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 8 of 71.
“Alliance needs to wake up and smell the coffee. My proposal is for the good of people in Northern Ireland. It will pull us back from the brink that so many in the Chamber took us to just a few weeks ago. We will have a less environmentally sustainable system and a more negative situation with global emissions if you do not accept the proposals that I have tabled today. <BR /> <BR />Ms Bailey talks a lot about methane, but, when it comes to household waste and there is an energy-from-waste proposal on the table, she cries out for more methane coming from the landfill sites because she is not prepared to put her hand up and to support the proposal. Let us be honest about it in the Chamber: if we are going to achieve what we need to achieve —”
“If those Members actually understood agri-food production in Northern Ireland in the way that they should before they legislate, they would recognise that the carbon footprint of the milk and beef produced in Northern Ireland is considerably lower than that of most of its competitors. <BR /> <BR />Mr Blair says that the methane levels have risen over the past number of years, but that is because production has risen. Actually, methane output, compared with the production of food, has gone down. Does he really think that it would be better to do that in South America, North America or central Europe, where they will produce more methane and more greenhouse gases than we produce in Northern Ireland? Does he think that it would be better to export jobs to those places rather than have them in Northern Ireland?”
“My amendment makes it clear to our important rural communities that they are making a fair and proportionate contribution. I find it ironic that the Green Party is now quoting the Climate Change Committee's advice to support its position on amendments, when it blatantly disregarded it in pursuit of a net zero target for Northern Ireland by 2045 and 2050. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1 aims to protect and support our local food production. What the Green Party and, now, the Alliance Party and some other Members continually fail to grasp is that it is important that we protect food security and do not simply offshore our emissions.”
“In order to achieve net zero or net emission reductions of other greenhouse gases, we will need to go beyond net zero. Therefore, that means having more removals, including engineered removals, than emissions of those particular gases. <BR /> <BR />I will highlight that, in every scenario, other than a complete closure of the entire agriculture sector, we were always going to need to go beyond net zero in many of the other sectors.”
“<BR /> <BR />I note also that on 'Farm Gate' this morning, the Green Party said that the Climate Change Committee had said that no sources of emission can qualify for special treatment and that all emissions from all sectors must be eliminated or offset with removals. I would like to be clear that my amendment No 1 does not apply a special treatment to methane, and to make such a statement is wrong. That demonstrates those Members' lack of understanding of climate science. The Paris agreement and the advice of experts, including the IPCC, concluded that deep emissions reductions will still have to be made in the agriculture sector, and net zero will still need to be achieved by Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole under the amended Bill.”
“I am grateful for Members' contributions to the debate thus far. They have been valuable and informative. I ask Members to support amendment Nos 1 and 17 today. Amendment No 1 covers potential levels of methane reductions in the context of the net zero emissions targets. I remind Members that methane levels are set not within a supplementary target but are a clarification on a fair contribution towards NI net zero. Some Members have said that that amendment will undermine our ability to reduce overall emissions and will limit our ability to reduce our contribution to global warming. That is simply not true. My amendment does not limit the Assembly's climate ambition.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I would like him to elaborate on what new advice he has received from the UK CCC or, indeed, the IPCC that we need 100% for methane. They gave an overall recommendation of 82% in the first place. If they have now changed to 100% for everything, that certainly comes as news to me, my Department and everybody else. If he has something, I would be happy to hear from him.”
“Does the Member recognise that amendment No 17 was tabled to allow Mr McGuigan and his colleagues to follow through on what they said? If you do not want any cuts to the herd, you have to accept amendment No 17, because amendment No 1 allows for the 42%, which will still present significant challenges, but, if you want to go as far as Mr McGuigan and the team claim to want in not allowing any cuts to the herd, you have to accept amendment No 17.”
“Does the Member agree that the only way of saving this is by voting through the amendments that I have proposed, which will ensure that the rural community has something genuine and that some people are putting their votes where their mouths are when it comes to standing up for the rural and farming generations?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. It is clear that Mr McGuigan, who was engaged in a monologue, as opposed to a debate, was not that keen on taking interventions. Does the Member agree that it was not this party that set a division between the farming community and what was being proposed in the legislation? If Members across the way think that farmers are stupid and that they are all about doom and gloom and nothing else, they do not understand the farming community. Farmers understood the impact that the legislation would have on the generations of work that occurred before them and that the generations that come after them would be destroyed as a consequence of the proposals that were voted through previously.”
“Let us ensure that we do not sell our young people short but do the right thing by supporting rural communities and the agri-food sector, in particular, through the Bill.”
“They will do what we are setting out to do, which is to ensure that we have a much better environment, considerably reduce the amount of carbon in our environment through greenhouse gases and sustain our agri-food sector for generations to come. We have young people who are dependent on opportunities in the agri-food sector to continue to live in our rural communities. As we see people move into cities across the world, let us in Northern Ireland do something a bit different by ensuring that our rural communities can not just survive but thrive and continue to have a place of value to them in which people can sustain a living without having to move to cities or, indeed, other countries for employment opportunities.”
“The amendment will retain the intent of the original amendment, but, crucially, it will make it operable. Indeed, that is what all my professionally drafted, technical-fix amendments have been put forward to do. <BR /> <BR />In summary, Members will be glad to hear, I urge Members to accept and agree all the amendments that I have tabled to protect our agriculture sector and community. I cannot support the other group 1 amendments, because my amendments will achieve the same outcomes in a more legally coherent way. As an Assembly, we need to do the right thing, ensure that we tackle the complex and urgent issue of climate change collectively and support and protect our key sectors. I commend my amendments to the House.”
“and places a restriction so that the limit:”
“Those are fairly minor amendments. They attempt to do the same thing, but my suggested wording is more commonly used. I therefore urge Members to support amendment No 15. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 18 would replace clause 10(3), which was inserted at Consideration Stage. As I highlighted during that debate, the provision is defective in that it supposes that regulations under clause 10(1) will specify reductions in the net emissions account, whereas the regulations only set the framework for calculating that account. While I support the principle of the amendment that was agreed at Consideration Stage, it did not specify what kind of reduction is forbidden and does not link properly to the power in subsection (1). I have therefore tabled amendment No 18, which requires regulations under clause 10(1) to:”
“My amendment links to the power in the Bill to amend the targets for 2030 and 2040 and retains the current targets for 2030 and 2040 until the relevant analysis has been undertaken of whether they should be changed and to what. Given that various provisions in the Bill refer to the targets in clauses 3 and 4, it is better to retain an actual target in those clauses than to substitute the suggested wording in amendment Nos 3 and 4. I therefore urge Members to support amendment No 5 rather than amendment Nos 3 and 4. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 15 and 16 relate to clause 8(3)(d). Amendment No 16 would change the wording in the provision to the use of "emissions removal technology", but amendment No 15, which I have tabled, would change it to:”
“They are linked to clause 2, which was agreed at Consideration Stage. However, I have tabled amendment No 5, which would add new clause 5A. That will better achieve what amendment Nos 3 and 4 and, indeed, clause 2 are trying to do. Under amendment No 5, creates new clause 5A, which requires the existing 2030 and 2040 targets to be reviewed in the context of the target in clause 1 and, if appropriate, update it within two years using the powers in clause 5.”
“Amendment Nos 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12 are consequential to amendment No 1, and amendment Nos 9, 11, 13, 14 and 19 are consequential to amendment No 17. Those are all minor technical amendments to update references. I will not go into the detail of those amendments, as the key decisions to make are on amendment Nos 1 and 17. <BR /> <BR />Turning to the other amendments in the group, amendment Nos 3 and 4 attempt to replace the current 2030 and 2040 targets with the words”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 17 would also provide my Department with the power to make regulations in the future that specify the extent to which, and under which circumstances, emissions of greenhouse gases from agricultural sources count as Northern Ireland emissions of that gas for the purpose of the targets in the Bill. Amendment No 17 would protect the agriculture sector from the negative consequences of a net zero target and allow us to decide in the longer term which emissions from agriculture should count towards the targets in the Bill.”
“Therefore, I hope that those Members who supported the net zero target and, at the same time, expressed their support for the agriculture sector will see amendment No 1 as being a positive additional element to the Bill and support it. <BR /> <BR />I have also tabled amendment No 17, which aims to remove agricultural emissions from the targets in the Bill as an alternative for Members. That amendment would mean that agricultural emissions from specific agriculture sources do not count as emissions of gas for the purposes of the target in the Bill. The sources in question are the primary sources of agricultural emissions in Northern Ireland, namely emissions from enteric fermentation and other emissions from livestock; emissions from agricultural soils, wastes and manure management; and emissions from agricultural machinery.”
“I considered that as being complementary to my amendment No 1, and would have been willing to support it on that basis. Unfortunately, the Speaker has ruled that amendment Nos 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive, which I understand. If both amendments were passed, it would cause a problem. <BR /> <BR />My amendment is the better one for a number of reasons. There are no targets for biogenic methane in clauses one to four of the Bill, nor will there necessarily be any expressed in those terms in carbon budgets. Therefore if we want to effectively incorporate something useful in the Bill on methane at this stage, Members should support my amendment, which deals with specifics regarding the amount of reductions in baselines and is, therefore, more legally robust and easier to measure in terms of deliverability.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr McGuigan, Mr McAleer and Dr Archibald have tabled amendment No 2, which requires that, in terms of targets for biogenic methane reductions, we aim that they:”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1 does not, as some might claim, limit the ambition of farmers. Rather, it shows that you are all committed to protecting rural communities and the important role of agriculture in our economy and in those rural communities, whilst, at the same time, to pursuing the ambition of net zero for Northern Ireland. The level of reductions can, of course, be higher as technologies evolve, but, for now, the amendment recognises the special characteristics of methane and the need for us to produce food from livestock from which there will be methane emissions instead of simply shifting that food production to elsewhere in the world — to another island or another land mass — where the methane continues to be produced. We can all agree that that would be a better outcome.”
“However, another threat to food security — a very real one in Northern Ireland — is the pursuit of policies that would decimate our food production capacity. Amendment No 1 will help to prevent that from happening. It will protect and preserve the overall net zero target, which was the will of the House, while ensuring that the levels of methane reductions required are consistent with the advice and guidance of the experts. In so doing, it will help to provide some degree of protection for our agriculture sector without limiting overall climate ambition. The protection of the agriculture sector was clearly stated as being the will of many Members, so now is the time to vote for an amendment that will help to do just that and show that it is their genuine will.”
“I note that the IPCC has today published a global report, titled 'Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability', which makes for stark reading. I want to take time to read it in depth and analyse its findings in more detail. The report, however, again highlights the serious risks that we face from the impacts of global climate change and the need urgently to do much more about adaptation and reducing our global emissions. The report also highlights, in line with the Paris agreement, the importance of food security and the threats to food security from climate change.”
“The potential level of reductions in methane emissions is consistent — this is important — with the advice from the IPCC and with the CCC's "balanced pathway" recommendations on methane and the ambition that we should have for reducing methane emissions. Importantly, it will prevent a situation in which, in the context of aiming for overall net zero, disproportionate reductions in methane emissions are pursued.”
“In the context of those comments, I look forward to the support of the Members from those parties that I have mentioned for amendment No 1. Amendment No 1 ensures that, in the context of aiming for net zero emissions by 2050, the level of reductions in methane emissions is not required:”
“He further highlighted developments and plans in the South of Ireland and indicated that cuts to the herd are not being called for there in the context of the South's carbon neutrality target. He said that Sinn Féin would not allow beef and sheep farmers in less-favoured areas (LFAs) to go out of business. Indeed, Mr McGuigan said that Sinn Féin would not tolerate food production in Ireland being reduced only to be replaced by unsustainable imports from the other side of the globe and that it would protect the interests of family farmers, and the communities that depend on them. There is therefore an opportunity for Mr McGuigan and the other Sinn Féin Members to put their votes where their words were in the previous debate, and that opportunity will come this evening at some stage. <BR /> <BR />Mr O'Toole said:”
“Mr McGuigan, speaking for Sinn Féin — at least I assume that he was — said:”
“I believe that the only inevitable sanctions that will make any real difference to Russia are those that include its oil and gas. Whenever that filters through, however, Russia is going apply further pressure on us. The decisions that we make in this country must therefore be in the best interests of the people whom we represent. One of those decisions should be that we sustain our ability to produce food for the people who live on these islands. <BR /> <BR />During the debate at Consideration Stage, a number of Members who supported the 2050 net zero target also indicated that they supported the agriculture sector, that they cared about farming and that aiming for such a target did not mean that there would be cuts to the herd. Ms Bailey said that the Green Party was pro-farmer. She said:”
“We are living in a circumstance in which the things that we use every day, such as the light that we switch on in the morning, the kettle that we boil and the bread that we put in the toaster are all impacted on by what is happening many thousands of miles away. We are all affected by that. The significance of that, and its potential impact, is absolutely huge and game-changing for the rest of the world. <BR /> <BR />Ukraine produces enough food to feed 600 million people. If this becomes a protracted war in which harvests are not planted, the implications for food supply will be felt this year by the rest of the world. That will include your bread, chicken, and dairy products: all those things. As well as oil and gas, Russia is one of the largest suppliers of nitrogen fertiliser.”
“Those present are well aware of my view on that target; it is not just my view but that of the Climate Change Committee (CCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I have consistently highlighted that there is no evidence to support such a target and that the impacts and costs of trying to achieve such a target would be colossal. Unfortunately, it is clear that some people do not want to face those facts. <BR /> <BR />The consequence of the potential impact of those proposals is even more clear to us now than they were when we debated at Consideration Stage. No one anticipated war in Europe in this century. No one anticipated that the second-largest producer of fossil fuels — oil and gas — in the world would invade one of the largest food providers in the world.”
“Instead, the amendments are making the Bill more workable and improving the operability of what would be a multi-decade piece of legislation. Some of the Members in question seem willing to accept the rationale behind some of the proposed amendments. I hope that all Members want the legislation to be at least technically operable and will be supportive of the intent behind the technical amendments. <BR /> <BR />I will discuss the majority of the fixes in more detail during the group 2 debate. First, I want to focus on the amendments in group 1, particularly amendment Nos 1 and 17, which I have tabled. Amendment No 1 would amend clause 1, which sets out the emissions reduction target for 2050. The amendments made at Consideration Stage mean that the overall target in clause 1 is for net zero emissions by 2050.”
“I have tabled a number of amendments to my Bill. I am hopeful that Members will appreciate the reasons and logic behind the tabling of those amendments and, ultimately, support them. The vast majority of the amendments are technical amendments to remove duplication from the Bill and to more effectively link the additional elements added to the Bill at Consideration Stage within the framework of the Bill as introduced. <BR /> <BR />My officials have engaged with the proposers of the amendments upon which these fixes are being attempted to explain the rationale behind the further amendments and to make clear that they are not changing the will or amending the policy ambitions agreed at Consideration Stage.”
“Of course, MPAs have legal protection, so the areas within those already have that legal protection. Going beyond that, a course of work needs to be done to identify the best way forward. If that includes legal protection, we are open to looking at that. It is entirely up to the Member, but I would prefer it if she was not so cynical about everything that the Department does. It is a Department that cares for the environment, and it is a Department that wants to take the right steps to ensure that we can manage the difficult circumstance of protecting our environment while allowing people to live in it, enjoy it and earn a living in it. Matching all those things is important, but protecting the environment is a top priority for the Department.”
“Obviously, reducing the amount of carbon that we produce is important, and that is one element of it. The other element is carbon sequestration. We have a significant understanding of what goes on on land, for example. The process of photosynthesis demonstrates to us very clearly what forestry and grass production can do in the sequestration of carbon, and we all know what the peatlands do in storing carbon. We have a lot of water around Northern Ireland, so we need to ensure that we can maximise what we are doing in Northern Ireland's waters to ensure that we can deliver carbon sequestration in those waters and make a significant contribution from that source going forward.”
“In the green growth strategy, however, it will be important that we recognise that it is not just about land-based operation but about sea-based operation. Therefore, our green growth team will certainly be looking at engaging in the development of blue carbon.”
“We can do other things as part of the environment strategy. When it comes to marine planning for Northern Ireland and whether it will provide protection for blue-carbon habitats, there is a second iteration of the draft marine plan, which is up for consideration as a final and adopted marine plan by the end of 2022. The draft policies are being updated in order to address the issues that have been raised during the public consultation and will include policies for the protection of blue-carbon habitats. <BR /> <BR />As well as that, work is ongoing on the green growth strategy, which was presented to the Executive, to continue taking into consideration the feedback and comments from the consultation process.”
“Thankfully, we have a forward-looking fishing industry, which is already working in collaboration with one of the environmental NGOs on what is potentially available at sea. That is to be welcomed, and I commend our fishing organisations, and NIFF in particular, which have not had to be forced into doing something and are voluntarily working with the environmental organisations to get the best outcomes for our important coastal areas.”
“Considerably stricter conditions already operate in those marine protected areas than in areas that are not protected. Therefore, it is very important to progress the blue-carbon plan and to revisit our marine protection areas and the respective plans. The marine protected areas will give us the potential for considerable further development of the blue-carbon sequestration that will take place. It is important to ensure that we can do that in a way that allows communities to know what we are doing in their best interests, particularly the coastal communities in the likes of Red Bay and the Skerries and so forth, and so that we can work with them in order to ensure that we have buy-in and support from them for the work that is going on.”
“I do. It is critical that, if we are to find a way forward on this, we do the pilot projects and see the beneficial aspects coming through and any potential problems that there might be. We need it to be demonstrated clearly to us that, if we invest in that, we are investing in the right thing, which will deliver the benefits that we assume that we will get. We need to be very clear that we move beyond assumptions and do something that is based on qualitative research and science.”
“I have made a statement in the House today, and, of course, my officials will be happy to meet the Committee and discuss the issue. Hopefully you have time in your programme to allow for that in the few weeks that remain. On the question of consulting people, we have been working with environmental NGOs in particular and will continue to do that. Going forward, we will work with the environmental NGOs, the representatives of the fishing organisations and the representatives of the renewable energy industry, because all those people will be key to delivery going forward.”
“Salt marshes are very important for us, and we would certainly like to see more of them. That is a significant capacity issue, and we have developed additional salt marshes in Strangford lough. We will continue to engage in that course of work to see where it is appropriate and beneficial to develop those salt marshes, but they have certainly been identified as a key store of carbon. It is important for us to consider the opportunities that exist.”
“It is about the right actions, and Mrs Barton has just raised an issue that demonstrates very clearly to us the importance of getting it right. Therefore, we will continue to carry out scientific investigation and do a course of work to ensure that we get it right. We appreciate the work that has been done thus far, some of which is less clear about next steps than others, but we need to engage in next steps, and that will be primarily on developing the scientific basis to take us to the next platform on using blue carbon for the benefit of the climate.”
“That is why we are investigating further and carrying out further studies, and that is why it will probably take two years to be in a position where we have the scientific basis to appropriately move forward on both blue carbon and marine protected areas and to be able do so with absolute confidence that what we are doing will be beneficial.”
“In order to make progress, my Department is seeking to commission a feasibility study that will explore potential sites that can provide a sustainable source of seaweed for use as supplements in animal feeds.”
“Global research has shown that seaweeds can significantly reduce methane emissions when used as a supplement in animal feeds. AFBI and Queen's University are working with a number of EU partners to investigate the use of local seaweeds as feed additives for cattle and sheep under Northern Ireland farming conditions. <BR /> <BR />However, harvesting wild seaweeds for use in animal feed supplements would have a negative impact on blue-carbon habitats and the ecosystem services that they provide, including absorbing wave energy, providing natural protection against coastal erosion and providing a nursery habitat for commercial fish species. Therefore, it would be preferable to use aquaculture rather than wild harvesting, and opportunities for seaweed aquaculture will be explored further as part of the green growth strategy.”
“Of course, we have North/South bodies that will help us to deal with those issues, particularly the Loughs Agency. It will be for the Loughs Agency to bring forward proposals for approval on those issues.”
“In the interim, it is important that the current momentum continues and that collaboration and partnership continues to grow so that we can find innovative solutions that are consistent with the vision of the green growth strategy. <BR /> <BR />The purpose of the statement is to highlight the importance of blue-carbon habitats and how those habitats can contribute to climate change adaptation and mitigation. I have provided a summary of some of the work that has been undertaken already and of the work that is required. We must now move forward together to develop a blue-carbon action plan to protect and restore those important natural capital assets.”
“There is a need to progress from feasibility studies to pilot and demonstration projects and, ultimately, to the full implementation of larger-scale blue-carbon restoration programmes. <BR /> <BR />My Department has prepared a significant bid as part of the green growth capital investment programme. That includes proposed funding for the blue economy that will support the transition to a low-carbon economy and the protection and enhancement of blue-carbon habitats and the wider marine environment. <BR /> <BR />I would like the blue-carbon action plan and the new marine protected areas strategy to be developed and put into operation by 2024.”