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 7 of 71.
“Well, we do not have a bill, the Attorney General is female, not male, and the Attorney General does not charge for advice.”
“I certainly do not agree that they are necessary. In the first instance, food that comes into Northern Ireland and is to remain in Northern Ireland poses zero threat to the European Union single market. The fact that the Alliance Party, today, through Mr Dickson, has indicated that it wants to have checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which will lead to less supply and, in turn, to higher costs and a reduced offer to consumers, demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the Alliance Party is more interested in the politics of the European Union than it is about the people whom it serves.”
“As I have not yet received an invoice, I am unable to provide an update on the total cost of the legal advice that I received in relation to halting sanitary and phytosanitary checks at points of entry.”
“Last week, I was in West Tyrone, and I was challenged by people from that constituency that the climate change legislation creates massive opportunities for mining in West Tyrone in particular, and the Sperrins in general, and that there are a lot of materials under the ground that could be used, particularly for electric vehicles. There is a genuine concern in the community that some people support this legislation so that that can be introduced into that area. I suspect that there will be considerable resistance to it. One needs to be careful when referring to opportunities: one person's opportunity is another person's nightmare. I add that comment in response to Dr Archibald.”
“The principle behind the amendments tabled by other Members in group 2 are fine, but, in most cases, my amendments achieve the same outcome in a better fashion. In other cases, the amendments are not necessary because the relevant requirements are dealt with in other legislation or as part of standard processes. I hope that Members present appreciate the rationale behind my amendments and the points that I have made in the debate and that they will vote accordingly. <BR /> <BR />That concludes my remarks on the amendments covered in the group 2 debate. I want to reply to Dr Archibald's comments about opportunities.”
“That is, therefore, within a shorter time frame than is proposed by amendment No 69, so I have no issue in supporting it. <BR /> <BR />I have already set out my position on the impact assessments, which will be required under amendment No 70. I will not labour the point about that other than to highlight the fact that, if amendment No 41 is agreed, in addition to my amendments about incorporating the climate action plan requirements into clauses 28 and 31, amendment No 70 is not necessary. <BR /> <BR />In summary, the majority of the amendments tabled by me and the technical fixes are to remove duplication and improve and strengthen the effect of a number of clauses that were added at Consideration Stage.”
“Amendment No 66 provides coverage for all the key elements around the establishment of a Northern Ireland climate commissioner. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 67, which was tabled by Mr McGuigan and colleagues, or amendment No 68 from Mr Blair and colleagues, are not necessary. Therefore, I urge Members to support amendment No 66 and reject amendment Nos 67 and 68. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 69 and 70 amend clause 50, which covers climate action plans, as I explained earlier. I have tabled amendments to align the requirements of clause 50 with those around clause 28 so that the Bill will require only the production of one five-yearly climate action plan. Under clause 28, the first report was to be called the climate action plan. If my amendments are accepted, the report will be required to be produced by the end of 2023.”
“<BR /> <BR />Similarly, clause 49, which was inserted at Consideration Stage, requires the establishment of a Northern Ireland climate commissioner, but it gives no indication of the mechanism for doing so. Again, presumably, the intention is that it will be done by regulations subject to the draft affirmative procedure. Moreover, clause 49 makes no provision for standard ancillary rules for public office such as for the appointment to the office, remuneration of the office holder or the employment of staff. It is not clear from the provision what oversight consists of or how the reporting obligation is to be discharged. For those reasons, it has been necessary to recast the provision through amendment No 66, which will replace clause 49.”
“<BR /> <BR />Clause 36 requires the establishment of a just transition commission, but it gives no indication of the mechanism for doing so. Presumably, the intention is that it will be done by regulations subject to the draft affirmative procedure. Moreover, the clause makes no provision for standard ancillary rules for public bodies such as for its constitution, the remuneration of members or record-keeping. It is not clear from the provision what oversight consists of or what the just transition elements of the Act will be. For those reasons, I have tabled amendment No 63, which will replace clause 36 and provide a more effective framework from which to establish such a commission. I trust that there will be universal support for the amendment.”
“The Department would have to consider all possible leakages in order to decide what it can ignore because it is not substantial or unreasonable. <BR /> <BR />The clause refers to policies in other countries being addressed against the targets in sections 1, 3 and 4. However, the targets in sections 1, 3 and 4 are for the reduction of Northern Ireland's emissions. Again, it does not make sense to talk about those targets in the context of other countries. The clause refers to countries with policies but ignores the possibility that some countries may have no policies at all. Therefore, I have tabled amendment No 62, which will replace the existing text in clause 35, correct those errors and improve the requirements for carbon leakage in the Bill.”
“As I mentioned earlier when I talked about clause 25, there are two clauses that, following amendments at Consideration Stage, define carbon leakage, with clause 35 being the second of those. However, clause 35 is technically defective in a number of ways. The clause imposes a duty that applies when setting out policies and proposals, whereas, in order to be effective, the duty must apply to the earlier stage of deciding those policies and proposals. The clause refers to "the department" — meaning DAERA — whereas the policies and proposals are decided by each Northern Ireland Department in its own area. It does not make sense to limit the Department's duty to "substantial or unreasonable" leakage because those words are ill-defined.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will not move amendment Nos 57 and 58 as they were dependent on other amendments that did not make it on to the Marshalled List.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 52 requires my Department to explain how it will mitigate any impacts uncovered through relevant financial, social, economic and rural impact assessments and links to the amendments that I referred to earlier in that regard. The element of identifying mitigation actions to address potential impacts is already required when carrying out the numerous assessments that I alluded to earlier. The amendment is unnecessary, albeit that the intent behind it is fine. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 56 makes a minor update to the wording in clause 32, so that the reference to the SEM committee and its role in providing advice on energy production and supply is focused on the functions relevant to the Bill rather than having it provide advice on all its functions, which the current wording would require.”
“the clause does not contain any special provision about small businesses and its title is, therefore, inaccurate. Although the clause refers to small and microbusinesses, it does not distinguish between them, defining them both as being businesses "with less than 50 employees". Moreover, clause 29(9) already makes provision about small businesses, so, again, there is duplication. <BR /> <BR />I have tabled amendment Nos 47, 50, 51 and 59 to correct the errors in clause 34 and to combine the provisions of clause 29(9) to (12), which also cover the impacts on small businesses, to make coherent special provision about small businesses. I urge Members to support the amendments to remove the duplication and to provide clarity on the assessments that are required.”
“<BR /> <BR />Given the amendments that I have tabled, amendment No 44, which was proposed by Mr McGuigan and colleagues, is unnecessary, as the proposed text does not add anything of substance that cannot be covered through regulations, which my Department will bring forward under the power provided by amendment No 53. <BR /> <BR />Clause 34, which was inserted at Consideration Stage and purports to cover impacts on small businesses, is technically defective in a number of respects. It states that policies and proposals must "explain" and "set out", whereas it is the report under section 28 that will explain and set out matters. As paragraphs (a) and (b) are expressed as being:”
“<BR /> <BR />A power to make regulations of that kind generally includes explicit provision about what the regulations may do, in order to ensure that there is no doubt about what the scheme can do. Without the provisions, the scheme would be vulnerable to legal challenge. I have, therefore, tabled amendment Nos 43 and 53, which remove the duplication and place a requirement on my Department to bring forward regulations to establish a scheme for the administration of such a fund and outline the types of elements that the regulations should cover. Amendment No 53 provides the necessary powers to give legal effect to such a scheme.”
“under clause 25 carries through into clause 29. <BR /> <BR />I turn to amendment No 43. Clauses 29(5) and 30, which were inserted by amendments at Consideration Stage, contain exactly the same text about the establishment of a just transition fund for agriculture. Both are defective in a number of ways, in addition to the fact that they duplicate each other. They state that the Department must establish a scheme but give no indication of the mechanism for doing so. Presumably, it is to be done by regulations, which would be subject to draft affirmative procedure. There is confusion in the provisions between the words "scheme" and "fund". Those are different things. A scheme must be established to administer the fund in order to make it work.”
“Amendment No 42, also tabled by Mr McGuigan and his colleagues, attempts to place a new consideration to be taken into account when producing the reports under clause 28. However, again, that is not necessary as it is effectively provided for under clause 25(1)(n) regarding carbon budgets. Proposals and policies under clause 28 must be set in order to achieve those carbon budgets, so the need to have due regard to:”
“I am sure that you will agree that having one clear, robust and overarching five-year climate action plan to deliver and meet carbon budgets and targets is the right way to proceed. Amendment No 39 replaces the word "period" in clause 28(7) with the word "day", as the use of the word "period" in that context does not make any sense. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 40 is a pointless amendment. While I appreciate why Mr McGuigan and his colleagues have put it forward, it achieves nothing in the context of the provision in which it would be inserted. That requires coordination of policies and proposals, where desirable, with Ireland, the UK and elsewhere. The proposed text will have no impact on that. It is simply window dressing.”
“Many Members would agree with me that there is already too much duplication across different plans and strategies, and therefore it does not help in delivering the right messages to stakeholders and the public. <BR /> <BR />I recognised that the will of the House was to have a climate action plan. Therefore, I have tabled amendment Nos 37, 38, 45, 46, 48, 49, 54, 55, 60, 61, 64 and 65 to combine all the substantive requirements of clause 50 into clauses 28 and 31, and to adopt the label "Climate action plans" for the reports under clause 28. That includes the relevant consultation requirements and the requirements around annual greenhouse gas and air quality targets.”
“Clause 50 requires the publication and laying of climate action plans that set out how interim targets and the 2050 target will be achieved. That is, in substance, identical to the requirement in clause 28, which covers reports setting out proposals and policies for meeting the carbon budget that are themselves five-yearly and are required to be set by reference to the targets. The problem is that, although the requirements are substantively the same as those of clause 28, the two provisions require different things in law. If the Bill were to pass as it stands, it would contain duties on my Department to publish both types of documents, saying the same things, and would increase bureaucracy, unnecessary administrative burdens and additional cost, with no practical benefit.”
“I have therefore tabled amendment Nos 27 to 35 to update the relevant references in the clause to "budgets". <BR /> <BR />Clause 25 also contains a definition of "carbon leakage", but I have tabled a separate amendment to replace the definition of carbon leakage in clause 35. It makes sense to have a consistent definition throughout the Bill. There is no reason why there should be different definitions for essentially the same concept. The definition in clause 25 is also defective in that refers only to "production", and the phrase "less restrictive policies" is not adequately explained. I have therefore tabled amendment No 36 to address that and insert a more coherent definition of carbon leakage. <BR /> <BR />Clause 50, which was added at Consideration Stage, essentially duplicates the substance of clause 28.”
“Amendment No 23, tabled by Mr McGuigan and colleagues, also attempts to make a minor amendment to clause 22, but again it is unnecessary. The right amendments to support with regard to that clause are amendment Nos 24 to 26. <BR /> <BR />As I highlighted during the Consideration Stage debate, clause 25, which was added at that stage, is defective, because, although the heading refers to "budgets", and it appears in a run of clauses that deal with carbon budgets, it refers throughout to "targets". In the Bill, targets are set by clauses 1, 3 and 4. Clause 25 also purports to impose a duty on my Department "when setting targets", but my Department does not set them, except if it amends them under clause 5. It appears that every reference to "targets" in clause 25 is intended to be a reference to "budgets".”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 26 addresses duplication contained in clause 22(4)(a), which requires the Department to have regard to the advice of the UK Climate Change Committee. That requirement is already imposed by clause 55, which requires the advice of the Climate Change Committee to be sought before any regulations under the Bill are made, so it is not necessary to restate the requirement in respect of the regulations that can be made under clause 22. As I highlighted during the Consideration Stage debate, it is poor drafting practice to repeat the same provision in different parts of the same Bill, since that achieves nothing in law and just creates confusion. I have therefore tabled amendment Nos 24 to 26 to remove those defective provisions.”
“<BR /> <BR />I turn to amendment Nos 22 to 26, all of which relate to clause 22. Subsections 2 to 4 of clause 22 are defective in a number of respects. Amendment Nos 24 and 25 address issues with subsections 2 and 3 of clause 22. Subsection 2 currently requires carbon budgets to be laid "with" the Assembly, when it should be "before" the Assembly. Subsection 3 also requires carbon budgets to be approved by draft affirmative resolution, but, because carbon budgets are required to be made by regulations, the requirements are already imposed by clause 52(3) of the Bill, which requires such regulations to be laid before the Assembly and approved by draft affirmative resolution.”
“and to assess equality impacts when carrying out their functions. <BR /> <BR />Given the importance of the plans that will be produced under the Bill, they will require Executive approval, and all necessary assessments of impacts will have to be undertaken. Furthermore, through amendment No 59, which I proposed and which creates a new clause to replace clause 34, the Bill already requires the impacts of policies and proposals on the workforce, employers and communities to be assessed and proposals and policies to be included to support the workforce, employers and communities. Amendment Nos 20, 22, 41 and 70 are therefore not necessary. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 21 links to amendment No 2 in group 1, and, as that amendment was not agreed, I will not support amendment No 21.”
“Under the Rural Needs Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, Northern Ireland Departments also have a legal duty to have, "due regard to rural needs". Indeed, the Rural Needs Act requires Departments to complete a rural needs impact assessment in respect of significant policies and plans produced under this Bill. Those assessments will assess the impacts on the rural community. <BR /> <BR />In addition, under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, all Departments have a duty to:”
“The RIA includes an assessment of the impact of the policy options on financial cost, economic benefits and social impacts and on the risks of a proposal. The RIA process will identify viable policy options, assess the effects and value the costs and benefits of each option and carry out an economic assessment of the best option.”
“That was tabled by Mr McGuigan and his colleagues, who also tabled amendment Nos 22, 41 and 70, which create similar requirements around the commissioning of various impact assessments in respect of plans and reports to be produced under the Bill. I want to make it clear that I am very much in favour of such assessments being carried out, but requirements to assess the impacts of policies and plans are already covered in greater detail and with more clarity in other legislation and strategies. The Northern Ireland better regulations strategy places a requirement on Departments to complete a regulatory impact assessment, known as an RIA, when developing new policies, proposals, significant plans, new legislation etc.”
“<BR /> <BR />In the time available, given the number of amendments that were agreed at Consideration Stage, it has not been possible to fix or address all the drafting issues in the Bill as a result of those amendments having been made. We have to try to address some of the more obvious issues, which include provisions that duplicate things that were already in the Bill, provisions that are not correctly linked to the framework created by the Bill and provisions that require Departments to establish bodies or funds without providing any legal powers for them to do so, as well as a number of other defective provisions. <BR /> <BR />The first amendment in this group is amendment No 20.”
“As with some of the amendments in group 1, my officials engaged with the proposers of the amendments upon which the fixes are being attempted to explain the rationale behind the further amendments and make it clear that they will not change the will or amend the policy ambitions agreed at Consideration Stage. Rather, these amendments will make the Bill more workable and improve the operability for a multi-decadal piece of legislation. Some of the Members in question seem willing to accept the rationale behind some of the proposed amendments, and I hope that all Members want the legislation to be at least technically operable and that they will be supportive of the intent behind these technical amendments, which are necessary to make the Bill a more coherent and effective piece of legislation.”
“As I highlighted during the debate on the group 1 amendments, I have tabled technical amendments to remove duplication and to link more effectively the elements added to the Bill at Consideration Stage to the framework of the Bill as introduced. The majority of those amendments are in this group.”
“Do we not all have a duty to play our part in ensuring that we protect food security? We can look at what may happen in 30 years' time, but I can tell you what will happen in a few short years if we keep going the way in which we are going: we will have a significant food problem, not just here but in many parts of the world. <BR /> <BR />I remind Members that, if my amendments in this group are agreed and voted through today, in addition to my amendments that will be covered in the group 2 debate later, they will improve the effectiveness of this key legislation for Northern Ireland and will maintain and enhance the overall climate change ambition.”
“— of this Building. I am coming to a conclusion, so I will finish at this point. <BR /> <BR />I appreciate that Members share my view of the fundamental importance of successfully addressing climate change in a way that ensures that we have a joined-up approach to tackling the issues, and that we get buy-in from all sectors, which is important. We must not push our emissions to other parts of the world, as some in the Chamber wish to do, because that will not reduce global emissions; it will decimate the most important sector of our economy if we attempt to do so. Such actions would not deliver successful outcomes in addressing climate change. <BR /> <BR />The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that was published today further confirms the importance of protecting food security while reducing emissions on a global level.”
“Now, we can save the industry, but, if we go down the route that Ms Bailey wants us to go down, it will end up in shreds, just as the textile industry and the shipbuilding industry ended up in shreds in the lifetime —”
“Ms Bailey seems to misunderstand the situation. Coal-fired power stations are being built today in China. Its emissions continue to rise. We have a war in Russia. Russia has done a 30-year deal to sell gas to China, and we buy our products from China. That is the world that we currently live in. We live in a globalised world. We need to have jobs in this country for our people, otherwise, we will go back to the 1980s, when our biggest export was the human beings who were born here. <BR /> <BR />I am proud that our agri-food industry, which was recognised for its contribution, in the Senate Chamber, when this Building opened, is still here and is still providing over 100,000 jobs here, in Northern Ireland, while the other two industries — the linen industry and the shipbuilding industry — have disappeared.”
“I will. <BR /> <BR />All of those other countries' contributions will simply replace what we are doing. I do not propose doing nothing. The Member to whom I will give way in a moment always talks about doing nothing. We have never suggested doing nothing. We should do our bit in a way that does not destroy our economy and then hands what we were doing over to others who will produce even more greenhouse gases to replace the products that we produced.”
“We produce one twentieth — 5% — of the UK's emissions. China produces 22 times the emissions of the UK, which, in my book, is around 440 times the emissions of Northern Ireland. For every percentage that Northern Ireland produces, China produces 440. China is not participating in the reduction that needs to happen. Brazil is not. Russia is not. Saudi Arabia is not. The Members who think that flooding in the Glenelly valley is a consequence of climate change may think that they can stop that by their actions in Northern Ireland alone. They cannot.”
“I am pleased that we have got to this stage of the Bill's legislative passage. I am also keen to push forward so that the Bill is agreed by the end of the mandate. We all know that tackling climate change is a complex issue that requires long-term solutions, collective efforts and a coordinated approach. As an Assembly, we have a duty to ensure that the legislation that we put in place on such a deeply impactful issue is in a form that is both coherent and effective. If my amendments in this group, and, indeed, those in group 2 that we will debate later, are voted through today, that will go some way to delivering that. <BR /> <BR />In supporting our agriculture sector, I will say this: if Sinn Féin thinks that Northern Ireland can do that alone and ignore what is going on in the rest of the world, it is, quite frankly, in la-la land.”
“It is important that we not only make our contribution but provide a massive amount of energy, which will eventually take us to using 100% renewable energy that is produced in this country and not be relying on what happens in other places. <BR /> <BR />I particularly hope that those Members who said that they want to deliver on that climate ambition while supporting agriculture and the farming and rural community remain true to their words. Sinn Féin is backing away from its words already, so the words that its Members said in the past couple of weeks were meaningless. I hope that Members demonstrate their position of support by voting accordingly. <BR /> <BR />There is a clear and immediate need for local legislation in Northern Ireland to tackle effectively the serious issue of climate change.”
“Our ability to capture more biomethane and the need for a green growth strategy that invests in supporting further capture of biomethane were very prevalent in those discussions. We discussed how biomethane at 80% could be mixed with 20% hydrogen and used in boilers that people have in their home today without the boilers requiring amendment or change. How beneficial would it be if we in Northern Ireland were to produce more biomethane from the agriculture sector and put that into our systems instead of using gas, the price of which is being driven upwards because of war in Europe? The logical position is therefore to support the agri-food sector in doing what it can do to provide that food security, and not just for here but for these islands. That is important, because we get lots of things back, particularly from Great Britain.”
“— insulted the entire audience by telling them that all they could ever do was talk about doom and gloom, thus castigating the farming community that, to be frank, puts bread and butter on our tables. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 17 does not preclude anybody in the primary agriculture sector from engaging in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon and methane. It does not enforce or put something upon them, but nor does it in any way preclude the many farmers who want to and who will engage in doing that from ensuring that they reduce their carbon footprint and that they do so much. <BR /> <BR />Indeed, I had discussions today with officials from the Department for the Economy.”
“I am happy to take interventions from Mr McAleer, but you did not wish to give way to others, Mr McGuigan, and did not want to debate. Given that that is how you wanted it, I am happy not to engage with you. It is not because I am afraid of anything that you have to say, by the way. I am happy to take Mr McAleer's points, but there is sometimes a price to be paid for ignoring everybody else when they want to make interventions. <BR /> <BR />I will return to amendment no 17. By the way, Mr McAleer, when you go down all those divergent routes, it demonstrates that you cannot argue on the case that is before you today. I know that you tried to go down those divergent routes when you went to the Glenavon House Hotel, and that did not go down too well there either, but that was before Ms Gildernew —”
“If Sinn Féin does not want any reductions in herd numbers, it has to support amendment No 17. You — Sinn Féin's Members — said those words, and I have produced an amendment to enable you to put your vote to them. I expect you to support what you said. I anticipate that you will engage in something that will ensure that you can stand over what you said in the Chamber.”
“It would prevent the offshoring of food production and the resultant offshoring of emissions and negative global emissions impact. I remind you — for Mr Blair and Ms Bailey's information — that amendment No 1 aligns with the science and the advice of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UK Climate Change Committee's balanced pathway advice and the Paris agreement. One might ask: what is not to like? I trust that Members will recognise that, in supporting our agriculture and our farming community, we must remain true to our word. I trust that they will demonstrate that support by voting accordingly. <BR /> <BR />When Members look at what is available to them in amendment No 17, they should see that it was contrived precisely because of Sinn Féin's words in the House.”
“Sinn Féin said that it was the great friend of the eastern European and Portuguese people who came here to work in the food sector, but it is prepared to do away with their jobs. Perhaps Sinn Féin Members will stand outside factories this time and give out leaflets saying, "Sinn Féin wants legislation passed that will deny you the opportunity of working here in Northern Ireland, the place that you have made your home". Tell that to the Polish people, the Lithuanians, the Hungarians, the Portuguese and all those fine people who go into our factories and do a day's work to earn a living. They are people whom we should all respect. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1 would prevent such unintended and negative impacts on the agri-food sector and, most importantly, on food security.”
“If you want to take the CCC's advice, take it by backing me today. <BR /> <BR />Mr Allister is right that amendment No 1 will not solve all the problems. We will, however, live in a changing farm environment, where there will be considerable investment in anaerobic digestion and some shift to vertical farming and horticulture as a consequence, because the heat from anaerobic digestion will make us competitive in those areas. <BR /> <BR />There is an opportunity to invest and still deliver significant agricultural output, but I recognise that that will not be without pain. I also recognise that around 13,000 farmers will, potentially, lose their farms as a consequence of what was passed at Consideration Stage. In addition, tens of thousands of people who work in the agri-food sector will lose their jobs.”
“When we sit down with the CCC and ask, "What do we need to do to deliver this?", that is the message that comes back.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your commentary, but we are talking about methane, and one of the big contributors of methane is landfill. People are resisting taking difficult decisions in other places. As a consequence, we produce more methane, but they are ignoring their contribution to that. <BR /> <BR />From Sinn Féin, Mr McAleer talked about Glenelly valley. Under the proposals that he voted for, he need not worry about farmers in the Glenelly valley: they will not exist, and nor will the farmers in the glens of Antrim and up in the higher regions in Dunloy and Loughguile. The farmers in Fermanagh will pretty much not exist under the proposals that Sinn Féin supported. Mr McGuigan can shake his head, but those are the facts.”
“In a moment. If we are going to achieve what we need to achieve, the parish pump politics of objecting to every solar panel, wind turbine, anaerobic digester and every other means of renewable energy need to stop, because we will need those things if we are going to achieve net zero. I give way.”