done is shift carbon emissions from Northern Ireland to other places and shift jobs from Northern Ireland to other places.”
“They are blocking a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and ensuring that money that could come to Northern Ireland to enable that to happen stays in London. That is not a smart place to be, and I note that there are no explanations from Sinn Féin for the silly position that it is adopting on the issue. <BR /> <BR />Ms Bailey provided an analysis of how we got here. It may be somewhat self-indulgent to make the suggestions that she made, but they do not stand up to any scrutiny or facts. When we had the debate in July, we were engaging in a consultation process and bringing about legislation, but, because we were doing things right, it could not be done in 100 days. This is not my mantra; it has been said for generations. Rushed legislation is bad legislation.”
“Mr McGuigan wants a 100% reduction: there is something that achieves 7% of that 100%. Many people are using that scheme in good faith; many are heavily indebted as a consequence of installing RHI boilers; and many — the vast majority — run those boilers at a significant loss. However, Mr McGuigan thinks that it is a good idea to give £90 million back to the UK economy. He is saying, "We do not need that. We do not want these people to reduce greenhouse gases by 7%. No, no, they should import that gas from Russia instead". Sinn Féin could deal with that by supporting the Department for the Economy's proposals, which will make what we do in Northern Ireland similar to what is happening in the rest of the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland. However, Mr McGuigan and his Sinn Féin colleagues are blocking that.”
“It is still in the targets. I have to clarify again — it is on the public record, but I will put it on again — that the reduction to 46% is consistent with IPCC advice. We have heard the IPCC being quoted: what we have proposed in the legislation is consistent with that advice. It is also consistent with the UK Climate Change Committee's balanced pathway recommendations and the ambition of the Paris agreement to achieve long-term temperature goals. We have achieved all that in what is proposed, yet Members are still critical. <BR /> <BR />I want to mention RHI to Mr McGuigan because he said something that was entirely un-factual. He is welcome to challenge this, but my Department informed me — I have put it on the record — that, between 2012 and 2030, the renewable heat incentive will contribute a 7% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.”
“Those young people are investing in producing high-quality food for people in this country and in countries across the world, but that is not of value to people in the Chamber. Shame on those people. <BR /> <BR />Mr Muir commented on the need for an independent environmental protection agency. Of course, he said that while conveniently ignoring the fact that, through the Environment Act 2021, we have created the independent Office for Environmental Protection. Therefore, instead of the politically based European Commission looking into those affairs, we will have an independent Office for Environmental Protection that is entirely independent of government. <BR /> <BR />Mr Muir also talked about methane being excluded. Of course, methane was not excluded. Methane is a much shorter-lived greenhouse gas than many others.”
“Mr Blair also said that we have not been ambitious: this is an ambitious Bill. <BR /> <BR />Ms Bailey and others referred to young people. After this business concludes, my next event will be at the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE), where there will be a careers fair and bursaries will be awarded to young people. There will be hundreds of young people at that event who are investing their future in the food industry — an industry that the majority of people in the Chamber were prepared to decimate and that Ms Bailey still wants to decimate. That is the message to those young people from some in the Chamber: they do not care about their jobs, their livelihoods and their futures.”
“I thank the AERA Committee Chair and members for their contributions to this and previous debates. I will seek to respond to some of the comments that were made. <BR /> <BR />I will start with Mr Blair. His contribution was pretty cliché-ridden, and he talked about the loss of an economic opportunity. Does Mr Blair not realise that 113,000 people here depend on jobs in the agri-food sector? He also said that it should not be an issue between agriculture and the environment. However, Mr Blair and his colleagues made it an issue between agriculture and the environment. They rejected the advice of the Climate Change Committee, who are the experts. They knew how to deal with climate change better than the experts did and were happy to destroy people's jobs and livelihoods in the process. That is what the Alliance Party is about.”
“On that very issue — dependence on fossil fuels — one of the means of switching from fossil fuels was to burn woodchips. We had the issue with the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme, and the headline in the paper today is that £90 million has been lost to the Northern Ireland Budget because Sinn Féin will not agree with the proposals that are being put forward in that area. The Member might reflect on that when he talks about moving from fossil fuels.”
“I look forward to the Bill's being passed and to every party in the Assembly's supporting the efforts to implement and deliver on its ambitions.”
“There is therefore no point in going out and conning the public by saying that you want to do something significant on climate change and want to make efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon emissions, if you are not prepared to put your money where your mouth is. I challenged Sinn Féin Members last week to put their vote where their mouth was on the issue of herd reduction, and they demonstrated that they are quite happy with herd reduction, in spite of what they had said a few weeks previously. I challenge them again: if you want to achieve what you claim that you want to achieve through the legislation, the Sinn Féin Finance Minister needs to put his money where his party's mouth is on the issue, otherwise it will not be delivered. <BR /> <BR />That concludes my opening remarks today.”
“That last element in particular is crucial. All Departments and, indeed, all parts of our society will have to play their part in helping to reduce emissions. Climate change is not a one- or two-Department issue. The provisions ensure the need for all of us to act, as they will be enshrined in law, and if that does not happen, we will have no chance of getting anywhere close to the targets in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I should add that that will not be achieved without investment. When I made requests for the green growth strategy to be properly funded, I was hugely disappointed by what was on offer in the proposals that came from Mr Murphy's Finance Department, because Sinn Féin Members' words and the money that the Sinn Féin Finance Minister provided did not match up. You will not reach 82% by 2050 on that budget, never mind 100%.”
“Those include a requirement to produce five-year climate action plans that set out policies and proposals for meeting carbon budgets and the emissions targets; a requirement on a number of Departments to produce sectoral plans and to meet targets connected to them; a range of reporting requirements and duties for Departments and the Climate Change Committee; a requirement on my Department to bring forward public-body reporting regulations within 18 months of the Bill's achieving Royal Assent; and duties on all Departments to exercise their functions, as far as it is possible to do so, in a manner consistent with meeting the targets in the Bill and the carbon budgets that we set under it.”
“<BR /> <BR />Of course, we would not have required such amendments had the targets in the Bill, as introduced, been agreed, but at least I have been able to mitigate some of the potentially damaging impacts that aiming for overall net zero could cause, whilst also strengthening the just transition opportunities for rural communities. <BR /> <BR />In addition to the targets, the Bill includes a number of other important elements, which will help us to address issues that are caused by climate change.”
“The transitional elements of the Bill should help to ensure that the challenges that rural communities and many sectors will face while tackling climate change are recognised and taken into account when developing and implementing policies. There is also a requirement for Northern Ireland Departments to consider the risk of carbon leakage when deciding policies and proposals that are to be included under the climate action plans and for Departments to take into account the desirability of eliminating or minimising that risk.”
“That is why I tabled the amendment at Further Consideration Stage to limit the impact of the net zero target in that regard and ensure that what we require of the agriculture sector and others in reducing methane emissions is in line with the evidence and advice from the experts. <BR /> <BR />My amendment clarified that the net zero ambition of some Members will not require a level of methane emission reduction of more than 46% by 2050, which is consistent with the advice from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UK CCC's balanced pathway recommendations and the ambition of the Paris agreement to achieve long-term temperature goals. That will be very challenging and will require significant new policies.”
“It is a travesty. It is inhumane and it is wrong. Therefore, I support our agri-food sector in the production of food. We are one of the most efficient food producers anywhere in the world, and we are one of the most efficient food producers in keeping carbon down in the world. I will continue to make it very clear that we cannot allow those things to happen. <BR /> <BR />The agri-food sector in Northern Ireland employs some 113,000 people. Some people seem to think that those jobs do not matter because we are going to have all these new, green jobs etc. We should not cast away what we have; we should build on what we have. We should bring in the green jobs while keeping those existing 113,000 jobs.”
“<BR /> <BR />Those present today will know that the issue that concerns me most about the overall net zero target is the potential impact on our local and very successful agriculture sector. There are some in the House who think that it is too successful. There are some in the House who think that we should not produce food for 10 million people but should only produce food for the people who live here. That is an entirely selfish notion and one that I do not want to be associated with. It is selfish because this world needs food. <BR /> <BR />We are in a circumstance where Egypt, which is a country in North Africa with a population of 120 million, is tendering for wheat and is not getting the supplies of wheat that it needs to feed its people. People tell us that we should let our land go wild: that is an absolute nonsense.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I have highlighted many times, we are talking about spending hundreds of millions of pounds per annum not just to reach the net zero target by 2050 but to continue beyond 2050. The long-term impacts of the decisions that are being made in the Assembly will be highly significant and will be felt by other Departments, such as the Department for Infrastructure, the Department of Education and, of course, the Department of Health. Again, it will be for Members to identify whether they are going to go through with some of that spending or go back on their word and support the Health and Education Departments. Nevertheless, the headline is there, and we will work with that as things stand.”
“<BR /> <BR />Unfortunately, however, at Consideration Stage, a majority of Members of the Assembly agreed to change the headline target in the Bill to net zero emissions by 2050 — and that really was done for a headline. It is purely an aspirational target and one that, unless we invest huge amounts of money or acquire carbon credits, we are unlikely to achieve. On the use of carbon capture and storage technology, the acquisition of carbon credits is not the way to go about it. We need to ensure that, in the steps that we take, we minimise the amount of carbon produced here and we sequester as much carbon as possible. We will not do that without the assistance of the agricultural sector. Therefore, it is crucial that we bring that sector with us, thus the importance of the amendment that I moved last week.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have been clear and consistent throughout all the debates on the Northern Ireland climate change legislation that we should follow the advice of experts and set targets on the basis of the evidence. There are Members in the Chamber who will take expert advice on climate change but will not take expert advice on how you respond to climate change. That is for them, not me, to answer, but my Bill, on its introduction, reflected the recommendations from the United Kingdom Climate Change Committee (CCC), which is the statutory, independent adviser on climate change. There are people on that body who have unsurpassed expertise and can provide us with evidence and advice. Delivering the targets that they recommended would have seen Northern Ireland make a fair and equitable contribution towards the UK net zero target.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Climate Change (No. 2) Bill will help to ensure that we do the right things. Since my appointment as Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in January 2020, I have made climate change a top priority in my Department and have ensured that resources are prioritised to deliver this legislation. Indeed, the Executive Bill has reached Final Stage ahead of the private Member's Climate Change Bill, which has only reached Consideration Stage despite being introduced to the Assembly four months earlier. That shows the commitment that we have made to delivering this legislation, having gone through all the due processes, including proper consultation, before we commenced.”
“Instead of taking away the methane altogether by removing the animals and the food, or by just allowing the methane to go into the atmosphere, we can capture that methane through anaerobic digestion and turn it into fuel for trucks, tractors and, indeed, homes. The mix of 80% biomethane with 20% hydrogen enables us to heat our homes without changing the boilers that are currently in those homes. All those things demonstrate to us the wisdom, common sense and practical nature of adopting high-quality policies that deliver on reducing the environmental footprint, reducing the methane that goes into the atmosphere and providing an energy source that is reliable, local, cost-controlled and will not be subject to the huge lurches that we have seen over the past few weeks. The common sense in what we are doing is very clear.”
“As politicians, we have a duty to take action to ensure that our environmental footprint becomes less significant and that we produce a sustainable economic and environmental model where both can prosper. <BR /> <BR />It was a privilege for me to visit Alternity Biogas Energy this morning to open a facility where biomethane, which is largely extracted from waste food products, is being turned into fuel through anaerobic digestion. Through further work, it is now being used to power trucks. Those trucks will produce around 20% of the carbon that a normal diesel truck would. The common-sense logic behind that is huge given that 20% of our diesel comes from Russia. <BR /> <BR />We have all those sources of energy here at home, and lot of them are on farms.”
“Anyone who has taken significant, complicated and cross-cutting Executive legislation such as this forward will appreciate the amount of work that is involved, not just for me but for my officials, the AERA Committee — I give my thanks to it — the Bill Office staff, the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), Members and the Speaker's Office. Thank you to all involved. Some said that I could not or would not bring the legislation forward, but it is clear, as I stand here today, that those accusations were unfounded. <BR /> <BR />I am grateful for the support that my Bill has received during its passage through the Assembly. Climate change affects everyone in Northern Ireland and on the planet, and it requires people to respond at local and global levels.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you, once again, for your patience with all of this as we move the Final Stage of the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill. We have had many lengthy debates on the legislation at various points during its passage through the Assembly, and rightly so. It is an important piece of legislation that will impact on the work of the Assembly and the Executive for decades to come. Essentially, the key decisions on the legislation have been taken, and its passing should be a formality. <BR /> <BR />I am pleased that my Climate Change (No. 2) Bill has reached its Final Stage. It has been a great challenge to get to this point, given the work that was required to develop the legislation at pace and to complete all the necessary processes and stages in its passage.”
“Substantive amendments to the design of the UK ETS, to align the UK and devolved net zero climate objectives, will be the subject of a separate upcoming consultation on the development of the scheme. <BR /> <BR />The UK Government remain open to the possibility of linking the UK ETS and the EU scheme. Under the UK/EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement, both parties have agreed to give serious consideration to linking their respective carbon pricing systems. The UK Government have advised that they will work with their EU counterparts to give this matter due consideration. <BR /> <BR />In order that Northern Ireland, along with the rest of the UK, can continue with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the effective implementation of the UK ETS, we need to pass this order. <BR /> <BR />I commend the order to the House.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Members who contributed to the debate. <BR /> <BR />To summarise, the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2022 will make various technical operational amendments to the UK Emissions Trading Scheme. They will not impact on Northern Ireland's electricity generating installations, which continue to participate in the EU scheme under the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol. <BR /> <BR />The order will not change the current climate ambition of the UK ETS. It does not introduce substantive changes in policy. There will be no overall impact on business or additional administrative burdens.”
“<BR /> <BR />In conclusion, the order will help improve the effective operation of the UK ETS. In turn, that will help ensure that the scheme continues to play its part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Northern Ireland and across the UK. Accordingly, I commend the draft order to the House.”
“<BR /> <BR />Those are the main elements of the draft order. As I have stated, the amendments in it are of a technical and operational nature. They do not introduce any substantive policy changes, and they do not alter the scheme's existing climate targets. Aligning the design of the UK ETS with net zero objectives will be the subject of an upcoming consultation. <BR /> <BR />There will be no overall impact on costs or benefits to business as a result of the proposed amendments, as the existing supply of carbon allowances will not be affected, and there are no additional substantive administrative requirements. Members may recall that a local impacts paper was prepared by the Department to accompany the 2020 order, and the conclusions of that paper are unaffected by the proposed amendment.”
“A further amendment allows the UK Emissions Trading Registry administrator to issue enforcement and information notices for suspected permit contraventions. The registry administrator manages the registry of UK carbon allowances, and its function is currently carried out by the English Environment Agency on behalf of all UK Administrations. <BR /> <BR />Articles 7, 11, 12 and 14 restate some earlier amendments made to the 2020 order, for entirely technical reasons, to remove doubt about the power of the registry administrator to issue such notices. <BR /> <BR />Finally, where an installation's ETS permit is surrendered or revoked, further amendments made by the instrument require the operator of the installation to surrender any deficit of allowances from previous scheme years that has not already been surrendered.”
“It creates an offence for a person to intentionally obstruct a regulator or an authorised person in the exercise of enforcement powers. Under the existing order, a regulator can give a notice to an operator, requiring the return of any free carbon allowances to which the operator was not entitled; for example, owing to an over-allocation. A new penalty is created by the amending order, allowing the regulator to issue a civil penalty to require allowances to which an operator is not entitled to be returned.”
“So far, the order has been approved by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Parliament. <BR /> <BR />The order, if approved, will make the following changes to the UK ETS. It will introduce a civil penalty to enforce an existing obligation to return over-allocated allowances. It will create an offence of intentionally obstructing scheme regulators who are exercising enforcement powers. It will clarify some enforcement powers previously introduced. <BR /> <BR />Specifically, it will clarify that the power to inspect premises to ensure compliance with scheme rules may be exercised by an authorised person, which is a person authorised by the regulator as well the regulator itself. That corrects an omission in the original order.”
“<BR /> <BR />The main 2020 order establishing the scheme has been amended and supplemented through further instruments to ensure that it is fully functional. The order before us carries that process forward by making technical and operational amendments to the 2020 order. The proposals contained in the order before us were subject to joint UK-wide consultation between July and September last year. There were only seven responses. Those did not identify significant concerns about the order, and there were no specific Northern Ireland comments. <BR /> <BR />The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2022 was laid in draft in the Northern Ireland Assembly on 16 December 2021 under the Climate Change Act 2008, which requires that order to be laid in draft and debated in each of the four UK legislatures.”
“If generators North and South were in different emissions trading schemes, there could be a carbon price divergence, which could distort the operation of the single electricity market. To avoid that, Northern Ireland's five electricity generating installations have remained as participants in the EU ETS. <BR /> <BR />To give some context, there are around 1,000 UK participants in the scheme and 16 in Northern Ireland. Those 16 installations, along with the five electricity generators that I mentioned, account for approximately one fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions in Northern Ireland. Only 18% of that figure is attributable to emissions from the UK ETS. The majority, around 82%, arises from the electricity generators.”
“Scheme participants, with the exception of electricity generators, receive free allowances, which cover a portion of their emissions. That is to prevent carbon leakage, which is industry moving away to relocate to other parts of the world that either do not have costs for carbon emissions or have costs that are lower. <BR /> <BR />As Members may recall, in the Northern Ireland context, there is an important exclusion from the scope of the UK ETS. It arises as a result of article 9 in annex 4 to the Northern Ireland protocol, which requires Northern Ireland electricity generators to remain in the EU ETS. That is to preserve the functioning of the single electricity market on the island of Ireland.”
“Members will recall that the Assembly approved the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020, which I shall hereafter refer to as the 2020 order, in November 2020. I am grateful for Members' support on that occasion. <BR /> <BR />At this point, it may be helpful to provide a brief summary of the operation of the UK ETS. It is based on a "cap and trade" principle, requiring participants to purchase a carbon allowance for each ton of carbon dioxide that they emit. The more carbon dioxide emitted, the more allowances required. There are penalties for failure to obtain the requisite amount of allowances. A cap is set on the total amount of allowances available under the scheme and is gradually reduced over time. The aim is to encourage reductions in emissions.”
“I am grateful for the opportunity to move the motion. The UK emissions trading scheme (ETS) was established, under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020, as a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme to encourage cost-effective emissions reductions. It will contribute to the UK emissions reduction targets and net zero goal. The scheme replaced the UK's participation in the EU emissions trading scheme and came into force on 1 January 2021. <BR /> <BR />I obtained the agreement of Executive colleagues to the policy positions established in the UK ETS in May 2020, following a UK-wide consultation on the future of UK carbon pricing, which sought views on the post-EU exit carbon pricing proposals.”
“We need to continue to ensure that we drive and encourage those opportunities and that people who are capable of taking up employment take those jobs. It is odd that someone from the Philippines can get a job here, but someone from here cannot take such a job. We need to continue to encourage that.”
“It is not just the food industry; it is other areas, including health. There are available workers in many parts of the world who would love to work in Northern Ireland. Jobs are available in Northern Ireland, be that for welders in the engineering sector, butchers in the food sector, fishers in the fishing sector or care workers etc in the healthcare sector. We need to ensure that we continue to get the Government into the right place so that they make the right decisions to allow the requisite number of people to come into this country to fill the available jobs. <BR /> <BR />There is another aspect. I agree with the Government that there are people who are unemployed and on benefits who could be employed.”