Official Report: Tuesday 01 February 2022

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Justice that she wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that, in the light of social distancing being observed by parties, the Speaker's ruling that Members must be in the Chamber to hear a statement if they wish to ask a question has been relaxed. Members participating remotely must make sure that their name is on the speaking list if they wish to be called. Members in the Chamber must also do so, by rising in their place as well as notifying the Business Office or Speaker's Table directly. I remind Members to be concise in asking their question. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions should not be entered into. I also remind Members that, in accordance with long-established procedures, points of order are not normally taken during the statement or the question period thereafter.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): At the outset, in welcoming the review, I thank the Chief Inspector for her work. The report, like the recently published Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) 'Review of Services for Vulnerable People Detained in Northern Ireland Prisons', is a significant piece of work, and I encourage Members to read all of it. Indeed, it is necessary to read the whole report to gain a full understanding of the challenges faced by the Prison Service and its staff as they seek to manage and to rehabilitate some of the most challenging and complex people in our society.

It is right that the Prison Service is scrutinised for the work that it undertakes and that we recognise the significant transformation that has taken place since 2011, when the service was described as "demoralised", "disengaged" and "dysfunctional". No one is saying that now: indeed, successive inspection reports highlight the depth and scale of the transformation that has taken place and the progress that continues to be made.

It is important to set out why, in November 2020, I commissioned the review. The House will recall that concerns were raised with me about the operation of our care and supervision units, known as CSUs, in the context of the minimum standards expected for the segregation of prisoners. The minimum standards required are outlined at appendix 3 of the review, which has been published today.

In response to those concerns, the director general and I reviewed the most recent inspection reports for each of our prisons, which were published for Magilligan in December 2017, Maghaberry in November 2018 and Hydebank Wood in June 2020. It is important to note that none of those reports indicated or in any way suggested that the expectations or minimum standards were not being met. It would have been understandable if, in the middle of what has been an extremely challenging pandemic for the Prison Service, we had simply relied on those reports and waited for the next one. This issue is of such importance, however, that the director general and I concluded that the more appropriate course of action was to ask the Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) to undertake an immediate review.

We now have the outcome of that review, and I will turn to what it tells us. It clearly recognises the commitment and hard work of prison staff and their healthcare partners who work in those units. It tells us that significant improvements have been made in each of our care and supervision units in recent years — a fact that is underpinned in each of the three prison inspection reports that I have just referenced. It tells us, however, that we are failing in a small number of key areas. While focusing on those key areas, I want to reassure Members that the director general and I not only accept the recommendations in the review but have already implemented some of them and are implementing others.

Before I set out that work and our future implementation plans, it is important that we all understand why we have CSUs, whom we accommodate in them and the context in which they operate. CSUs are necessary because there are times when some prisoners cannot be managed safely elsewhere in the prison estate. Those in our CSUs broadly fall into three categories: those who are dangerous because they have assaulted staff or other prisoners; those who we believe are seeking to traffic drugs or other contraband; and those whose behaviours are so extreme that they have to be separated from other prisoners. By their very nature, our prisons contain some dangerous individuals who have harmed others in the community and who seek to harm others, including staff, in the prisons. We have a duty to keep our staff and those in our care safe.

Our prisons have been assessed by inspectors as being safe. That is at least in part because we have CSUs. Much of the progress towards making prisons safer has been made possible by relying on the careful use of CSUs as areas for individuals who, because of their violent actions, need to be accommodated safely before attempts are made to reintegrate them into the general population.

Prisons also contain drug dealers and traffickers who seek to profit from the misery of others. They use any means that they can to get drugs and other illicit items into our prisons and care little about the harm that they do to their peers. Successive inspection reports have highlighted the need for the Prison Service to take action to stop drugs entering our prisons, and the use of CSUs has rightly been a central and successful element of the strategy that has been deployed.

No one who understands the challenges of operating prisons would suggest that CSUs are not essential, but this review highlights the fact that we must do better in administering them.

When looking at those exhibiting extreme behaviours, it is important to remember that people in our prisons with mental health and severe behavioural issues did not develop those issues at the gates of the prison. It is important that we all acknowledge the reality that the Prison Service is often left to deal with those who have been failed by the system — often multiple times — when it comes to education, employment, housing and healthcare. Of those coming into our prisons, 32% have mental health issues. In real terms, that is just over 500 of those individuals in our care today.

Strategic recommendation 2 deals with one such group:

I have consistently argued that prisoners with severe mental health issues, albeit small in number, should have equal access to care and treatment in a secure inpatient mental health or learning disability hospital. Until they do, however, the Prison Service is required to accommodate them, as well as those who may not fully meet the high threshold for admission, and to try to pick up the pieces. It is clear from this report that such individuals cannot always be accommodated in the general population and that, for many prisons across the UK that do not have inpatient facilities, care and supervision units are the only available alternative. I take little comfort in the fact that the average waiting time for prisoners to transfer to an outside facility under a transfer direction order (TDO) is significantly shorter in Northern Ireland than it is in England and Wales. Such individuals should be accommodated in a closed hospital environment that is suitably equipped and staffed, and we must ensure that that happens more quickly and efficiently.

Let me be very clear: although the Prison Service will work with Health colleagues to implement the Chief Inspector's recommendation, the creation of the equivalent of a Broadmoor facility for a population as small as Northern Ireland's is not sustainable. That is not an issue that the Prison Service or the Department of Justice can resolve. Therefore, I have written to the Health Minister to ask him to prioritise the provision of agreed pathways for timely access to appropriate secure hospital beds for those with a clinical requirement, including on a long-term basis or when experiencing a mental health crisis in a prison setting.

I assure Members that we have no one in our CSUs today awaiting transfer to an outside mental health facility. I have asked the director general to ensure, with immediate effect, rather than the six months recommended in the review, that Health colleagues are able to undertake mental health and primary health care assessments of all prisoners immediately following their placement in a CSU. The achievement of that goal will inevitably depend on the availability of the appropriate health professionals.

Another theme of the review is the area of governance and the importance of having a vision, strategy and action plan for the effective operation of CSUs. We are committed to delivering the recommendation that was made within the set timescale. In many ways, however, putting a strategy in place, as challenging as that will be, is the easy part. Implementing the strategy will have resource implications. That will be difficult for the Prison Service to manage at a time when its budget is likely to be significantly reduced. The Prison Service has had oversight mechanisms in place for our CSUs for many years. Indeed, the CJINI and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) Maghaberry inspection report of 2018 highlighted as good practice the monthly oversight meeting, which:

This report, however, has highlighted the need for change, and we are taking that forward as a matter of urgency. As the report highlights, there is a desire and willingness in the Prison Service to make positive change. The improvements in the accommodation at Hydebank and Magilligan are evidenced in the report, but we face constraints. Although we will take remedial action at Maghaberry, as set out in the recommendation, we are constrained in what can be done unless significant capital funding is provided. I have asked the director general to urgently assess what action is needed, and I will engage with the Department of Finance in due course.

I now turn to the important issue of prisoner engagement, as highlighted in the report. The Chief Inspector has indicated that, without appropriate evidence, it is not possible to provide satisfactory assurance to me, prisoners and their families, the Assembly or the wider community that some prisoners in our CSUs experienced a regime that met the required minimum standards. On that basis, she concludes that some prisoners had experienced conditions that amounted to solitary confinement. Although no one is going without human contact or healthcare, the report highlights that the level of engagement is not considered to be sufficient. Time out of cells was not meeting minimum standards; and the records that the Prison Service has been keeping on engagement, efforts to engage unwilling prisoners and time out of cells are insufficient. The director general and I take the concerns that have been raised very seriously, and, on receipt of the draft report for factual accuracy checking on 14 October 2021, we took, within three days, actions to begin to address that serious issue. The governor of each prison establishment personally oversaw a review of each individual who was being held in its CSU at that time. A new regime was introduced for the CSUs at all three prison establishments, with a minimum of two hours' time out of cell offered to all prisoners held in those locations. Reinforced local governance arrangements were implemented to ensure that all the work that staff do and all their interactions with people in the CSU are fully recorded.

No one should be under any illusion: the levels of engagement that are required by the review are and will remain resource-intensive. We must also be mindful that many prisoners in CSUs refuse to engage. Indeed, the review highlights that there are those in our CSUs who actively resist opportunities to engage and to reintegrate them into the general population. However, notwithstanding the extreme staffing pressures that we faced as a result of COVID during the period of the review — indeed, we still face those pressures — significant change has been implemented to ensure that appropriate levels of engagement, purposeful activity opportunities and out-of-cell time are being provided for those willing to avail themselves of them, and they are being actively encouraged to do so.

The comments in the report that relate to solitary confinement were, as the Chief Inspector indicated, a difficult read for me and the Prison Service, not least because they come at a time when, because of COVID, many prison services across the world are locking prisoners in their cells for up to 23 hours a day, often in crowded and cramped conditions. We have not taken that approach, and I have previously set out for Members the work that we have done to try to maintain family contact, free association and purposeful activity for all those who are in our care. It is, therefore, regrettable and disturbing that some of the small number of prisoners in our CSUs experience such isolation. Whilst prisoners in CSUs represent just 1% of the prisoner population across our three prisons, that does not lessen the seriousness of the issue or our absolute commitment to addressing their needs and particular vulnerabilities.

I will turn to the issue that was highlighted about women in our care. Some Members may recall that the Prison Service was consistently criticised when the female CSU was in Ash House, which is the main female accommodation block at Hydebank Wood. A new CSU was created, and we moved our female CSU to that building in early 2020. Women and men were accommodated in the same building but on separate landings. That decision significantly improved the experience for the women in Ash House, who no longer had to endure the disruption that was highlighted in numerous previous inspection reports, and it was implemented without the need for additional resources. The new CSU facility, as the Chief Inspector acknowledges, was of a much better standard, but she concluded that having male and female prisoners in a shared facility or building contravened the Mandela rules. As a result, we immediately, on receipt of the draft review, moved the CSU back to Ash House on 17 October 2021. A new CSU facility, which will have to be resourced from within our current allocation, will open shortly for the small number of women who have to be accommodated there.

The report and its findings have significance for the operation of care and supervision units beyond Northern Ireland. I do not believe that such an in-depth review has previously been carried out anywhere across these islands. I have asked the director general to ensure that the recommendations are shared with our sister services and to continue to provide me with regular updates over the coming weeks as he chairs a steering group to implement the remaining recommendations in the report, all of which I have accepted. I have also asked the director general to ensure that the Justice Committee is given regular updates detailing the progress that has been made.

Like every organisation, much is expected from the Prison Service, and rightly so. The service does not shy away from that — in fact, it does quite the opposite — nor does it shy away from apologising when it fails to provide the level of service that we have come to expect from it. Therefore, I have no hesitation in apologising to those prisoners who did not receive the level of engagement that the report identifies as the minimum standard expected. In reading the entire report and numerous others that have been published in recent years, Members will see that the Prison Service has a willingness to learn and a determination to drive continuous improvement. The report sets out some significant challenges. However, in delivering its recommendations, the Prison Service will be better, as will be the experience of the people who are committed to our care.

Mr Storey (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I thank the Minister and the director general for the time that they took to discuss the report this morning and for the reassurances that were given. I also thank the Chief Inspector for the time that she took yesterday to brief the Committee on the report. I welcome the Minister's comments that recognise the significant transformation that has taken place in our prisons since 2011. I place on record the Committee's thanks and appreciation to prison staff, who continue to undertake an extremely difficult and challenging occupation day and daily.

Will the Minister set out why the Northern Ireland Prison Service did not have a strategy or policy in place for the operation of CSUs in order to ensure that minimum standards were met and records were maintained across the system? As importantly, will she set out why the service did not provide the staff who undertake that difficult and challenging work with the support and guidance that they are entitled to receive when they carry out their particular jobs?

Mrs Long: I thank the Chair of the Committee for his question and for his reflective remarks on the work that has been done by prison officers in what are incredibly complex cases.

The issue in the report, as identified by the inspector, was more that we did not have an overall prison-wide strategy for CSUs that met the requirements that she would have set. However, there is a strategy on how we operate CSUs. I have mentioned, for example, the three categories of prisoners that would be placed in CSUs and the facilities that are available to each prisoner in CSUs, which are standardised across all three facilities.

The record-keeping issue is one that I witnessed when I visited a CSU and spoke with officers. It is a difficult and dynamic environment, and there is a balance to be struck between the time spent keeping records and the time spent on prisoner engagement and support. There will be challenges in the intensification of record-keeping that is required, but, given that the inspector has said that we need to keep better records of that engagement, it is important that we act to do that. Action is already being taken to support prison officers in that regard.

The Member will be fully aware of the work that I have done as Justice Minister to provide better support for former and current prison officers. That will continue to be rolled out over the coming months. However, it is a challenging environment for officers, particularly for those in CSUs, who are often dealing with people exhibiting extreme behaviours, including violent behaviours. In order to ensure that we have the right support in place, we have redeployed people from other parts of the service to increase the number of people working in CSUs, which, we believe, will facilitate enhanced prisoner engagement and the enhanced record-keeping that has been requested.

The Member will be more aware than most of the resource challenges that we face in the Prison Service. The proposed Budget would see a reduction in the facilities that we are able to offer and in the number of prison officers who are there to provide it. As we look at the draft Budget, we need to look carefully at the impact that that would be likely to have on our ability to deliver as we would wish to and, as the inspector has indicated, as we ought to.

Ms Ennis: Minister, before you commissioned the CJINI report on the use of CSUs, you did not accept that the use of the units constituted solitary confinement. The report makes it clear that, for many prisoners, that is exactly what it was. The UN regards a period of 15 or more days in solitary confinement as a form of psychological torture. How many prisoners have spent over 15 days in solitary confinement in those units? Would you describe that as torture?

Mrs Long: First, my confidence that we were not contravening the rules was based on three previous CJINI reports, which said that we were not and raised no red flag on how CSUs were operated. It is also the case that, for example, the International Committee of the Red Cross visited the CSUs in the prisons and raised no red flag.

Contrary to what the Member has said, the report does not say that "many prisoners" faced solitary confinement; it says that "some prisoners" may have faced conditions amounting to solitary confinement. I certainly do not dismiss that in the case of the prisoners who did, but there was no evidence to suggest that any prisoner was submitted to such conditions for periods in excess of 15 days or close to 15 days. They were intermittent lapses. There is no evidence that people were essentially being locked in their cells without contact.

It is also important that we look at what solitary confinement means in the context of a prison in Northern Ireland. Even during this period, every prisoner was offered time out of cell. Every prisoner was offered access to showers and telephones. They had radio or television in their cell and were spoken to by prison officers every day as they delivered their meals. Some refused that contact, and we need to look at how we can better engage with prisoners who refuse contact. However, we need to look at it in the context of what is available to those prisoners, even where our standards have fallen below those that are required.

We are not content with that. The reason why I commissioned the report was to ensure that we were meeting minimum standards. The purpose of the report is to set out what those standards are. It has done so with more clarity than has been available previously. My job now is to make sure that we meet those standards.

Ms S Bradley: Minister, thank you for your statement. As chairperson of the all-party group (APG) on preventing loneliness, it pains me to read the report. Loneliness can have a crippling effect on any of us. It has the ability to break us.

My question concerns the report's case review of a male prisoner, aged 20 years, who had a period of segregation and COVID-19 isolation in a CSU totalling 116 days. I recognise your apology today, but you back-pedalled on it somewhat in your previous answer. In my mind, that length of time is inhumane and torturous. I argue that those who are not engaging may be those who are not receiving the medical care that they need. We are aware that there are people in CSUs who have undiagnosed personality disorders.

Does the Minister anticipate that a maximum period of isolation will be adhered to? Will safe methods of interaction with other humans for those in CSUs be utilised? If full mental health screening is introduced, as it should be, will there be a minimum number of days when TDOs must be exercised and the person in care transferred to a clinical setting?

Mrs Long: There are a number of parts to the Member's question. To be clear, at no stage did I row back from my apology to those who were held in conditions that did not meet the minimum standards. It is important that we place this in context and do not exaggerate the extent of the problem. We must base it on the report itself and not on conjecture that extends beyond it, because facts matter in these cases.

Of course it is of concern that prisoners have been held for prolonged periods in isolation on committal to prison, but the Member will acknowledge that it is because of the isolation periods that we introduced as a result of COVID that we have been able to ensure that there have been no major outbreaks of COVID in the prison system. If we contrast that with some of the outbreaks in comparable residential environments, the decision was warranted, albeit not one that we wished to take.

There are a small number of people in CSUs who do not meet the threshold for a mental health order assessed by mental health practitioners. They cannot be moved out of the prison, because they have been sentenced by the court, yet they can be some of the most challenging people that we have to deal with. Their behaviours mean that there is nowhere else for them to be accommodated.

We have one particular individual who has been in a CSU for some time owing to his continued extreme behaviour. He has been the subject of ongoing multidisciplinary serious case reviews by the prisoner safety and support team, and our health partners have been included in those. He continues to threaten staff daily. He threatens nurses who engage with him. He is also moved cells daily yet often refuses to shower. He spreads his faeces on the cell door and walls, and, when challenged, he is verbally threatening and threatens the use of violence. His behaviour means that he cannot be located in the general population. He has been assessed as not meeting the threshold for a transfer direction order. He falls through the gap, and that gap, as often is the case, is a prison. We pick up the pieces that no one else wants to deal with.

As I said in my statement, I have written to the Health Minister to look at whether there are options, short of a closed mental health facility in prisons, that would allow secure accommodation to be provided for those individuals. It has to be recognised, however, that many of those individuals, even with the full diagnosis, will not meet the threshold for a transfer direction order, and that is not within the gift of prison: it is a health assessment that has to be made.

It is important, of course, that we guard against loneliness. That is why, for example, we continue to maintain a landing-based regime throughout the prison in order that people can have free association, even during COVID. It is why we allowed people extra time with family via virtual calls and additional phone contact. Additional phone contact is available to those in CSUs at all times, however.

It also has to be considered that not everyone in our CSUs has a mental health disorder. It is important to recognise that. Currently, there are 14 people in our CSUs. Nine are there for violent conduct, four for suspected drug trafficking and one for extreme behavioural issues. No one is currently awaiting a transfer direction order.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister for her statement. I also welcome the report. It is an important and challenging piece of work.

I absolutely get what the Minister said about the people who are being held in CSUs. According to the report, one guy has been in a CSU for 366 days. That might be the individual that the Minister referred to.

My concern and my question to the Minister are based on her statement, in which she clearly stated:

Minister, I have raised the issue of staffing levels many times, and I honestly believe that there is a real concern about the staffing levels in our prisons. Will the Minister outline how we can try to increase those staffing levels to deal with the issues that are raised in the report?

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for his continued interest. Staff have been redeployed from other parts of prisons in order to enhance the staffing cover in CSUs. Of course, from his time on the Justice Committee, the Member will be aware that we routinely recruit new staff to deal with people who pass out of the Prison Service over time. However, there is no realistic opportunity for us to significantly increase the overall number of prison staff that are available, particularly in light of the budget cuts that will come down the tracks if we proceed along the lines suggested in the draft Budget. In fact, we would be looking at a reduction in the number of staff.

Staff have been put under pressure during COVID. One of the things that we tried to do was to remove doubling up, so that each prisoner had their own cell. That meant opening up new landings and areas of prisons and required additional staffing to ensure that that was done safely. As the Member will appreciate, we also had to deal with incoming prisoners who were going into COVID isolation units. Again, that put staff under pressure. Also, like the rest of the population, our prison staff have been affected by COVID. Therefore, we have had to constantly monitor the number of people who have been absent on long-term sick leave or with COVID-related isolation and illness. As I recounted on many occasions when I came before the Assembly to answer questions, it has been a difficult period for the Prison Service. However, we do not use COVID to excuse, in any way, the findings of the inspector's report. Many of the issues needed to be resolved anyway, irrespective of COVID.

As to making any promises about increased numbers, all of that will depend entirely on budget outcomes. We need to be realistic about what we can achieve given the restricted resources within which we have to operate.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister. I commend you, not only for commissioning the report but for the very swift action that you and the prison staff took to alleviate the problems that were set out in the report.

Will you set out for the House some of the opportunities that are available for those who are held in CSUs? What activities and time out of cell are available to them?

Mrs Long: First, I thank my colleague for his remarks. It is important that we take the report seriously. I commissioned it specifically to get reassurance, not just for myself but those in our prisons, their families and, indeed, Members, that we were meeting minimum standards. Where we have fallen short of those minimum standards, it is right that we should apologise. More than that, it is right that we should take immediate and swift action to address those issues.

All prisoners who are held in CSUs have access to phone calls, showers, yard time, virtual visits, ordinary visits — subject to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions — and learning activities. Depending on why a person is in CSU, where their behaviour permits, they will have a radio or television in their cell.

Not all prisoners choose to engage in or take up activities, out of cell time or input from others, and the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) does not routinely record those refusals. The development of the new IT solution will enable NIPS to provide better data to evidence time out of cell, meaningful contact and, where appropriate, where refusals take place.

It is important that we record all those things, because that will provide us and the Prison Service with the reassurance that we need that we are meeting the minimum standards and that we are doing all in our power to do so.

Ms Dolan: Minister, the Department of Justice is required by prison rules to review and provide agreement on applications to extend a prisoner's segregation in a CSU beyond 72 hours. However, the report demonstrates that, in practice, the Prison Service approves the applications without monitoring or oversight. Do you accept that that essentially allowed the Prison Service, which clearly was not meeting the required standards, to mark its own homework? How has that been allowed to go unchecked for so long?

Mrs Long: With respect, that is not what the report finds. Of course, it raises the issue of whether adequate records were kept in a format that satisfied the inspector, and we have accepted that that needs to be improved. The administration certainly needs to be improved, but you have to look at that in the context of previous reports. For example, the 2018 Maghaberry report said:

and

Segregation staff were dedicated and professional. We realise that there are shortfalls in record-keeping, but it is unfair to suggest that the reviews that take place are less than adequate. There was no finding that that was the case in either this report or the 2018 report.

Mr Weir: I thank the Minister for her statement. Despite the problems that have been highlighted by the report, it is important to place on record the good work that happens in the Prison Service and the hard work of the prison staff. Everyone in the House will want to see the full adoption of the report, which is what the Minister indicated will happen, and support given to the prison staff on the ground. As the Minister has highlighted, the key challenge will be not so much strategy as implementation. What assessment of the resources that will be required to ensure the full implementation of the report has been done? Is that achievable without additional financial support for the Department beyond what is on offer in the budgetary settlement?

Mrs Long: First, the director general of prisons has set up an implementation group and is working with it to identify the recommendations and how they will be implemented. That work is ongoing. As I said in my statement, when it comes to capital expenditure, I have asked the director general to review, in particular, the CSU at Maghaberry prison and its exercise yard to see what improvements may be necessary, how it could be reconfigured and improved in the interim, what long-term propositions may be brought forward and the resource that that will require. When we have that assessment, we will engage with the Department of Finance about additional resources, because, unlike the improvement of the CSU at Hydebank, for example, we would not be able to resource that work from our own resources in the Department of Justice.

When it comes to the facilities for mental health and the small cohort of prisoners who have serious mental health issues, I have written to the Health Minister to discuss with him in more detail how that can be better managed in, if you like, the civilian mental health service outside prisons and whether dedicated pathways and secure facilities can be provided for those suffering mental health crises whilst in prison, because that would go some way towards meeting our requirements. That will, of course, have implications for our resources and those of the health service.

The other resource implications are those that I described in response to Doug Beattie's question. That is the issue of human resources, because, at the end of the day, the security of our prisons and the safety of our prisoners and staff are entirely reliant on human resources and the degree to which we can deploy those appropriately. It is a continual challenge to meet that with a growing prison population and remand population. We need to look carefully at the impact of any forthcoming cuts to the Prison Service and the impact that that would have on not only the safety of our prisons more generally but the quality of the rehabilitative effort that prison staff can make as part of their daily duties. It is not simply a matter of locking prisoners away; it is a matter of working with them, whether in CSUs to reintegrate them into the general prison population or in the general population to ultimately reintegrate them into society.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Minister for her answers. Minister, this is not a one-off report. Following the RQIA report last October on healthcare for vulnerable people in prisons, this report identifies failings in planning and delivering basic and specialist healthcare. Minister, do you accept that immediate action is needed cross-departmentally between Justice and Health and between the South Eastern Trust and the Prison Service to address those issues urgently?

Mrs Long: Most of the recommendations in the RQIA report fall to Health. In order to ensure that prisoners' privacy is protected, the information that the healthcare teams have would not be routinely shared with the Prison Service. However, we indicated at that time that we would work with our colleagues in the Department of Health to provide better standards. I am on record as saying that I am concerned that there are people in our prisons who would be better dealt with through mental health alternatives. That is one of the reasons why we are developing, for example, problem-solving justice to deal with those who may have, for example, addiction problems, substance abuse issues and, indeed, mental health issues, in order to avoid incarceration in the first place. However, it is not as simple as saying that this is a series of reports that are condemning the same issue.

Not everyone in our CSUs has mental health issues. Many people who have mental health issues are housed in the general population of the prison and managed well there. That is a tribute to the care that the South Eastern Trust and the Prison Service provide. This is a dedicated and a small but vulnerable number of people who have extreme behaviours. As I have said, it often confuses me, frankly, how such individuals do not qualify for transfer direction orders. The assessment is a medical one, not a Prison Service one, and the medical assessment is that they do not meet those thresholds, yet they are clearly people who could not be easily accommodated in the general population. While we try to manage that, as well as violent conduct and drug trafficking, in CSUs, we need to make sure that those minimum standards are met. I am absolutely committed to doing so.

With respect to the speed with which we do it, I have indicated that a number of the recommendations have already been implemented and were implemented immediately on receipt of the draft report, before it was finalised. I have already written to the Health Minister to ask to engage with him about the mental health and more complex issues. We will continue to maintain that engagement, because it is vital that people who are committed to our care in the Prison Service are able to access the same healthcare, treatment and support as anyone else in the community. It is important that Departments work together to ensure that that is delivered in a timely and appropriate way.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister of Justice for her statement. Will she give us more clarity on paragraph 2.10 of the report around the fitness for adjudication and the point that South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust staff would no longer fit prisoners for adjudication?

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for her question. It was the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust that made it clear that it would no longer fit prisoners for adjudication. The reason for that is simple: for it to do so would breach the Mandela rules. Therefore, when that became apparent, that no longer happened.

The inspector's report suggested that that may need to be considered. Unfortunately, it is not possible for us to do what was suggested by the inspector on that occasion as a remedial action because the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust was clear that it was not willing to share that kind of personal information about prisoners with the Prison Service. It is a complex area, but we could not go back to how things used to be because that in itself would have breached the Mandela rules.

Mr McNulty: Minister, you have just described very worrying human rights failures in the Department of Justice. You presented barriers to implementing the strategy, including resource implications. What conversations have you had with your Southern counterpart, Minister McEntee, about pooling resources, both infrastructural and in terms of personnel and expertise, to ensure the best outcomes for all prisoners on this island who have mental health challenges?

Mrs Long: I have had no conversations with Minister McEntee about the pooling of resources, because that would not be appropriate given the different sentencing and legal regimes in each jurisdiction. However, as I indicated, there is a conversation to be had about the findings of this report and the clarity that it provides on the operation of CSUs, which is, of course, an issue that exists in the South and right across these islands. Therefore, I have directed the director general to have those conversations with his counterparts to ensure that they are aware of the standard set by this report for meaningful contact and productive activity and so that they are fully aware of how that is now being interpreted and how it should be recorded. This will require change right across these islands; as always, we will pass on what we believe is evidence of good practice and recommendations that indicate how practice can be improved. We will share that with our counterparts so that they are able, on that basis, to improve conditions for prisoners right across these islands.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for her response to the report and to what is a very challenging situation. The Minister has rightly recognised the difficulty for staff working in prisons, especially in areas like the CSU, which was formerly called the PSU. My party leader asked a question about staff retention and turnover. Staff will be the answer, but it will not just be about numbers, Minister. Is any work being done to ensure that the staff who work in the CSU, which is a more challenging environment in an already hostile environment, will be trained appropriately to meet the need? Is work being done to ensure that there is rotation of staff who work in those areas, because they will be impacted by the challenging people with whom they sometimes work?

Mrs Long: On the latter point, there is rotation of officers. They serve time in the CSU, but they can rotate out of it. I met the officers who work in the CSU, and I found them to be incredibly motivated and very dedicated. They understand the complexities of the prisoners with whom they work, and, as I referenced, that was reflected in the inspector's comments in previous inspection reports. The issue has been about time out of cell, encouraging people who do not wish to leave their cells to do so and the conversations that are had when people are receiving their food and so on. That is not being recorded and has never been recorded. Things like prisoners refusing to take up time in the exercise yard has not previously been recorded. It is absolutely crucial that that is recorded, because, if we do not record it, it is very hard to measure whether or not there is more that we can do in any area to improve that engagement. We are already working on an IT solution that will allow that to be recorded.

The Member asked about support for prison officers. He will be aware of the roll-out of physical and mental health support for prison officers. These are challenging environments — there is no question about that — and nowhere in the prison is more challenging than the CSU. As I said, as of today, nine of the 14 prisoners in the CSU are there because of violent behaviour. Those of you who were listening to the director general this morning will have heard that three prison officers were assaulted by a prisoner in the CSU whom they tried to encourage to leave the cell to spend time in the yard. The prisoner emerged from the cell and attacked the three prison officers, so it is not without risk. We need to find ways to encourage people to use that time and to engage, but we need to do so in a way that does not escalate tension in the CSU or provoke reactions that could put our prison staff or, indeed, health staff in danger. That is not an easy balance to strike. I am not being glib when I say that it will be difficult and resource-intensive — it will.

As for training, all our prison officers are trained in how to deal with difficult people, because prisoners do not arrive in the CSU and stay there. People arrive into the general population exhibiting some of these behaviours, and they are then transferred to the CSU for closer management. However, there is obviously particular training for those in the CSU because there are particular standards that need to be met, and that will become more acute given that particular recording mechanisms will be required in the CSU to ensure that we do not, at any time in future, fall below the minimum standards, as happened during this inspection.

Miss Reilly: Nils Melzer, the UN commentator on torture — he succeeded Juan Méndez — said about the prolonged use of solitary confinement:

and that the "psychological and physical consequences" are "severe and often irreparable". I note that the Minister said that she has engaged with the Department and Minister of Health. Is it appropriate for prisoners with severe mental health disorders to be in prisons in the first place, or should they be in healthcare settings?

Mrs Long: I have already addressed that question. I believe that people whose mental health issues are the primary cause of their offending are better off not in a custodial setting. Sadly, however, we often find that people arrive in our prisons because of failures of the system, be they in education, housing, health or another part of our system. Notwithstanding their mental health issues, they are in our prisons because they have offended, often seriously, and we cannot simply ignore the fact that we are tasked with housing and rehabilitating them. Not all will meet the threshold for a transfer direction order to a mental health facility, so we are left with people who are between two places. Some would be better served by secure mental health facilities, but they might not necessarily meet the current threshold. That is why I want to meet the Health Minister to discuss the importance of that.

I assure Members that I do not make light of any period of solitary confinement, because it is something that we should be concerned about. Our minimum standards are designed to avoid it happening, and where we have fallen short of those minimum standards, we will improve, and it is important that we do so. There is, however, no suggestion in the CJINI report that people were being held for long periods in solitary confinement. People were being held for long periods in CSUs, and I have set out the good reasons why some of their behaviours may never be able to be managed in the main prison population. There are also people who, by choice, resist being reintegrated into the prison population. They prefer to be in a CSU and away from the main prison population. That is another challenge that we have to step up and meet. There is no suggestion that all those who were in the prison for a long period were being held in solitary confinement, or that a CSU, in and of itself, amounts to solitary confinement. The report states clearly that some prisoners were held in conditions that "amounted to solitary confinement", but that will not have been the case at all times during their stay in the CSU, nor will it have been the case for prolonged periods. That is why it is so important that Members read the entire report and use language carefully when discussing what is a very serious issue, but an issue that we are addressing.

Mr Stalford: The Minister knows that, for more than 50 years, to be employed in the Prison Service in Northern Ireland has carried with it a much more significant risk than being employed in a prison service in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is important that we place on record our appreciation for the staff and the work that they are undertaking. The Minister has detailed some of the extremely difficult situations that the staff have been facing at their place of work. I guide the Minister to paragraph 4.65 of the report:

Will the Minister speak to that line? Does she agree that it will be extremely demoralising for the motivated and dedicated people working in the Prison Service to read that today?

Mrs Long: Of course, it will be difficult for the Prison Service staff. It is a difficult read for me as Minister, as it is for the director general. When we set standards in the Prison Service, we set high standards. As I said earlier, no one is referring to the Prison Service in the terms that they were in 2010 and 2011, and no one is referring to our prisons in the terms that they were during that period. They are now regarded as safe, and our staff are regarded as motivated, capable and engaged in the work that they do. The comment that the Member refers to is not underpinned by evidence. Indeed, elsewhere in the report, the Chief Inspector praises staff:

I would not wish people to hang on one phrase. If anyone is suggesting that the inspector is being particularly critical of prison officers or that officers are not willing to change, the history of the last 10 years has shown that they are willing to change and to improve. The future will show, through the response to this report, that that continues to be the case in our Prison Service, and I would not accept anything less.

Mr Muir: I thank the Minister for her statement. At the outset, I declare that I was a member of the Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) at Hydebank Wood a number of years ago, so I am conscious and aware of the extremely challenging circumstances that are being referenced here. I saw them at first hand, and some will remain with me for the rest of my life.

Minister, you commissioned the report in November 2020, and it is being published only now, which is 14 months later. How has that affected your response to the findings of the report and to the recommendations that have been placed upon the Department?

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for his question and for his time as a member of the Independent Monitoring Board. I encourage other people to consider volunteering to the board because I think that it plays a hugely important and undervalued role in the oversight of what happens in prisons. Its ability to engage with me directly and with the director general about concerns is crucial.

As you know, I commissioned the review on 9 November 2020. The fieldwork was done between February and May 2021. A draft report was received for factual accuracy checks by NIPS on 14 October, and the response was returned to CJINI on 19 November 2021. It was on 14 October that we were first made aware of the potential findings, and it was at that point that we acted immediately on those findings to deal with the most serious failures that were identified. The Chief Inspector wrote to me on 4 January to request permission to publish, and I was content for her to do so. However, two further letters were received on 14 January and 20 January notifying changes to strategic recommendation 2 and operational recommendation 1. Both had been amended following consultation with the RQIA, and I responded the following day giving my approval to publish.

The fieldwork that was done did not raise any concerns with me or with the director general until we saw the draft report eight months after the fieldwork was done and five months after the Magilligan inspection. As I mentioned in my statement, the women's CSU was moved back to Ash House immediately, and we acted immediately to accept and implement the recommendations in the report. Given that the concerns that were raised in the report were not raised in the most recent prison reports, nor, as I understand it, are they raised in the Magilligan inspection, which was completed in May 2021 and which will be published later this month, it is fair to say that there were findings in this report that took us by surprise and that made very uncomfortable reading. However, continuous improvement is what we are about in prisons, both for those in our care and for our staff. I am confident that, by accepting the recommendations and implementing them as swiftly as we have done, we will meet the high standards that CJINI quite rightly expects of us in the operation of our CSUs. I look forward to continuing to work with the Chief Inspector in order to ensure that we do that.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for your statement this morning. The report touches on the appropriateness of housing men and women in close proximity to one another in a prison setting. Can you provide any more details on the progress of the new female facility at Hydebank?

Mrs Long: Thank you for the question. By way of context, in June 2021, CJINI and HMIP, in reporting on Ash House, noted that there was no CSU for women; they were simply kept in their cells in Ash House. That arrangement had an adverse impact on the other women in Ash House, so the Prison Service put considerable effort into developing and implementing an architect-designed CSU in Hydebank Wood, which was initially used to house young men. We took the decision in October 2020 to move to the new facility women who needed to be held in a CSU environment. Women were held on a separate landing in CSU, and shared facilities were used by men and women at different times. However, on receipt of the draft report, the Prison Service took the decision to relocate those women back to Ash House in October 2021. We have plans to open by February 2022 a refreshed CSU for women who need to be held there.

Approval for the associated expenditure and the outline business case (OBC) for the new female facility on the Hydebank Wood site was granted by the Department of Finance on 25 May 2021. The Prison Service is now progressing delivery of outline business case 2.

The OBC2 will provide detail of the full design and specification for the preferred option. It provides the basis for Department of Finance approval to initiate the formal procurement process. The OBC2 will be completed by this spring.

A distinct new female facility will be designed with the purpose of creating a therapeutic building that assists with rehabilitation, based on the principle that female offenders, in general, have lower levels of risk but higher levels of vulnerability than adult males. In recognition of females being relationship-driven, the existing Ash and Beech accommodation will be reconfigured into an intimate, distinct village-like environment, including a gym, healthcare unit, independent-living unit and accommodation providing a total of 82 units, including six observation cells with in-cell sanitation facilities, to accommodate 76 females. Delivery of the new facility is dependent on the provision of capital funding and will be considered as part of the process of setting the next Budget.

Miss Woods: I thank the Minister for her statement and CJINI for the review. The report is, clearly, not what was expected, and, indeed, some parts are distressing and disturbing to read. In November 2020, we were told that the Minister was confident that the allegations of people being held in solitary confinement would be found to be inaccurate and that she would not tolerate people being held for long periods in solitary confinement. What assurances can the Minister give that the recommendations will be implemented in the times outlined in the report? Can she provide an update on the possible use of body scanners in the Prison Service? What role is the Independent Monitoring Board taking as part of the issue?

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for her question. I also thank her for raising that in the Chamber at the time, because it gave us the opportunity to commission and receive the report, which, as she rightly says, does not make comfortable reading. It is nevertheless incredibly important reading for all those engaged in our prisons.

My confidence was based solely on the three previous reports by the Criminal Justice Inspection. I read those reports, and none of them raised any red flags about the operations of CSUs. Indeed, in some cases, they praised the operations of CSUs. Therefore, I was confident that what was happening in prisons was in order. As I have said, the inspection took place during COVID. We do not use that as an excuse, because, whatever challenges we face during COVID, we need to make sure that minimum standards do not fall. It is, therefore, important that we implement the recommendations.

I take assurance from the fact that those items that were listed to be done within six months but which we felt were more urgent were implemented not on receipt of the final report but immediately on receipt of the draft report; so, those have already been addressed. We have also seen progress on implementing the report's remaining recommendations: for example, the new female CSU will be in operation at the end of next month. All of that indicates that the Prison Service is taking the report seriously and is acting to try to drive it forward. I recently met the IMB. As I said earlier in response to a question from my colleague Andrew Muir, it is incredibly important that the IMB continues to play an active role in feeding back to me and, indeed, the director general any concerns that it has about how people are being held in prison and the standards there.

Full body searching is in place in most jurisdictions in order to prevent illicit and unauthorised articles being smuggled into prison. We recognise the associated sensitivities, so it is conducted with sensitivity and, with the cooperation of the prisoner, can be completed in a few minutes. We have a proportionate approach to full searching, based on focused intelligence and risk. However, as the Member will know, I am keen to see increased use of body scanners to detect traffickers. We have submitted an application to the justification application centre in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy under 'The Justification of Practices involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004'. The purpose is to secure the necessary statutory approval to procure, install, deploy and operate X-ray body scanners in NIPS establishments in order to ensure and enhance existing search arrangements for prisons. It will not lead to the complete end of full body searching, but we believe that it will make a significant difference in identifying with confidence individuals who are attempting to traffic drugs to prisons. If a scan shows that a prisoner is not concealing drugs, that obviously reduces the need for them to be segregated.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Minister and all Members. That concludes questions on the ministerial statement. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment as we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make a statement.

Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make a statement on the support scheme for Northern Ireland search and rescue (SAR) services.

To begin, I acknowledge the fantastic work that community search and rescue services provide to the people of Northern Ireland, alongside their statutory partners in the Fire and Rescue Service (FRS), the Ambulance Service, the PSNI and the coastguard. Those community organisations rely wholly on the commitment and dedication of selfless volunteers, who often risk their own life for the protection of others.

I recently visited Lough Neagh Rescue and Foyle Search and Rescue, where I was struck by the incredible dedication and professionalism of the volunteers. I thank all those who volunteer in our search and rescue services and work tirelessly to provide assistance to those who get into difficulty when accessing our outstanding green and blue spaces.

To say that their work is challenging and diverse is an understatement. It can range from helping someone who has taken ill or sustained an injury while out walking, to helping someone in difficulty in the water or to recovering the body of a loved one. Those vital services contribute to creating a safe and attractive rural environment that supports and encourages rural development, and it is imperative that they continue to meet the needs of the people of Northern Ireland.

Throughout the pandemic, we have witnessed an unprecedented rise in the number of visitors to our rural areas, and I fully expect that, as my Department continues to invest in rural tourism, that number will continue on an upward trajectory. If we are to work together to grow rural tourism, it is absolutely vital that we take steps to ensure that people feel safe when they access all that Northern Ireland has to offer.

We also need to be mindful that growth in the sector needs to be complemented by growth in the services that support it: in this case, search and rescue services. It is our expectation that rural tourism will continue to grow, and, with it, the number of people visiting our countryside, which will potentially increase the number of incidents and call-outs that the organisations have to deal with. It would therefore be highly irresponsible of us to acknowledge that but not provide any form of support.

In considering the challenges faced by Northern Ireland search and rescue services and their importance to rural tourism and the safety of people who live in and visit our countryside, I have directed my officials to develop a support scheme that will provide £1·9 million in capital funding not only to help address the immediate challenges of COVID but to build resilience for the longer term. I am delighted to be able to provide that necessary support to community search and rescue services to ensure that our rural open spaces and waterways are safe for and attractive to the increasing number of visitors to our countryside.

The range of activities that search and rescue services may be involved in is wide, from firefighting to mountain rescue and flooding incidents — to name but a few — and includes, as I mentioned, helping those who experience difficulties. Timing and the availability of specialist equipment are often critical to achieving a successful outcome. Last year, I was on the front line of the gorse fires in the Mournes, where I observed Sky Watch using high-tech drones to guide the Fire and Rescue Service to tackle hotspots in the fire.

Funding for the support scheme, which has been approved by the Department of Finance, will help offset a decrease in donations and support much-needed investment to allow the organisations to upgrade and replace essential equipment. The capital funding scheme will support the procurement of replacement capital items, including vehicles, PPE and specialist and other equipment that is essential to the continued provision of vital services. The investment will help to ensure that volunteer responders are fully equipped to provide their services as effectively, efficiently and, most importantly, as safely as possible.

The purpose of this statement is to outline the support scheme that my Department is delivering in support of Northern Ireland’s search and rescue services. The funding will help those organisations to recover from the economic impact of the pandemic and provide a strong platform for future resilience in delivering services in a post-COVID world. It is my view that the services that are provided by those organisations are absolutely vital in the support of sustainable rural tourism and rural communities. I sincerely hope that the funding will go some way towards ensuring the safety of those who put their lives on the line in order to protect ours.

Mr McAleer (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Minister for his statement and I very much welcome his announcement. At the height of the pandemic in my locality of the Murrins outside Omagh, I saw at first hand the vital work that those services carried out to protect rural people when, in that instance, a gorse fire happened.

Can the Minister provide a little bit more information as to which areas, such as the Mournes or any other parts of the North, will benefit from this very worthwhile capital investment?

Mr Poots: The organisations cover a wide area of Northern Ireland. They include the Community Rescue Service, Foyle Search and Rescue, the Irish Cave Rescue Organisation, Lagan Search and Rescue, Lough Neagh Rescue, the Mourne Mountain Rescue Team, the North West Mountain Rescue Team, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI), the National Search and Rescue Dog Association in Northern Ireland and Sky Watch NI. It is clear that the funding will provide a significant boost to all those organisations, which cover most of rural Northern Ireland and, indeed, our seas.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his statement. He named a number of organisations; have they received moneys from the fund?

Mr Poots: Yes. Different organisations have applied for funding in order to meet their particular needs. As we know, all the people in those organisations are volunteers, so none of the money is being spent on administration or on providing jobs. It is to buy capital equipment to ensure that they can continue to do their jobs safely. When I was out on Lough Neagh and on the Foyle, I could see the costs that are involved. A lot of the equipment that is needed is very high-tech. When it comes to distress situations and, indeed, the recovery of bodies, which is very important for families, it is essential that those organisations have the appropriate equipment to do the job. The funding will help to ensure that that is the case.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for this extremely positive statement. I am particularly delighted to hear that Foyle Search and Rescue is eligible for this support, given that, although it is based in an urban setting in Derry City, its work along and around the Foyle encompasses rural areas as well. It is a fantastic organisation. Is the Minister in a position to confirm how much funding each organisation will receive and what that might be spent on, particularly with regard to Foyle Search and Rescue?

Mr Poots: In the case of Foyle Search and Rescue, it is over £150,000: it may be £159,000. The organisation needed to acquire particular equipment, and the money will go a long way towards helping Foyle Search and Rescue in that regard. The Member mentioned the importance of the organisation. That service is out, on average, every day of the year and does remarkable work. He, quite rightly, points out that it does not solely provide a service for the urban part but carries out searches further upstream and downstream from the city. That is how I managed to squeeze a rural element into its funding.

Mrs Barton: I thank the Minister for his statement. As he knows, I live in very beautiful part of the world.

We are very grateful to the volunteers in the land and water search and rescue services, particularly in relation to our waterways, mountains and walkways, such as Cuilcagh. Indeed, there was a rescue only last week. Minister, you spoke of "future resilience". How do you hope to sustain that future resilience by encouraging recruitment to the volunteer services?

Mr Poots: When visiting organisations, one finds it amazing how many people step up to the plate and want to do something to help others. That is tremendous, and we want to encourage it. I expect that, if we sent out volunteers with second-rate equipment which could put their own lives in jeopardy, it would not encourage people to volunteer. If they have the best-quality equipment, so that they know they have the capacity to do the job and do it safely, that will encourage others to volunteer.

A lot of people find real enjoyment in going out to do the job; they get real value from doing it. It is absolutely amazing how many people we have in the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland, not just in search and rescue, but right across that sector. The House, the Assembly and the Executive need to acknowledge the work that volunteers do and say a big thank-you for all that they do to make the community better.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for his statement and DAERA for this commitment to capital funding, which will help rescue services across Northern Ireland, including, I imagine, Lough Neagh Rescue at Antrim in my constituency. What actions can be taken, on an inter-agency basis if necessary, to ensure consistency in provision and service across Northern Ireland, so that, in turn, consistency in safety improvements is ensured in forests, lakes and rivers across the jurisdiction?

Mr Poots: That is a very good question, and I am not sure which Department would lead on it, for example Justice, Communities or my Department. I do not know, for I have not given considerable thought to it. However, the Member raises a valid point, and it is worth further thought as to how we ensure that groups are more coordinated and, if need be, can call on support from others and so forth. It might be a conversation and, if the Member puts that question to a number of Ministers, we might respond to it. I can see that supporting groups in such a way as to improve connectivity is a very positive thing.

Mr McGuigan: I thank and praise those involved in community search and rescue. I have taken part in a few of their fundraising events locally. I welcome this funding, know that it will be used well and thank the Minister for his statement.

In the context of the challenges presented by COVID-19 and in ensuring that rural tourism is a sustainable priority intervention, as you mentioned in your statement, what is your Department doing to ensure that there is a focus on the all-island domestic tourism market and the cross-border partnership that is required for us to benefit from it?

Mr Poots: In terms of the issue at hand today, we have arrangements whereby, if there is a big problem on either side of the border, mutual aid is available. That was evidenced previously, for example, by the fact that a helicopter has come to help us, and that we have sent people to help in the Irish Republic. Cooperating with neighbours in their time of need comes naturally to us all, including the Department that I represent.

Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for his statement. With COVID, many people have wanted to explore and engage more with nature and the landscape. For example, they have been hillwalking and open-sea fishing, to name but two. Do you agree, Minister, that this support will enable these organisations to better protect our citizens?

Mr Poots: Over the COVID period, we certainly saw a huge increase in the numbers of people out and about in the countryside. It was almost too successful on occasions, and some of our beauty spots were absolutely packed. That has eased off somewhat, but the uplift is still there. There are still more people than was the case previously. Now that people have realised the beauty that is on their doorstep, they want to enjoy it. We live in a very beautiful place; we are privileged that way. They want to enjoy the fresh air. Therefore, people will go hillwalking and, on occasions, fall and break limbs and so forth and need rescue services. It is critical to have those support services, whether it be for the sea, hills, caves or elsewhere. It would not be my thing to go down a cave, but, if that is what people want to do, we want to ensure that, if they encounter problems, we have the capacity to help to get them out of that situation.

Mr Boylan: I welcome the Minister's statement. Paragraph 13 mentions the challenges that our search and rescue services face. Minister, can you elaborate on those challenges and what you have found out from your visits?

Mr Poots: During COVID, the ability to do the normal fundraising, such as through social events, dinner parties and even fundraising on the streets, was challenged. As a result, most charitable organisations found themselves in a more difficult position. I visited Lough Neagh first, and then Mr Middleton invited me to Foyle Search and Rescue. I was struck by the issues and problems that they had and their inability to deal with some of those problems. Finding a means to resource them was tricky enough, but it was something that I was fully committed to doing, having seen the need that exists. If it saves one life, the £1·9 million will be money well spent, but I expect that it will save many lives. Therefore, it will be one of the better things that I do during my period in office.

Mr T Buchanan: Minister, I am sure that we will all agree that these organisations do invaluable work in very difficult circumstances and have some real challenges to meet. Can you give some indication of what engagement you have had with the search and rescue organisations on the work that they do and the challenges that they face?

Mr Poots: I have been out on the boats with them on Lough Neagh and Foyle. I was also up in the Mournes during the fires and witnessed the work that people do there. It is a beautiful and splendid location, and we saw the destruction that was happening. Many volunteers stepped in to help to ensure that there was less harm to the mountains and that animals and so forth were kept safe. There is a wonderful reservoir of human beings in Northern Ireland who are prepared to go out and give up their time for nothing to help others. We need to encourage people in that. Therefore, providing the appropriate funding to ensure that they have the appropriate equipment strikes me as a no-brainer.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Minister for the announcement today. This money will be very welcome on the ground for a whole range of organisations, many of which are in my constituency, with the Mourne Mountains. For example, the Mourne Mountain Rescue Team, the lifeboat and other groups help to encourage people to come to our area and feel safe using those resources. Whilst the pandemic has caused a problem for groups being able to attract money as they normally do, it has also encouraged many more people to go outdoors, which will continue into the future. Is there any intention to provide sustained funding in the future? All those groups will have more work to do as a result of the pandemic and will need more money to operate safely.

Mr Poots: There are so many volunteers, and, therefore, such a small amount of money is spent on people's employment, that those groups provide excellent value for money. We get the full benefit of that by providing capital equipment. A lot of money will not be lost in administration. The funding will put material on the ground to help people to do their work.

The Member rightly points out the work that goes on in his constituency, be it the lifeboat in Newcastle harbour or the men and women who go up into the mountains to bring down people who have injuries, often going out in fairly appalling weather. On a good day, the Mournes are spectacular, but on a bad day they can be spectacularly harsh, and those people do not have a choice of which day they go up. They cannot say, "I will rescue someone on a nice sunny June day". It could be a November day, when the rain is coming sideways at them and they have no protection.

In future, it will be for Departments to look at how they can continue the funding to ensure that Northern Ireland people who are going out to enjoy the countryside, seas, loughs and rivers will have support if they get themselves into trouble. I hope that, on occasions, people will listen to the rescue services even before they go out, because the services not only rescue people but give qualitative advice on how people can avoid getting themselves into bad situations.

Ms Dillon: I thank the Minister for his announcement. It is certainly welcome news for Lough Neagh Rescue. As somebody who is lucky enough to live on the edge of Lough Neagh, I understand not only the beauty but the danger of it.

We have an issue in the Blackwater river, where a volunteer group performs rescues at the top end. The group works with the PSNI and does cross-border work, and it does not get funding from any source. It is Dungannon Sub Aqua Club. Can the Minister advise whether there is anywhere for it to access funding? He is right that such groups are run entirely by volunteers; they fund themselves and have to provide all their own equipment. The Minister is also 100% right that they risk their own lives when they go out, sometimes only to bring back somebody who is already dead. To the family waiting for that person, however, that is as important as bringing back somebody who has been saved. If there are any avenues open to those organisations, I would like to hear about them.

Mr Poots: I thank the Member for drawing the Sub Aqua Club's work in Blackwatertown to the House's attention. I have absolutely no doubt that it, like other groups, does fantastic work.

I saw the need; I recognised that funding was available this year because there was the potential for funding to be handed back to Westminster. I pressed very hard to ensure that that funding came over the line this year. It would be good if a similar thing could happen next year so that other organisations could be drawn into the net and be assisted as well.

Mr M Bradley: I thank the Minister for his very welcome announcement. I hold Foyle Search and Rescue very dear. In my constituency, it, along with the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI), provides a valuable service in the River Bann and along the north coastline. I am well aware of the work that both organisations and others do.

Minister, do you agree that the funding will help to reduce some of the pressure on those organisations? As was mentioned, many of them are run by dedicated volunteers with no aim but to save lives. The funding will provide fantastic equipment, such as thermal imaging cameras, that can be used to save lives.

Mr Poots: Absolutely. When the bottom line is going down for those organisations because the fundraising has slowed down, it is critical that they get that help. They will then be able to continue to provide the service that they have been providing.

We do not want those groups to be in a situation where, when call-outs come in, they feel that, because of the equipment that they have, they are not capable of providing the service that is needed. Ensuring that they have the right and appropriate equipment will immensely increase their sustainability.

Mr K Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, there is a bizarre issue where the River Blackwater meets Lough Neagh. Lough Neagh Rescue does an amazing job, but, as you well know, a boat needs water to operate. The difficulty is that there is only 450 mm of water where the River Blackwater meets Lough Neagh, so Lough Neagh Rescue cannot get up the Blackwater. I have been working with DFI on this. What pressure can your Department put on DFI to solve the problem whereby pleasure crafts and, more importantly, the rescue boats that you support cannot get up the Blackwater from Lough Neagh? If anybody is in difficulty or trouble, those crafts cannot get to them, never mind the number of vehicles — boats, I should say — that run aground every year. Time after time, they go out to solve a problem that should not be there.

Mr Poots: Translating that back into old language, I think that that is a foot and a half. Anyway, it is a fairly marginal amount of water, so I understand the issue that the Member talks about. The last thing that you want is for one of those vessels to run aground in waters like that. That is certainly an issue. I am aware of the issues in relation to managing the height of the water in Lough Neagh and so forth and of the flooding that can happen as a consequence. I know, for example, that some people are against dredging, but it is certainly well worth having that conversation with DFI. If, in my position as Minister of Agriculture, I can support the Member in taking that case, I will be happy to do that.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his announcement. Anyone who is involved in rescue services is right at the top of my totem pole of respect.

Having worked in a paid search and rescue role with the Fire and Rescue Service, I am aware that the pressures on our voluntary groups are not related just to equipment resources; one pressure relates to training and interoperability. I had the privilege of training with Lough Neagh Rescue when I worked with the Fire and Rescue Service. Might the money extend to paying those volunteers for training days, as well as to identifying other opportunities for the interoperability that is so important for successful outcomes?

Mr Poots: Not at this point, as I understand it. I know that the Member, having been in the Fire and Rescue Service for many years and mixing with those groups when he went to circumstances and situations, has an excellent knowledge of this.

Obviously, training is key to ensuring that the skill base is good in any organisation. That could be looked at in the future, but, at this time, it is about providing equipment. Let us ensure, however, that whichever Department or Departments are responsible for this going forward — it will not necessarily be this Department — continue to support those voluntary groups.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That concludes questions to the Minister on his statement. I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I call the Minister of Finance, Conor Murphy, to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Non-domestic Rates Valuations (Coronavirus) Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): As no amendments have been tabled, there is no opportunity to discuss the Bill today. Members will, of course, be able to have a full debate at Final Stage. The Further Consideration Stage of the Non-domestic Rates Valuations (Coronavirus) Bill is, therefore, concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Mr C Murphy (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate.

Mr C Murphy: Standing Order 42(1) provides that there should be a minimum of five working days between each stage of any Bill. I fully recognise that providing that time between stages serves to ensure detailed legislative scrutiny by the Assembly by providing Members with the opportunity to consider in detail the legislation that is being proposed.

As the Bill is being progressed in line with the requirement to provide certainty on the tax base for district councils when setting rates and given that the Finance Committee has faithfully worked on an expedited basis before, during and after Christmas in order to facilitate the Bill's completing its passage for councils striking the rates, I move the motion to suspend Standing Order 42(1) in an effort to ensure that the Final Stage can take place in advance of the date by which councils will set their rates, which is 15 February. Not moving the motion would mean that the Final Stage would not take place until 14 February at the earliest, which is just one day ahead of the final date for council rate setting. The Committee has worked in a committed and dedicated fashion over recent weeks to allow the Bill to be considered on an expedited basis. While I will, obviously, reflect on the sterling work of the Committee during the Final Stage debate, I take this opportunity to commend the Committee Chair, Deputy Chair, members and staff for their work following the decision of the Assembly not to proceed on the basis of accelerated passage for the Bill.

That said, as no amendments were tabled for Consideration Stage last Monday or for Further Consideration Stage today, it would be prudent at this point to make the case for suspending Standing Order 42(1) so as to bring the Final Stage forward slightly, thus allowing for a greater period of notice for the councils that wish to see the outcome following the Assembly's vote at Final Stage. It is for that sole reason that I move the motion. I do so on the basis of consolidating and complementing the work of the Executive and the Committee in helping me to bring the Bill to this point on an expedited basis. I trust that I will get the support of the Chamber on that basis.

Dr Aiken (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. I intend to make further remarks on behalf of the Committee at Final Stage, when I hope that I will be able to comment more generally on the Non-domestic Rates Valuations (Coronavirus) Bill. For now, I will address the motion.

The Assembly denied accelerated passage to the Bill. However, members of the Finance Committee indicated in plenary that we would facilitate its expedited passage. To that end, the Committee took evidence quickly in December and reported promptly on the Committee Stage in early January. We learned during our abbreviated considerations that there had been a number of related valuation appeals. The Department indicated that those had been stayed. The Department also advised that, even if they had been progressed, the period for resolution would necessarily be quite prolonged. It seemed clear that hard-pressed businesses would not secure relief from that source on any useful timescale. It is, therefore, understood that it would be far better for the Executive to provide targeted and well-thought-out COVID relief measures in order to address those important COVID business problems.

The Committee has not taken a formal view on the suspension of the Standing Order. However, given the foregoing, we might conclude that there is little point delaying the progress of the Bill. It is regrettable, however, that the Department failed to warn the Committee that it was to follow that course of action, thus saving the Minister from yet another debate.

Mr McHugh: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire fosta. I thank the Minister. I will keep my remarks brief, as we will return to the issue at Final Stage in a short time.

There is no doubt that the Bill is needed to deal with the consequences of the pandemic for the rating system. The legal advice is clear: restrictions on businesses that have been in place since March 2020 and were designed to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 would constitute grounds for appeal of NAVs under article 39A of the Rates Order 1977. As nearly all businesses have been subject to some restrictions since the onset of the pandemic, most would be within their rights to appeal the NAV that came into force on 1 April 2020. That could have serious consequences for the tax base, as it is predicted that up to £250 million of rates revenue would be lost to the Executive and the councils over a three-year period.

I have sympathy with the many businesses in our community that have faced huge difficulties as a result of the pandemic and feel that the rates that they are being asked to pay do not adequately reflect the struggles that they are experiencing. However, we must seek to provide the appropriate support without risking our public finances. The Executive have provided much financial support to struggling businesses and continue to support those that have not recovered from the pandemic. Businesses have benefited from a freeze in the regional rate; generous rates holidays, support schemes that have been available from March 2020 and, most recently, the omicron hospitality payment. The draft Budget contains a rate relief package that is worth £50 million and will provide a one-month rates holiday to all sectors and a three-month holiday to the hardest-hit sectors. In addition, the Department of Finance has ordered a new revaluation exercise that will take into account the economic consequences of the pandemic in the next NAV list, which is due in 2023.

Councils are particularly anxious about the threat to the tax base. Many of us, as ex-councillors, will totally understand the fear that exists among councils. They rely heavily on the revenue collected via district rates. Councils need certainty in the coming weeks as they prepare to set their business rates for the incoming financial year. Given the short time frame that we face with the end of the mandate approaching and the Assembly's heavy legislative workload, any move to hasten the Bill's passage is welcome. I look forward to it returning to the Assembly shortly for its Final Stage.

Mr C Murphy: I will be brief. I thank the Committee Chair and Mr McHugh for their contributions. As I said in my opening remarks, the motion is not about trying to curtail or reduce the scrutiny of legislation. Given the process that has been gone through, the fact that there are no amendments to deal with at Further Consideration Stage and that councils are in the process of striking their rates and the information that would become available as a consequence of the Bill's passing is hugely important to them in that exercise, we are simply trying to expedite the end point and get to a position where we can advise councils in good time. I thank the Members for their contributions and the Committee again for its work on the Bill. I urge Members to support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Before I put the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I ask Members to take their ease before the next item of business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): No amendments have been tabled, so there is no opportunity to discuss the Organ and Tissue Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill today. Members will be able to have a full debate at Final Stage. The Further Consideration Stage of the Organ and Tissue Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill is therefore concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

I again ask Members to take their ease.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to move the Bill.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are four groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn.

The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 17, 20, 29 to 32, 34, 35, 55 to 59, 64 to 66 and 75, which deal with targets, carbon budgets and nitrogen balance sheets. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 18, 19, 21 to 28, 36 to 42, 45 to 49, 51, 76, 77, 79 and 80, which deal with proposals and policies. The third debate will be on amendment Nos 33, 60 to 63, 67 to 74 and 78, which deal with oversight, governance and accountability. The fourth debate will be on amendment Nos 43, 44, 50 and 52 to 54, which deal with the just transition principles and fund.

I remind Members intending to speak that, during the debates on the four groups of amendments, they should address all of the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. Clear as mud.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 17, 20, 29 to 32, 34, 35, 55 to 59, 64 to 66 and 75. In this group, amendment No 3 is mutually exclusive to amendment No 2; amendment No 5 is mutually exclusive to amendment No 4; amendment No 10 is mutually exclusive to amendment No 9; amendment No 12 is consequential to amendment Nos 4 or 5; amendment No 13 is consequential to amendment No 12; and amendment Nos 14, 17, 55 and 75 are consequential to amendment Nos 4 or 5. Amendment No 29 is a paving amendment to a number of other amendments.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I was to call Ms Bailey to move the amendment.

Ms Bailey is not in her place. I move on to call Mr Philip McGuigan to move amendment No 6.

Mr McGuigan: I beg to move amendment No 6:

Mr Allister: Why would amendment No 4 not be called before amendment No 6?

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Allister is right: amendment No 4 should be called before amendment No 6. I call the Minister.

Mr Poots: I beg to move amendment No 4:

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: We now commence the debate on amendment No 4. Minister.

Mr Poots: Thank you. Give me a moment to get to the appropriate point, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.

I thank the Chair and members of the AERA Committee for their scrutiny of the Bill. That was hugely beneficial over the last number of weeks. I am pleased that we are now at a stage when this Bill — a science-based Bill — is ready to move forward. That is hugely positive. This Bill is the right Bill for the House. On one hand, it will ensure that we can tackle the important issues around climate, while, on the other, it will ensure that we can deal with all of the issues that involve our economy, our agri-food sector and all of that.

I begin by outlining the amendments that I have tabled. They were all tabled following in-depth discussions and agreement with the AERA Committee during the Committee Stage of my Bill. I have tabled amendment Nos 61, 62, 63 and 67 to strengthen my Bill on oversight, governance and accountability. They include, but are not limited to, amendments to clause 21 of the Bill. I fully recognise —.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Will the Minister resume his seat briefly?

Given the sheer scale of what we are about to go through, it is important that we get it procedurally correct. I have been advised by the Clerk that, although Ms Bailey was not in her place to move amendment No 1, any Member would have had the right so to do. I make the House aware of that before the Minister proceeds. Does anyone wish to move amendment No 1?

Mr McGuigan: On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. In that case, why would any Member not be able to move amendment No 2?

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: We have always moved the first amendment in the group. Ms Bailey was not in her place, and I have now offered the House the opportunity to move amendment No 1. I am sorry; there have been two opportunities now. As it is a serious issue, I need to take advice from the Clerks. Members should take their ease for a few moments.

Thank you, Members. I have been advised that, as an opportunity was given to the Member and other Members in the House to move amendment No 1, it will not be called.

We will move on to amendment No 2. I call Ms Clare Bailey to move amendment No 2.

Ms Bailey: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: We can start the debate.

Ms Bailey: I will take the opportunity to apologise to the House. I was not in my seat, and I was not here on time. I am very sorry. Business has moved much quicker than scheduled today. I can only apologise. Thank you for allowing me to speak.

If it is OK, I will speak to the group as a whole. The amendments in group 1 relate to the targets and the interim target years. A strong and certain target will be absolutely key to providing and underpinning the emissions reductions that will follow in the legislation.

The Green Party's amendments propose 2045 as the deadline year for the emissions target. Almost every party present —

Mr Allister: On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: It is going to be one of those afternoons.

Mr Allister: The mover of the amendment has just said that the start year should be 2045. Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, have you not just ruled that the amendment that would make it 2045, namely amendment No 1, has not been and cannot be moved?

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: That is correct. I understand that Ms Bailey said in her introductory remarks that she was speaking to the group, but the point that the Member has made about the 2045 start date is accurate.

Ms Bailey: I referenced 2045 because it is in the context of what the Green Party proposes. Of course, I am not moving amendment No 1, but the other amendments that we proposed to the Bill are all linked. I am speaking to the general debate rather than the amendment. I hope that the Member will allow me to do that, because almost every party present in the Chamber signed up to that commitment in the Climate Change Bill. Since that Bill was published, COP26 in Glasgow has underscored how urgently we have to act. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was declared a "code red for humanity". If the parties were signed up to it before then, we certainly must be signed up to it now. If that is no longer the case, the onus is on parties to explain that change. That is for them to do.

We still believe that Northern Ireland needs strong and ambitious climate targets. We can no longer afford to be the climate laggard of the UK. Every indication is that we are heading down the wrong path. Right now, we are failing to contribute to an overall UK target. Climate legislation with an 82% overall target means that we will just about be contributing, but we will still be a drag on progress, relying on other UK jurisdictions to pick up the slack for us. Any change in context at a UK level will mean that we will be in a disastrous position. If — and, as I believe, when — the UK decides to accelerate its targets and ambition, we will not be in the best place to adapt to that.

We should not want a net zero target simply because we are afraid of being left behind. We should also want it because of the opportunity that it will bring. Net zero is possible for Northern Ireland, and it brings certainty and investment from a global market that is getting ever more focused on climate credentials for investment. What happens to our economy when GB and the Republic move ahead with net zero targets and we are left behind?

It is important to address the elephant in the room and the tractors at the door. I am sure that agriculture will be the focus of much of today's debate. First, the Green Party is pro-farmer. We want to see farmers and farming communities survive and thrive well into the future, but, in order to do that, the agricultural industry needs to be sustainable for future generations. Net zero targets will not be the ruination of agriculture in Northern Ireland.

Mr Allister: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bailey: Yes.

Mr Allister: The Member, in bringing her Bill, did not trouble with an economic assessment, and, therefore, the KPMG economic assessment was provided. It is very clear that the 100% proposal in her Bill requires an 86% cut in livestock, with 13,000 jobs on-farm to be lost and several thousand thereafter in the process. How, then, can she say that she is on the side of farming and that this is good for the economy, when that primary industry would be devastated by her proposal, or is she going to tell us that KPMG does not know what it is talking about?

Ms Bailey: I thank the Member for his intervention. Of course, that is the same KPMG that was found last week to be falsifying minutes and records in order to produce a report for the fossil fuel industry. Yesterday, we heard from KPMG that the figures that it gave in that report removed the public subsidies to the sector, which are up to 86%, when doing that assessment. It removed the public subsidy funding and did its economic assessment based on removing that because it said that it did not know what future public investment in the sector would be. Therefore, it did not put any of that in its report. The chair of the Climate Change Committee (CCC) has removed himself from the claims in the report of job losses, so it is a bit of a debatable report.

The net zero target will not be the ruination of Northern Ireland agriculture. The farming media and the Minister should really have a look at how they have left the agri-food corporates to dominate and frame the conversation on these Bills as a debate on farmers versus the environment. Farmers are custodians of the land, and they know nature better than anyone. Any farmer to whom you speak will tell you exactly that. The level of misinformation and scaremongering that has taken place, fuelled by some on these Benches and the agri-food lobby, is shameful.

Many countries that rely heavily on agriculture have set net zero targets, including the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland, whose targets have not signalled the end of farming in their countries. Instead, they have paved the way for funding and support to flow into the sector.

Mr Poots: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bailey: Yes.

Mr Poots: I am not sure whether the Member has information that the rest of us do not have that the Irish Farmers' Association is supporting proposals in the Republic of Ireland. It supported this morning's protest, so the Member should not purport to articulate the idea that farmers in the Republic of Ireland are happy with the proposals — proposals that are not science-based either — and it has not been defined in the Republic of Ireland how what has been set out to be achieved will be achieved. I imagine that, when people see what is required, they will be horrified.

Ms Bailey: I thank the Minister for his intervention. Of course, had he listened to my words, I said that many countries that rely heavily on agriculture have set net zero targets, not that farmers in those countries were very happy with that. What he refers to in the Act that has been enacted in the South is that it needs the plans to go with it, and that is in motion at the minute.

The South will set its targets and its ambition, despite being even more reliant on agriculture than we are in the North. The Netherlands has set aside £21 billion of funding for its agriculture sector to help it to contribute to meeting the target. With the right supports, agriculture can lead from the front with the transition.

Last week, Sir Peter Kendall released his independent strategic review of the Northern Ireland agri-food sector. The Minister will be familiar with the report as he commissioned it, and it makes for startling reading. It states:

The report states that Northern Ireland's environment scorecard "makes for grim reading". The environment had "paid the price" for the success of Northern Ireland's agri-food sector. The report continues:

The report also touches on the threats posed to Northern Ireland farming post Brexit. I have spent the past weeks scrutinising how New Zealand and Australian trade deals are set to hugely displace Northern Ireland produce. It is naive of anyone to think that climate action is the threat here. Sir Peter Kendall's review is unequivocal: Northern Ireland must look beyond traditional markets for its agri-food produce, as the GB market is set to be flooded with imports from across the world as a result of those trade deals. Europe is the obvious choice as a market for Northern Ireland produce. That all points to post-Brexit trade deals, not climate mitigation and not climate ambition. Minister, when New Zealand and Australian agri-food products start to flood the GB market and when we start to look at Europe as a market for our produce, what happens when we cannot access that market because the EU has a net zero target and we do not? What happens to the Northern Ireland agriculture sector then? Citing climate change as the existential threat to agriculture is a red herring, and I urge the farming community not to be naive about that.

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bailey: Certainly.

Mr Beggs: The UK as a whole has a net zero target. The issue is that there is recognition by the Climate Change Committee and its scientific review that Northern Ireland provides food to other parts of the UK and, as such, contributes to climate change emissions. Does the Member not accept that putting additional burdens on local production will simply offshore our food and generate increased carbon outputs from areas that are not as climate-efficient as we are? That will be counterproductive. You will produce additional greenhouse gas emissions by offshoring our food production, whether it is to Australia, New Zealand or America, or even if it is produced in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Before the lady answers that question, I want to say that this will be a long hike, folks. I am sure that everyone will get to make their points, so, if we could try to keep interventions shorter, that would be great.

Ms Bailey: I thank the Member for the intervention. Again, I will go back to what I just said. The imports from other trade deal negotiations being undertaken by Boris Johnson — the post-Brexit utopia that he envisaged — are the greater threat to Northern Ireland produce being able to continue to survive in GB markets. To continue down that path with blinkers on is insanity, given that we do not know what is coming. We have to clean up our act so that we can differentiate ourselves in the global market on the basis of our excellent environmental and carbon credentials. Otherwise, we are sacrificing the future of farming for the sake of corporate profits now.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member for giving way. She makes a really interesting point about our credentials in relation to climate change and carbon emissions. Does the Member agree that the demand for food will increase exponentially in the coming years? Unfortunately, that demand for food will be met by countries that do not have the climate change credentials that the United Kingdom currently has and, indeed, that, as a whole, the United Kingdom aspires to achieve by 2050. Indeed, after the EU-Mercosur deal, countries in South America are clearing whole swathes of the Amazon forest to increase their beef production. Food demands will have to be met, and the countries from which the Member is seeking to meet that demand do not have those climate credentials.

Ms Bailey: I thank the Member for the intervention. Of course, food supplies will change as climate mitigations and climate change become even more apparent. What they will be remains unknown, but we need to really question whether it is Northern Ireland that will feed Brazil, if that was your example. I am not really sure about that or whether we would even have the capacity to do that. We are part of the food production chain, and nobody is saying that we should stop producing food, but what the food supplies will be remains unknown.

Climate action is not anti-farming.

I have tabled amendments, which I will discuss later, to establish a just transition fund for agriculture that is just like those in the Netherlands and Scotland, for example. I have tabled amendments to ensure that plans and policies that come under the Bill take account of the particular needs of our rural communities. I have also tabled amendments to ensure that climate action here does not simply move the production of emissions elsewhere through the carbon leakage that has been mentioned by some. We must ensure that that is a fair process that will give agriculture the best possible chance of being a sustainable industry well into the future.

Setting the strong target is a political decision. We have only to look to our neighbours in Scotland to see how strong political decision-making on the issue leads to huge rewards. Scotland has set strong targets to be net zero by 2045 despite the fact that much of its economy is propped up by fossil fuels. Since that target was set in law, we have seen many innovative support streams from the green transition flooding into Aberdeen from the UK Government and the private sector.

Mrs Barton: I thank the Member for giving way. Ms Bailey, you speak about Scotland having set net zero targets by 2045. You expect Northern Ireland to go the same way. We cannot go the same way because we have a totally different topography. Scotland is a much larger area; it is much wilder, with more forestry and greater areas of bogland etc. We do not have that in Northern Ireland, so you have to rethink that.

Ms Bailey: I thank the Member for her intervention. I am not sure if she was here at the start of the debate, but I was not present to move amendment No 1, which proposed the 2045 target, so I think that that is off the table already.

Money is flowing into Scotland because of the challenges that Scotland faces with decarbonisation. Why, then, is there the attitude at UK level, which we in Northern Ireland buy into, that, where Northern Ireland is concerned, the support will not be provided to help us reach net zero ambitions, even if we wanted to? In a UK context, a relatively small agriculture sector is much easier to support when going towards net zero than the extensive Scottish oil and gas industry. This is a political decision. The UK Government can, and they should, support Northern Ireland's net zero ambitions and not leave us sitting as a dirty corner of Europe.

The UK Climate Change Committee has recommended that we set an emissions reductions target of "at least 82% by 2050". While the CCC is a highly respected advisory body, it is advisory. The CCC is not a policy-setting body. We are the legislators, and setting policy is our job. The CCC's advice does not make the case for Northern Ireland cementing its position as a climate laggard in law. Instead, it underscores that the UK Government need to step up and recognise some of the particular challenges that we face and to provide a greater degree of support and assistance like that that has been provided to parts of Scotland.

It is obvious that we share a single biogeographic unit with the Republic of Ireland and that, no matter your position on political unions, we are a separate land mass from GB. Our water flows, nitrogen flows, air and ammonia — the list goes on — do not recognise borders. Therefore, what happens when our behaviours here start impacting on those in the Republic? We are being told that we cannot meet net zero because of the emissions from our agri-sector. Yes, agriculture makes the biggest proportion of our emissions — it contributes 26% of the total greenhouse gases that are produced — but, as mentioned, agriculture emissions make up 37% of total emissions in the Republic. They have been politically brave enough, however, to set themselves an ambitious target because they know that that is where we all need to be if we are to have any hope of surviving.

Mr Poots: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bailey: Certainly.

Mr Poots: Does the Member realise that the Irish Republic has confirmed that it will reduce methane by 10% by 2030? Who is ahead and who is behind there? We are already ahead of the Republic of Ireland. The Member is moving into areas like waterways. The waterways issue is entirely different from the climate change issue. Dealing with phosphates appropriately is the way that will deal with our waterways. That is an entirely separate debate. Conflating the two is causing confusion, and she would be best not to do it.

Ms Bailey: I thank the Minister for his ambition. If we are really leading the way and doing better, why stop that ambition and slow us down? Why not keep going? The European Union has introduced a 2050 net zero target. Northern Ireland cannot just become a solitary corner of Europe that is left behind. Net zero is possible. The chief executive of the CCC, speaking on 'Good Morning Ulster' in November, said that there is no technical barrier to Northern Ireland reaching net zero emissions and that, if net zero is the way that politicians want to go, of course you can go further than 82%.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Member very much indeed for giving way. The Member talks about the European Union's move towards net zero carbon by 2050, but she will also be aware that, in various European countries, including France, Spain and, I understand, Germany, there are different targets for different regions. Why would there be a set of different targets across France, Spain or, indeed, Germany and not within our great nation, the United Kingdom?

Ms Bailey: The Member rightly raises the fact that different states across Europe have their own targets. While Europe has set a target of net zero by 2050, Sweden, for example, has increased that ambition; I think that its target is now to reach net zero by 2045. Finland has set a target for net zero by 2035, in line with your policy; maybe Finland has taken a leaf out of the Member's manifesto. Different states can implement their own legislation, but the overall target for Europe remains net zero by 2050. Setting that legally binding target is a worthy and appropriate target for Northern Ireland.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bailey: Yes.

Dr Aiken: Just for clarification, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and is likely to remain so for a considerable period. Therefore, it is within the UK's target of 2050. My understanding, from being at COP26, from the conversations that I have had with the CCC and from my previous work with the IPCC, is that one of the few countries in Europe that is likely to make the 2050 target is, indeed, the United Kingdom. Why is Northern Ireland, where we are looking at 82%, being singled out to have a greater target to try to achieve that goal?

Ms Bailey: I thank the Member for that. It goes back to what I have said already: we are a separate land mass, and the environmental impact is very different for us than it is on the GB land mass. We know that we, in Northern Ireland, are the climate laggards. We are the highest emitters across these islands. The biodiversity and the environmental damage being done here is not the same as that in GB. While we might be part of an overall UK net zero target, the environmental consequences of not reaching net zero that we will feel and the impact that that will have on our land mass will be very different from those in GB. Our biodiversity, our peatlands, our air quality, our water quality and our soil quality are all very different because we are a separate land mass. That needs to be taken into account.

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bailey: I want to finish this. Am I only speaking to this amendment, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker?

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Ms Bailey: OK. Thank you. I will wrap up on this amendment. As legislators, this is our decision. The targets are a political choice. We have to make a decision for ourselves. It goes beyond party political interests. It goes beyond short-term considerations. It goes beyond elections. It goes beyond the interests of corporate lobbyists. It is about securing a future for ourselves, for our children and for our grandchildren. It is about setting the framework and creating systems that will be fit for the future. I urge the House: please decide wisely; if you want to sleep at night and look your grandchildren in the eye, make sure that you can be confident in telling them that you did everything possible with the privilege that you hold.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: It is just past 12.55 pm, so I propose to suspend the sitting for a meeting of the Business Committee. When we return at 2.00 pm, the next item will be questions for oral answer to the Minister for Infrastructure. When we resume this debate after Question Time, the next Member called to speak will be Mr Philip McGuigan.

Ms Mallon (The Minister for Infrastructure): As the House will be aware, I launched a public consultation on 26 July that closed on 4 October, the purpose of which was to seek the views of the public, businesses and elected representatives on a number of potential routes for Belfast Rapid Transit phase 2 (BRT2). I am pleased that the consultation attracted a significant response, and my officials are considering the feedback received.

As part of the public consultation process, my officials met a wide range of stakeholders virtually and in person. Specifically in relation to Ormeau Road businesses, my officials have engaged on a number of occasions, including meetings organised by the Ormeau Road Traders' Association on Friday 1 October 2021, the Federation of Small Businesses on Friday 12 November 2021 and Retail NI on Thursday 20 January 2022. All those meetings included representatives from Ormeau Road businesses.

Following the identification of a preferred route, further engagement with businesses and residents will be carried out throughout the detailed design process with a view to mitigating any detrimental impacts identified.

Mr Stalford: I am grateful to the Minister for her answer. My concern is that engagement with officials is one thing, but it would be good — I am sure that the Minister will not have any objection to it — for the Minister to meet business leaders and owners on the Ormeau Road to see for herself the issues that they are raising. I ask that not to score points but in a friendly way, so that we can get Belfast Rapid Transit right. If the Minister would commit to that —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Does the Member have a question? As he will know —

Mr Stalford: If the Minister could commit to that, it would be much appreciated.

Ms Mallon: I have, on every occasion on which my officials have engaged with the Ormeau Road businesses, received feedback on the issues and concerns that have been raised. My officials have committed to meeting again with the businesses along the road to discuss their concerns and any mitigations, if that proves to be the preferred route. I am happy to meet the Ormeau Road businesses if there is additional information or there are issues that they have not raised thus far with my officials.

Mr O'Toole: I welcome the Minister's commitment to BRT2, which could be transformational for South Belfast and, indeed, the north of the city. I welcome her commitment to engage and her Department's engagement with Ormeau Road businesses. I am delighted that she has committed her Department to reassessing the case for extending the Glider to Carryduff, as that could be transformative for that community in the south of the city. Will she ask her Department to look favourably on that extension? It is critical for the people and businesses of Carryduff.

Ms Mallon: The routes brought forward for public consultation were developed in collaboration with expert transport consultants and were considered to offer the optimal options for extension of the rapid transit network. The suggestions that the routes be extended beyond the proposed end points, both in south Belfast and to Glengormley in north Belfast, were made during the public consultation exercise. I have asked the consultants to consider those matters further.

Ms Bradshaw: During the Adjournment debate that my colleague Christopher Stalford secured late last year, I raised the issue of the lack of transport infrastructure into Belvoir estate. Is that being considered as part of the consultation process?

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for her question. If the issue was raised during the public consultation process, it will be considered by my officials.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Minister for her response in relation to South Belfast. Given what she said about North Belfast, will she agree to meet the local MP to hear the concerns of residents and traders and to ensure that the rapid transit system goes all the way through Glengormley village and beyond?

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for her question. As she will be aware, the public consultation exercise for north Belfast is on two possible routes: Antrim Road and Shore Road. The important issue of the extension of the route to Glengormley has also been raised. As in the case of the Member for South Belfast, I am happy to meet elected representatives and local businesses where there are emerging new or additional issues that they have not already raised with my officials.

Dr Aiken: Will the Minister come with me to Global Point in my wonderful constituency of South Antrim? That is where we would like the terminus to be located for the Glider that will come through north Belfast, either along the Shore Road or another way. I would be delighted if she could come with me to meet the local business community and the council to discuss locating the Glider terminus at Global Point.

Ms Mallon: I am conscious that multiple meeting requests have been made, and this is only the first oral question. [Laughter.]

I wonder how many hours in the day I will have to agree to them all. On a serious note, I am happy to consider representations, so, if the Member wishes to write to me in the first instance, I will certainly give consideration to the matter.

Ms Mallon: Since coming into office, I have made my commitment to rail connectivity across this island a priority. I recognised the lack of investment west of the Bann and particularly how rail connectivity needed to be developed into the north-west. That is why I commissioned a new feasibility study to get phase 3 of the Derry to Coleraine rail line back on track. I am pleased to confirm that the study is now complete and a business case is being produced so that that important project for the people of Derry and beyond can be progressed. I have also commissioned further studies to examine options for new halts and associated park-and-ride facilities at Strathfoyle, Eglinton, City of Derry Airport and Ballykelly. The study will also examine the possibility of introducing half-hourly services from Derry, and I am pressing my team to finalise that as quickly as possible so that we can move forward.

While the departmental budget for future years has not yet been agreed, I have outlined the significant investment needed over multiple years to enhance our rail connectivity and our public transport network as a whole. I assure the Member that I will continue to seek funding for our public transport network with my Executive colleagues, building on the momentum that the new award-winning north-west transport hub has created, to outline the clear role of public transport in helping to address the climate emergency and helping the Executive to deliver on its other key priorities, including health, education and the economy.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister for her update. She mentioned that the study and the business case are complete and that she is looking at halts. Does she have a timescale for that? We know how critical it is; in particular, the delivery of phase 3 is urgent. If there is a deadline or a timescale for the Derry to Coleraine upgrade, it will be much appreciated.

Ms Mallon: In June 2020, I announced that the new feasibility study was required to get phase 3 of the Coleraine to Derry rail line back on track. I ring-fenced the required funding for that work to be done at pace. As I said, the feasibility study is now complete, and it has outlined options for the redevelopment of that much-needed railway line. Those options will be taken forward and will be considered in a robust business case, which will ensure that all future spend is fully informed and that there are high-level assurances on the costs. The business case will be completed early this year, and I have instructed my officials to ensure that construction begins thereafter at the earliest opportunity.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for recognising the underinvestment or, as we would say in Derry, neglect of the north-west over so many years. Nowhere has that been more visible than in the rail network. When might the additional carriages be rolled on to the Derry to Belfast line?

Ms Mallon: As the Member will know, I invested £66 million in the purchase of 21 new train carriages. That was to ensure that we will have longer trains, facilitating passengers across our key routes. Derry is rightly identified as one of those, and the intention is that the new carriages will come into operation in the spring of this year.

Mr Robinson: Will the Minister give me an update on the much-needed Ballykelly halt, particularly its location?

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for his question. Ballykelly is one of the three locations that have been identified in the feasibility study for a new halt. Work is ongoing, and I hope to be in receipt of a report later this year and then to move to construction at the earliest opportunity, pending all the statutory processes being completed and the funding available.

Dr Aiken: The Minister is fully aware that, when the railway line makes its way up there, one of the more important areas for development should be the halt at Ballymartin. Will the Minister give an undertaking that, when she looks at feasibility studies for improving halts and rail connectivity, she looks first at something much closer and that has much more economic significance, particularly to the people of south Antrim and Ballymartin?

Ms Mallon: The Member will know that, along with Minister Eamon Ryan, I launched the all-island strategic rail review, the purpose of which is to look at existing rail connectivity to see where it can be improved in areas where it is not present. It will also look at rail connectivity to our international gateways — our ports and airports — and the role of rail in the transportation of freight. Certainly, if that issue has been raised during the consultation process, it will be given due consideration. As Minister, I am keen that we do everything that we can to maximise rail connectivity and to make sure that it is convenient for passengers across Northern Ireland.

Ms Mallon: As a keen campaigner on the issue, the Member will know that the Narrow Water bridge project is a ministerial priority for me as well as a key commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA). I am pleased that I have been able to make progress, and, working with the Irish Government, funding has been secured. Working with partners and stakeholders, we are keen to see and are progressing on the delivery of this very important bridge. The bridge will be an iconic landmark that will increase connectivity and maximise the tourism potential of the cross-border region.

On 29 June 2021, the Irish Government announced €3 million in funding from the Shared Island Fund to allow Louth County Council to advance the project to tender stage on the basis of the 2012 design proposals. My officials are working closely with Louth County Council to complete the processes required to move to the tender stage as quickly as possible. I assure the Member that I am determined that we work at pace, so that this long-awaited, much-needed project moves from concept to reality as quickly as possible for the people of south Down. Subject to completing the necessary development and statutory processes, construction on the bridge could commence next year.

Ms S Bradley: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, others talk the talk, but you have certainly walked the walk for Narrow Water bridge, and I thank you. I am conscious that only a short time is left in the mandate. Can the Minister give an assurance that the project has been sufficiently developed by the Department to ensure that any incoming Minister will have a clear pathway to its completion? I also ask the Minister to reference her good work on active travel and how that can be built around the bridge project.

I do not miss the opportunity to wish the Minister a happy St Brigid's Day.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Go raibh maith agat as sin. Gurb amhlaidh duit. The same to you.

Ms Mallon: I say, "Happy St Brigid's Day" to Sinéad Bradley as well.

I will deal with active travel first. My officials have been working on that because we want to make sure that we maximise the potential for the area. As well as maximising the tourism potential, we are making sure that we have good active travel opportunities for people. Not only is that good for the local economy and tourism; it is good for people's health and well-being.

In respect of the plans of a future Minister, I assure the Member and the House that we have been working to advance all the stages required as quickly as possible. Narrow Water bridge is an NDNA commitment. It is a five-party agreement, and I expect any future Minister to continue to work with the Irish Government, who are committed to funding the project, to ensure that we can see it finally delivered.

Ms Ennis: Narrow Water bridge is a vital all-island project that has strong cross-party political support, North and South, and I have been seeking progress on it for some time. With reference to the Minister's answer to the previous question, can she indicate whether construction is set for 2023, or is it possible to advance that and bring it forward? It will bring a huge boost to the local workforce and tourism economy. Is the Minister in a position to give some details on the design — for example, will cycle lanes be separate from other vehicles and traffic?

Ms Mallon: The project is working off the 2012 design, which will set out the cycling provision as well as the transport provision. With regard to construction potentially commencing in 2023, I caveat that by saying that it has to follow all the statutory processes. I am confident that there is a strong wind at the back of this project. We have the funding commitment from the Irish Government, and every effort is being made to ensure that we get to construction at the earliest opportunity because of the value of the project. As the Member rightly identified, it will bring employment opportunities to the area at a time when we are seeking to expand our economic recovery from COVID.

Ms Mallon: My Department intends to take forward a scheme for the resurfacing and widening of the A3 Portadown Road, Armagh, starting at the climbing lane section from the Drumman Heights roundabout heading out of Armagh and extending approximately 1·3 km eastwards towards Portadown. The widening of the existing main trunk road to current design standards will improve safety by providing right-turning facilities into the Tirnascobe Road — I hope that I have pronounced that correctly — and other accesses into residential properties. The scheme incorporates substantial resurfacing and drainage improvements of the carriageway and the installation of vehicle restraint systems where needed. The scheme tender documents are being prepared for procurement and will be advertised in the coming weeks. The scheme is programmed to be awarded and constructed during the 2022-23 financial year, subject, of course, to funding being made available.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for her response and welcome the fact that there will be a partial upgrade of the carriageway, and, even though it is only 1·3 km, it will still help. The existing dual carriageway has a couple of very dangerous turn-offs — Tirnascobe Road is one of them — so I welcome that. To my knowledge, the carriageway is one of the busiest single carriageways in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that a wider upgrade is needed for the road in the future?

Ms Mallon: I am not particularly familiar with the layout of the road, but, as the Member said, I am pleased that we are making some improvements. As always, I press my officials to make sure that we maximise our efforts to improve our road network, with road safety being a key aspect of that.

Mr Boylan: I welcome the news. Minister, given that no additional bids were made in the January monitoring round for additional roadworks and the fact that you have responded to me in writing that contracts will not be issued in the Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon area until at least May, what measures are you taking to address some of the outstanding issues that we are still facing with the dire state of some of our roads? What measures can you introduce in the meantime to try to address those issues?

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for his question. As a long-standing member of the Infrastructure Committee, he will be very aware of the Barton report, which, if I remember correctly, identified annual expenditure of £140 million at 2018 prices to maintain our road network. Obviously, allocations to the Department have fallen significantly short of that year-on-year. We have a concerning situation with the road network in certain parts of the North. To try to address that, I have allocated the highest ever level of funding specifically to a rural roads initiative. We have allocated £17 million this year to the roads recovery fund, £15 million of which is specific to our rural roads. That is a 50% increase. The Member will also know that emergency works are carried out. I will, however, continue to press the Executive and colleagues to ensure that we can get sufficient funding to maintain and improve our road network across the North.

Mr McNulty: Happy St Brigid's Day to you, a LeasCheann Comhairle, and to the Minister.

It is fantastic news to hear of the widening and resurfacing of the A3 carriageway from Armagh towards Portadown. The Minister mentioned the Tirnascobe Road junction, near which there is a house that requires a crash barrier. I hope that that can be factored into the design of those road improvement works.

The traffic on the road is immense —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Does the Member have a question, please?

Mr McNulty: Yes. How will traffic be reduced by reopening the Armagh to Portadown rail link, which has been factored into the rail review that the Minister recently completed with Minister Ryan? How will that, hopefully, help our climate as well —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): I ask the Member to bring his questioning to a close.

Mr McNulty: Will that rail link be factored in to the reduction of traffic —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): I ask the Member to resume his seat, please.

Mr McNulty: — on our roads?

Ms Mallon: The all-island strategic rail review looked at the rail network across the island. We had, I think, over 7,000 online responses alone to the public consultation on the review, and I have no doubt that the Armagh to Portadown issue has been raised in them and will be given consideration. The Member will also know that, in addition to that, I offered part funding for a feasibility study into the Portadown to Armagh link. My understanding is that Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council has appointed consultants and expects findings to be published in the spring.

Mr Beggs: I will follow up that point by saying that it is vital that rail links be re-established. Minister, in your rail investment, are you prioritising rail routes that are relatively low-hanging fruit, which can be redeveloped at minimal cost, given that the rail bed is already in place?

Ms Mallon: All those issues will, of course, be given consideration as part of the all-island strategic rail review, because it is about setting out a strategic and evidence-based approach to investment in our rail network. I have no doubt that the issues that the Member described as "low-hanging fruit" will be given consideration as part of that, and that will be informed by the investment decisions that are made by Ministers, North and South, on rail connectivity across the island.

Mr Muir: The House is debating a climate change Bill. Will the Minister detail to me what impact, she feels, the climate change legislation under consideration will have on new road-building projects across Northern Ireland? How will road safety be considered as part of that?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): I am sure that the Minister realises that does not relate specifically to the original question. It is at the Minister's discretion whether to answer.

Ms Mallon: Two such Bills are making their way through the House, with differing targets, and that will have to be factored in. There is no doubt that the climate crisis will significantly alter how we do business as a Government. It will have an impact on where and how we invest. It will require much greater investment in active travel infrastructure and in our public transport network. I have laid out before to the House the actions that we are taking as a Department on the electric charging infrastructure as well. It will certainly have an impact and will be one of the biggest challenges facing the new Executive and parties across the House.

Ms Mallon: My Department is not under any statutory obligation to carry out dredging at the mouth of the River Blackwater. Any work undertaken or contributed to by my Department would be on a purely discretionary basis and would need to demonstrate clear benefits for the community and value for money. That said, my officials are investigating what my Department would be in a position to do to facilitate progress on the issue. To that end, officials have been engaging with key stakeholders on dredging the mouth of the River Blackwater, meeting them on 10 December and again on 27 January. Conversations about what is required and how my Department can assist are ongoing. That will need to be informed by preliminary investigative work, such as the bathymetric and wildlife habitats surveys, to determine specific requirements.

I recognise the importance of the river as a gateway to Lough Neagh, and I am keen to do what I can to address any specific barriers to dredging and maintaining water levels and navigational markers that have been identified as impeding the lough's potential to contribute to the local community. My officials will continue to liaise closely with local stakeholders. I have asked to be kept informed of progress as we seek to work together to further the aims of the project.

Mr K Buchanan: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, we heard from Minister Poots earlier, who referenced Lough Neagh and Lough Neagh Rescue in his statement. Is the Minister aware that the Lough Neagh rescue boat cannot go down the River Blackwater because there is only approximately 450 mm of water, which is a foot and a half, in old money? Does that concern you? Are you content to press on to solve that problem?

Ms Mallon: As I said, my officials met stakeholders just last week as part of ongoing discussions on a potential way forward. I have also indicated that I am willing to consider part funding suitable projects from my blue-green fund should an appropriate business case for funding be forthcoming. I assure the Member that my officials will continue to closely engage with stakeholders and that I will continue to closely follow that engagement. My offer of potential funding from my blue-green fund stands.

Mr O'Dowd: Since my late, great mother was called Brigid, it is only appropriate that I wish you all beannachtaí na Féile Bríde — a happy St Brigid's Day.

Minister, I previously asked you questions about Lough Neagh and its potential for increasing tourism and benefiting the people around the lough. You committed to doing what you can in your Department to promote the lough. What has happened since then? Will you commit to meeting the Lough Neagh Partnership about advancing that goal?

Ms Mallon: My officials have had several meetings with the Lough Neagh Partnership about the future management of Lough Neagh. Discussions continue with various stakeholders, and they included a meeting in late January, which I referenced. I am clear that my officials will continue to engage with stakeholders in order to address any specific barriers that have been identified to dredging and maintaining water levels and navigational markers. I also reiterate my offer of potential funding from my blue-green fund.

I have to be honest with Members. The issue is that my Department's powers are limited when it comes to Lough Neagh, as it is in private ownership. In saying that, I have engaged with Minister Poots on it, and my officials will continue to engage with stakeholders.

Ms Mallon: There has been significant investment by my Department west of the Bann. My Department is investing in the construction of two very significant dualling schemes on the A6: the 15 km Randalstown to Castledawson scheme, which was fully opened to traffic in May '21; and the 25·5 km Drumahoe and Dungiven scheme, which is very well advanced and on course to be completed later this year.

The most significant road scheme that is under development west of the Bann is the flagship A5 project, for which my Department is working at pace on the publication of a new environmental statement addendum. I remain fully committed to progressing that project as quickly as possible.

A number of other strategic road infrastructure projects west of the Bann are being developed by my Department, including the A4 Enniskillen southern bypass; the A29 Cookstown bypass; the A32 Omagh to Enniskillen road upgrade; and the A2 Buncrana Road improvement scheme. In addition, my Department continues to progress roads and active travel investment in those areas, including schemes on Dublin Road and at O'Kane Park in Omagh, as well as a junction improvement scheme at Bells Park Road and Orchard Road near Strabane. The long-sought weight restriction through Clady came into effect with the placing of signs this week.

Flood alleviation schemes continue to progress. They include engagement with our partner consultant, revisiting the most recent flood study for Omagh town; the feasibility study for the Strabane significant flood risk area; and the design of proposed flood alleviation schemes for both Drumahoe and Eglinton. My officials have also completed a feasibility study for the Derry city area.

I have funded a number of transport projects west of the Bann since January 2020, including phase 2 external works of the north-west transport hub; the replacement of bearings for the Bann bridge in Coleraine; and the Bellarena permanent way storage and stabling facility.

Those projects are in addition to investment in a zero-emission bus fleet in Derry. There has also been significant investment in our water and waste water infrastructure.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): That ends the period for listed questions. We now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Ms Mallon: My Department has undertaken a review of the pop-up cycle lanes that were installed as part of our response to COVID, but I am happy to pick up on the individual issues that the Member has raised and come back to him in writing.

Mr Stalford: Pivoting to the other end of the constituency, the Minister will be aware that you have to wait for roughly 30 minutes or 45 minutes for a bus in the Belvoir estate and that they do not go directly into the centre of town. Will she look carefully at improving the frequency of and access to buses for the Belvoir estate?

Ms Mallon: The Member will know that I am keen to expand our public transport network in terms of its frequency and extension to locations. Often, these are operational matters for Translink, but, if the Member is content to write to me and provide further detail, I can certainly pass that to Translink, or he may wish to raise it with Translink directly and, if necessary, come back to me afterwards.

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for her question. Officials and I met members of the community association to discuss the issue. My officials subsequently attended a public meeting about it; I am sure that the Member was there. I have made it clear to my officials that it needs to be progressed quickly. It encapsulates a lot of what the blue-green infrastructure fund is about. I am bewildered that the village does not have a footway running through it. I have made it clear to my officials that we need to work hard to address that. A number of statutory processes have to be completed. The community association representative wrote to me recently on the matter, and I hope to write to him to provide him with a further update.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister very much for that detailed answer. Obviously, a footway would bring a lot of health benefits to that local community. They have gone for long enough without one. Minister, you mentioned statutory processes that you need to follow up. Can you give any timeline for when the footway may be delivered?

Ms Mallon: I am happy to provide detail in writing to the Member. I have asked officials to do exactly that so that I can provide an informed response to the community association. I am happy to provide you with the same information.

Ms Mallon: The Member will be aware that, on 26 July 2021, the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) reinstated normal vehicle test times, which has increased capacity across the network of test centres. From 1 September to 31 December 2021, the DVA conducted 264,540 full vehicle tests, which is 8% more than the five-year average for those months. The DVA has confirmed that, as of 31 January 2022 — yesterday — just over 55,000 vehicle test appointments were available across its network of centres up to 31 May 2022.

The DVA has steadily increased its vehicle testing capacity by adopting a range of measures, including the recruitment of additional vehicle examiners; the use of overtime to provide cover for leave and sick absence; and a reduction of the vehicle test appointment time. The DVA is also offering vehicle test appointments on Sundays and bank holidays at most test centres. Following the conversion of an adjoining building at the New Buildings test centre, additional test capacity is now available to meet demand in the north-west. The DVA is monitoring the applications received and tests carried out. It expects waiting times to reduce over time through the actions that it has taken to increase vehicle testing capacity across the network.

Ms Bunting: The Minister did not quite get to the detail of when, she anticipates, the long waits will end. We are now in a situation in which people will face sanction because they are not able to tax their car because they cannot get an MOT certificate for their car. What is she doing to mitigate that?

Ms Mallon: Vehicle excise duty or motor tax is, as the Member will know, an excepted matter that is administered by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) in Swansea on behalf of the Treasury. The DVA in my Department has no authority or influence over those matters. We have, however, been providing advice to customers who require an MOT to tax their vehicle and cannot secure a date before the MOT expires. That advice is to book the earliest available appointment and keep checking the booking system for an appointment before the MOT expires. If people get to within five days of their MOT expiry date, they should contact DVA customer services. Its dedicated email address is dva.customerservices@infrastructure-ni.gov.uk. The DVA will do its best to secure an urgent appointment for their vehicle. It is important to point out that, to date, all customers who have contacted the DVA in those circumstances have been offered an earlier appointment slot.

Ms Mallon: The Department's current standards specify a range of response times for the repair of road defects. The response time depends on factors such as their severity and the volume of traffic on the road. Response times range from one calendar day to fix the most serious defects to periods of between five working days and four weeks for less serious defects. If it becomes apparent that the relevant response time cannot be met, my Department has the option of installing signs to warn road users of a possible danger. Officials on the ground endeavour to repair potholes as quickly as they can, however.

Mr Harvey: Minister, have you managed to improve and shorten response times since taking up office? Is there still room for improvement?

Ms Mallon: There is always room for improvement. That was one of the reasons behind increasing the funding to the roads recovery fund and the rural roads initiative. I recognised that it was an issue. I am hopeful that, with multi-year Budgets going forward, we can review policies that were implemented as a result of historical underfunding of the Department. I remain committed to doing what we can to fix potholes across the North.

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for his question. I know that his party is very supportive of the public transport network and has made many calls for it to be expanded across the North. He is right to point out the issue of efficiencies. He may be aware that, during the pandemic, Translink made savings of £20 million. I suppose that, up to this point in time, the focus has been on ensuring that we can maintain our existing public transport network, given the dramatic reduction in passenger numbers. I will continue to press Translink to ensure that it is as efficient as possible and make the case at the Executive for investment to expand the road and rail public transport networks.

Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagra. I thank the Minister for her answer. Our public transport network is vital for connecting people and communities and tackling social isolation. Translink received substantial COVID support funding of over £100 million in the years 2019-2020 and 2020-21. There is an increase of between £14 million and £15 million in its resource budget in the draft Budget for 2022-25. Will the Department for Infrastructure prioritise public transport in its budget to ensure that no cuts happen to any vulnerable services, particularly those in remote rural areas?

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for his question. Translink was allocated significant funding during the pandemic. When that is compared with the funding that was provided to transport in England, Scotland, Wales and the South, however, it falls short. It is at the bottom of that table.

While I am Minister for Infrastructure, I will continue to prioritise public transport. The difficulty that we will have is that our ambition to expand it will be curtailed if sufficient allocation is not brought across to the Department, but I will continue to make that case, and I hope that other parties will join me in that endeavour.

Ms Mallon: I do not have the specific details of that request, but I am happy to go back to officials to ask them to assess that and provide you with an update in writing.

Mr Butler: The initial request was made on the back of an assault on a jogger. The pathway is used profusely; in fact, the pathway is preferred to the public pathway. Perhaps the funding may be found under the active travel scheme. A lot of cyclists use that route, and I know they are a priority with regard to the active travel scheme. Perhaps that is an avenue that might be worth pursuing.

Ms Mallon: One of the objectives of the blue-green infrastructure fund is to ensure that we have much better active travel facilities for citizens that are safe and that more people are encouraged to use. So, from a policy perspective, it would fit with the fund.

Rather than impose change from on high, we have been working with councils and asking them to identify active travel schemes that they could bring forward for funding from the blue-green infrastructure fund. I am sure that the Member will make representations to his local council, if he has not already done so, and I will speak to our active travel branch as well.

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for her question. That is a really important issue across the North but particularly in the constituency of North Belfast. On that particular project, my Department, through its consultant partner, has completed initial design work for suicide prevention barriers for pilot sites at the Divis and Clifton road bridges.
The Department is commissioning test panels on the material, and, once that work has been completed and assessed, the current schedule is that installation works will commence by the summer of this year. I assure the Member that it remains a priority for me, so I will continue to push to ensure that we get progress made as quickly as possible.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagra. I appreciate the response that the Minister has given. It is completely appropriate to look at north Belfast and west Belfast, as, regrettably, they are two areas that have suffered disproportionately through suicide.

In the Minister's capacity as a constituency MLA, she will be aware that several suicide attempts have been made at other bridges, including Hightown Bridge and Arthur Bridge. If the Minister could provide an update in writing regarding those, I would appreciate it.

Ms Mallon: The Member raises an extremely important issue. I do not think that the infrastructure that was built was the right type of infrastructure in the first instance, and action should have been taken before now. The challenge here has been piloting to make sure that it works so that, if it is proven to work and achieves those objectives and acts as a deterrent, we can roll that out in other areas. The focus has been on making sure that we get the pilot right and we know what works, and, hopefully, we can see that rolled out to other locations.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): There is time for a brief question from Mr Irwin.

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for his question. From memory, I think that I was allocated £56 million in resource in January monitoring and £3·6 or £3·8 million for the A5. Subsequent to that, I have made additional bids that are under consideration by the Finance Minister and the wider Executive.

In respect of January monitoring, given the legal challenges that have come into play, it has not been possible to make an additional capital bid for roads at this late stage. We did that during the year. Unfortunately, not all were successful.

Given that we are at such a late stage in the financial year, it has not proved possible to make a bid this time round. However, I have asked my officials to continue to review that to ensure that, where we can, we make bids and do what we can to maximise the effort being made on our roads.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Time is up. Let us take our ease until we move to the next item of business.

Mr Speaker: I understand that Clare Bailey was speaking before the break for lunch and had not intended to conclude her remarks on the group 1 amendments. I call Clare Bailey to speak. The next Member to speak after that will be Declan McAleer, the Chairperson of the Committee.

Ms Bailey: Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.]

Sorry? That is all right.

I had intended to speak to the grouped amendments. I had finished speaking to amendment No 2 just before the break for lunch, so I would like to address the other amendments that we have tabled in group 1.

Amendment Nos 7 and 8 relate to interim targets for 2030 and 2040. We will not move those amendments. Instead, the Green Party will support amendment No 6, which was tabled by Members from Sinn Féin and which provides that the interim targets for those years be set in line with the overall target within 24 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.

Amendment No 10 addresses the lowering, or potential lowering, of targets. As drafted, the Bill allows the overarching target to be amended by the Department to be less ambitious. While we have been given assurances that that is certainly not the Department's intention, and we will, of course, take it at its word, it has always been the Green Party's position that there is no point in setting a target that can be lowered if, for example, we were not meeting it. The consultation that was carried out during the AERA Committee's scrutiny of the Bill showed that there was a clear strength of opinion amongst stakeholders that the Department should not, under any circumstances, give itself the power to amend the target year or percentage to lower ambition. Therefore, we support the Minister's amendment No 9, which will ensure that the target can be amended only to increase ambition, either by specifying "an earlier year" or "a higher percentage". The Green Party thinks that that is satisfactory, and we will not move amendment No 10 either.

Proposed amendment No 16 to clause 9 relates to the purchase of carbon units by the Department and carbon offsetting. In its current form, the Bill places no limits on the number of carbon offsets that can be purchased by the Department as a way of meeting carbon budgets. Our amendment No 16 seeks to deal with something that is vital to the operation of the legislation and places a limit on using the purchase of carbon credits as a way of meeting our targets. For example, the Department would not be able to say that it had met its targets if it had done that through the buying of carbon credits. We cannot enter a process of decarbonisation with the intention of meeting our targets through clever accounting, carbon offsetting in other countries or other market-based solutions. The idea that we can purchase our way out of a climate emergency makes a mockery of our commitment to tackle the crisis in legislation. Reductions in emissions must happen within Northern Ireland. Amendment No 16 sets strict limits on offsets and carbon credits and how they are used —

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bailey: — just a second, please — to balance budgets by capping how many carbon units can be credited to the net Northern Ireland emissions account for a particular period at 25% of the total emissions for that period. While clause 9 provides for DAERA to set such a limit by regulations, it gives far too much power to one Minister and Department. The limit must be included in the Bill. I encourage all Members to support amendment No 16 to ensure that that is the case.

I will give way.

Mr Beggs: The Member said that the reductions must occur in Northern Ireland. What if the decisions taken in Northern Ireland result in increased emissions elsewhere and the net global output is increased? How do her proposals work in that scenario?

Ms Bailey: I do not know what that scenario is, but I thank the Member for that point.

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bailey: Yes.

Mr Beggs: As I have highlighted, Northern Ireland agri-food products have a lower greenhouse gas content or cause behind them than many food products elsewhere in the world. For example, the average emissions intensity of milk production in Northern Ireland is 1·279 CO2 per kilogram of energy corrected milk, whereas the average global factor is 2·5, which is twice that amount. By being hard on our farmers, you have no control over production elsewhere in the world, and world emissions will increase.

Ms Bailey: I thank the Member for that point. He is going back to part of the previous conversation. The climate does not care about the efficiency per unit produced. What matters is the total amount of emissions. It is the total amount of emissions that we must look to reduce. I will go back to what I said to the Member before: the post-Brexit trade deals are the biggest threat when it comes to the circumstances of which he speaks, rather than climate targets and actions.

I turn to amendment No 34, which looks at nitrogen balance sheets. Amendment No 34 inserts a new clause that creates a requirement on the Department to produce a nitrogen balance sheet:

The amendment was modelled on a similar provision in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which mandated the creation of a Scottish nitrogen balance sheet as a powerful new source of evidence to track how efficiently nitrogen is used in Scotland and to help to identify opportunities to improve that. Nitrogen is a basic building block of life, which is present across the economy and environment. It is very important for growing and producing food, which is why it is an issue that Northern Ireland in particular should be looking at, given our position as a food exporter.

The effective use of nitrogen is important. Correctly used, it has an important role to play. Think of applying manure to grass for livestock. Losses of nitrogen to the environment through run-offs to rivers and lakes, through air pollution and through releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere have devastating effects on climate change, biodiversity, air and water quality and human health. Nitrogen use efficiency means the proportion of nitrogen that is used for intended purposes such as growing food compared with nitrogen that is lost to the environment. A large proportion of stakeholders who responded to the Committee's consultation on the Bill wished to see nitrogen use efficiency included in the measures put forward by the Department. However, it was not brought forward, as the Minister felt that it would better fit a separate law that covers biodiversity and ecosystem health.

We feel that nitrogen causes catastrophic damage to waterways, biodiversity and ecosystems, but it also turns into nitrous oxide in the air. Nitrous oxide is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas with a warming effect that is almost 300 times greater than CO2, which, of course, fits into the Bill. Leaving nitrogen out of the Bill leaves out a huge chunk of the problem that we face. We hope that amendment No 34 will help us to develop a vital evidence base and to determine a baseline for nitrogen use. In turn, that will support not only climate action but air quality and food strategies and future environmental policies.

I will briefly touch on other amendments in the group. With the exception of one technical amendment, the Minister's amendments in the group relate to the setting of a specific target of net zero CO2 by 2050. I will not speak to each amendment in turn, as many of them are consequential and technical amendments, but I will speak generally on the setting of a specific carbon dioxide target.

The Green Party will oppose these amendments. Splitting targets is bad practice and sets a bad precedent. It is not done in the rest of Ireland or in the UK. It is done in New Zealand, and we have seen how targets that were singled out have become vulnerable to lobby groups fighting to have a bigger slice of the emissions pie. If these amendments pass, it will make me very wary of what kind of imaginative accounting is to come as we start our journey towards net zero.

The CCC's balanced pathway, which recommended an 82% overall fall in GHG emissions, already requires net zero CO2 emissions, so we should all ask ourselves why a specific CO2 target is proposed and why it is being framed as though it is a compromise. It is a distraction, and not a very clear one. If the target is 82%, CO2 will be net zero; if the target is net zero, CO2 will be net zero. We feel that this amendment is pointless. Singling out one gas in that way sets the stage for other gases to be singled out for differential treatment. The science does not support that. We must be very careful with the standard that we set in legislation. Some may accuse me of catastrophising. Let us not forget, however, that, throughout the past week, we have seen an awful lot of spin, and this amendment has appeared in the media as a compromise. It has been framed as if it were something new; not exactly the same target as was already proposed. For me, the bottom line must be the science. The question is whether this amendment will credibly help to reduce climate change. If not, it is just smoke and mirrors — a clever distraction — and we should not support it. The Green Party will not support it.

I look forward to a respectful and challenging debate, and I hope that Members can support strong, transparent provisions that set clear frameworks for the years ahead.

Mr McAleer (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I welcome the opportunity to speak, as Chairperson of the AERA Committee, on the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill that has been introduced by the Minister and to outline the extensive work that the Committee has undertaken over the last number of months in its scrutiny.

Climate change is, arguably, the most important issue facing society. The House will be aware of the increasing number of natural disasters and extreme weather events being reported around the globe, leading to ecological devastation and loss of life. Christian Aid recently reported that the 10 worst climate disasters last year accounted for $1·5 billion or more in economic losses and thousands of deaths. We are seeing the effects of climate change locally: the average annual temperature has risen by about 9% since the 1960s, and our climate is increasingly mild and wet. The evidence is unequivocal: we are responsible for the harm caused to the planet.

Human activity and the generation of greenhouse gases from industry, travel and consumption have caused profound global warming over the last 200 years, leading to changes in the natural environment and weather patterns. The challenge is clear and stark: we all have a responsibility to do our part to mitigate future environmental harm. To avoid irreversible harm to the planet and future devastation, large and small nations, young people and older generations must change how we live, work and travel.

At the COP26 conference in November, we heard about the profound impact that climate change has had on other parts of the world. We heard about the imminent risk of the complete loss of animal and plant species because of climate change and about the threats to people's homes and livelihoods. The Committee recognises the challenges posed by climate change, and the pledge from nations across the globe is to take stronger actions in order to meet the Paris agreement objective of maintaining global warming at well below 2°C by 2050. That is why it is crucial that we establish local climate change legislation. We need to provide an effective and deliverable framework to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and do our fair share in the global movement to mitigate harm from climate change.

The Committee acknowledges that all sectors of the local economy will be affected by the climate change law and that all industries will have to adopt new ways of working and introduce innovations to reduce their impact. That will not be easy. The task will be hard and long, and it is important that the laws that we put in place not only enable effective and ambitious change but provide appropriate safeguards to protect those who will be most affected by the transition.

Given the profound and wide-ranging implications of the Bill, the Committee undertook an extensive call for evidence to seek views from the public and stakeholders on the proposals.

Overall, we received over 1,000 responses to our call, and they comprised returns from citizens as well as from organisations representing the agri-food, environment, energy, building, transport and business sectors. We also had some fantastic and robust engagements with local schools, and we engaged with around 300 pupils. The Committee was struck by the almost universal desire from stakeholders to see climate change law introduced here and by the profound frustration due to the fact that we are the only part of these islands that does not have climate change legislation. We need to rectify that, and the Committee welcomes the progression of legislation to address that gap.

We heard a number of key messages from those who responded to our call for evidence. The majority of respondents welcome the Bill's introduction, but many have concerns about its ambition, particularly the overall emissions target, and they would prefer to see a net zero position legislated for. However, others welcome the target of a reduction of emissions of at least 82% by 2050 as that is in line with the advice from the UK CCC. Most people support the proposed system of carbon budgeting, but concerns were raised about some of the provisions that would enable its adjustment. There were significant concerns about the lack of provision for a just transition to support different industries to make the move to greener climate-friendly practices. The overwhelming majority of respondents want to see greater collaboration between jurisdictions on a transboundary basis to address climate change, because it cannot be tackled by working in isolation. There was significant support for the establishment of a locally based entity to provide independent advice and scrutiny of climate change policy and government action.

In addition, the Committee held a number of oral evidence sessions with 20 stakeholders, including those representing the local agri-food industry, environmental groups, local government, small businesses, rural communities and the waste management sector. We also received oral briefings from the Department and engaged closely with officials in our deliberations to clarify issues and flesh out some of the concerns that were raised. We also took evidence from the UK CCC to hear its advice and projections for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions locally, and we heard from the Scottish Just Transition Commission in order to learn how it has embedded those principles in policy in Scotland.

Through our engagements, we heard from respected academics in climate change law and governance. We heard about the importance of establishing robust local legislation with sufficient ambition in order to boost our environmental reputation and ensure that our economy does not fall behind those of our neighbours as businesses increasingly seek investment opportunities in green growth markets.

In order to inform our views, we commissioned briefings on the Bill from colleagues in the Research and Information Service to hear how it compares with other legislation and about the potential financial impacts of pursuing different emissions targets. The Committee recognises the need for climate change legislation here and considers that the amendments that we have recommended to the Department will significantly strengthen the Bill and embed the principles of just transition and transboundary working at the heart of the legislation, as well as committing the Department to scoping the future introduction of a locally based entity for independent scrutiny and advice. That will ensure that the Bill provides an effective framework for all sectors of the economy to move forward and reduce emissions in a just, fair and transparent manner and to ensure that the needs of the most vulnerable sectors of society are taken into account in the deployment of strategies to meet climate action.

We all have a responsibility to change in order to avoid irreversible harm to the planet. We owe it to children, young people and future generations to ensure that we take the necessary steps to mitigate climate change now so that they are not left in an even worse situation with a need for more radical change.

The Committee, and, I am sure, most of the House, welcomes the progression of local climate change legislation that will allow our businesses, the agriculture sector, industry and the public service to move forward with policies and plans and play their part in the global effort to reduce climate harm.

I will move to the Committee's views on the Bill and the amendments in group 1 that were proposed by the Committee. Clauses 1 to 3 set out targets to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by at least 82% by 2050 and interim targets for 2040 and 2030 in line with advice from the UK CCC. The Committee recognises the strong divergence of opinion on those targets, with many stakeholders feeling that they do not go far enough, while others consider that they are based on sound scientific advice. Members also recognise that representatives from the agri-food sector have been particularly vocal in their calls to support the Bill's emission targets because they will maintain our ability to produce high-quality meat and dairy products.

In the event, the Committee did not come to a unanimous position on the overall emissions target, but the majority of members supported the Bill. The Committee did, however, recommend that the Department amend clause 1 to take full account of the CCC's advice that there should be a net zero CO2 position by 2050 as part of the overall 82% reduction in greenhouse gases, and it was content with the corresponding amendment No 4, which was tabled by the Minister.

To support that amendment, the Department has suggested a number of necessary consequential changes via amendment Nos 12 to 14, 17, 31, 55, 59, 64 to 66 and 75. The Committee is content with those amendments, as drafted by the Department.

Clauses 4 and 5 make provision for DAERA to adjust emission target years and baselines through regulations in the future, subject to preconditions established in later clauses. The Committee reflected the strong concerns raised by stakeholders that, theoretically, those clauses may be used to delay action on climate change, and requested that the Department consider amending the provisions to ensure that that would not happen. The Committee welcomes the pledge by the Minister and the Department that the intention of those clauses is not to reduce climate action but to ensure that there is flexibility in the Bill to adapt to any future changes that may be made in international accounting practice. The Committee also supports the subsequent amendment No 9, which was tabled by the Department to amend clause 4, and will ensure that the emission targets and years can only be made more ambitious.

The Committee did not identify any issue of concern with the provisions, as drafted, in clauses 6 to 8, and broadly welcomes the proposals under clauses 9 and 10 that would allow DAERA to establish a scheme to track carbon usage and credit and debit carbon units between various periods. That is a well-established system in other jurisdictions to monitor progress on emissions.

Clauses 11 to 15 set the mechanisms by which the Department will make carbon budgets that will set maximum emission levels on a five-year basis. The Committee heard evidence that that is a methodology that is applied in numerous regions to measure emissions reductions and broadly welcomes the adoption of that approach. The Committee questioned whether the scope of the budgets could be expanded to include other environmental indicators, such as nitrogen efficiency, ammonia emissions and biodiversity targets. While members recognise the importance of measuring those indicators, on balance, the Committee did not agree to seek an amendment to the Bill as they might be more effectively addressed by different legislation.

Clause 15 enables the Department to adjust a carbon budget by carrying forward any unused budget to a future period, and carrying back up to 1% of a budget to a previous period. Many stakeholders expressed concern about that provision, so members sought assurances from DAERA about the intent and scope. The Committee was advised that clause 15 could not be used to weaken climate action, given that the carbon budgets must be set at a level to meet the overall targets, and that any plans put in place to meet a budget would be in the process of being implemented before consideration was made to adjust a budget. The Department must also liaise with Departments and the UK CCC before making any proposal to adjust a carbon budget. On balance, the Committee considers that a reasonable safeguard. That is all that I have to say on behalf of the Committee on the first group of amendments.

Mr Irwin: This legislative process has been quite a journey. It has been one of the most involved processes that I can remember in my time as a member of the Agriculture Committee; indeed, it is far from over, if the list of amendments is anything to go by. That points to the seriousness of the challenge that is before us as a legislative Assembly.

At the outset, I must state that I believe that the amendments tabled by some Members — certainly at the early stages — amount to a childish game of ping-pong. I resent the very obvious game playing. It does not bode well for us reaching a sensible outcome on one of the most important issues. To simply take the Department's Bill and attempt to amend it in such a casual manner by changing dates and reducing the time frames is a concern for a great number of reasons, not least because the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill is the Executive Department's Bill. It is a Bill that has been constructed by the people who will oversee its implementation. To casually insert amendments in this fashion rides roughshod over the Department. The net result, particularly if the amendments on the time targets were pushed through, would be the forewarned decimation of our agri-food industry. As a recent communication from the Climate Change Committee alludes to, it would also plunge Northern Ireland into a cost nightmare. Costs associated with the ridiculous proposal of net zero by 2045 would be to the tune of billions of pounds extra. That extra money does not exist. The Department believes that the extra cost of a net zero by 2045 target would be in the region of £5·5 billion, on top of the cost for the net zero by 2050 target.

It gets more fanciful by the minute. Some Members continue to push Northern Ireland closer to an economic cliff edge. That is not a firm footing on which to move forward, and I again urge the parties in opposition to this Bill to reconsider their views.

I found it interesting that the Speaker even thought it important to write to MLAs about the uniqueness of the situation. It is far from favourable to have two competing Bills. The situation, however, remains that two Bills are on the table, and I wish to state my support for the Bill before the House today standing in the name of the Minister of Agriculture, Mr Edwin Poots MLA, and for it to pass Consideration Stage. The Bill has the very wide support of the agriculture industry, and, although it is a Bill that encompasses much more than just agriculture, it is that sector that has responded loud and clear to the realities of meeting the challenges of climate change.

As was outlined yet again in a very informative and worthwhile webinar yesterday, Minister Poots's Bill has been carefully constructed, with expert input to balance the important work of protecting the climate against the equally important work of ensuring that our agri-food industry and economic well-being are not irreparably impacted on. With that in mind, we are now well versed in the work of the UK Climate Change Committee. Its expert-led panel has recommended that Northern Ireland reach at least an 82% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050. Although I have read commentary from those who would detract from this Bill by saying that it lacks ambition, I completely disagree with such a view, and I point to the collective nature of the Climate Change Committee's work to steer the United Kingdom as a whole towards meeting its objectives. The efforts of Northern Ireland are equivalent to the efforts across the other UK nations and, most crucially, are understood to be achievable.

It is also important to note that the competing private Member's Bill has been subject to a thorough assessment by the leading company KPMG, the results of which have been sobering and the topic of considerable discussion and alarm amongst the agri-food industry, both from the perspective of the representative bodies and that of individual stakeholders. The headlines in the KPMG report are stark. Beef and sheep farming in less-favoured areas (LFAs) could see a 98% drop in farm numbers. That would be catastrophic. As a dairy farmer, I note that 86% of dairy farms would close under the private Member's Bill's outcomes, and, although in my comments today I must remain on the Minister's Bill, it is important to touch on the important commissioned research on the competing private Member's Bill. Many of the amendments on the table today refer back to the private Member's Bill, and there is clearly an attempt to move the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill significantly into that territory. That is a grave mistake.

I move on to the specific amendments listed in group 1, which are associated with targets, carbon budgets and nitrogen balance sheets. I support the Minister's amendments, which are amendment Nos 4, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 31, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 64, 65, 66 and 75. I also support amendment No 15, which is a non-ministerial amendment, as I feel that it represents a worthwhile addition, given the importance of carbon capture and storage technology. The Minister's amendments seek to make sensible improvements to the wording of the Bill, and, although the wider aims of the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill are ambitious, they are more widely regarded as being achievable than, for instance, amendment Nos 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8, where it is very clear that the signatories to them wish to go so far as to place our entire agri-food industry in peril. As I have said, implementing them would cost Northern Ireland many billions of pounds, which is money that we do not have to waste. They seek to do that by vastly shortening the time frames and, indeed, as a knock-on effect, by reducing the productivity of the agri-food industry. As I mentioned earlier, that has been well warned against by the Climate Change Committee, KPMG and the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU), as well as by the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), which, quite rightly, states that it wants to see the eradication of emissions but, crucially, not the eradication of small business.

That line from the correspondence received yesterday from the federation was especially stark. The risks to small businesses are, indeed, enormous, and even the federation actively steers the House towards the 82% target. I therefore signal my intent not to support amendment Nos 1, 2, 3 and 5, as they would massively impact the time frame and, with that, create massive upheaval to Northern Ireland's economy and plunge it over a cliff edge.

I do not support amendment Nos 6, 7 and 8, as they have a significantly greater impact than that proposed in the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill, and that has not been fully understood. Amendment No 10 is unnecessary, as the Minister's amendment represents an adequate improvement. Amendment No 11, which inserts a new clause, is a significant departure from the Bill, and the wider impact of such a departure is not fully understood.

Amendment No 20 directly relates to the Department for the Economy. There is a significant need for that Department to make its own direction on consumption in regard to power generation from renewables. I again resent the casual approach of the proposers of that amendment, especially when the issue of power generation comprises so many different rules and regulations that deserve much greater consideration in their own right.

On amendment No 30, it is clear, given that Northern Ireland is working towards a 2050 target from a United Kingdom-wide perspective, that advice on carbon budgets and other environmental issues should be taken, for the most part, exclusively from the United Kingdom's advisory services; indeed, the Climate Change Committee is an important inclusion in that proposal. It is vital that our overall direction is not dictated to by interests and loyalties to other jurisdictions that will be working to differently set agendas and outcomes. We must work to meet our respective targets in the UK framework. For that reason, I cannot support that amendment.

Amendment Nos 32 and 34 insert new clauses that are unnecessary. The Climate Change (No. 2) Bill effectively covers the areas under carbon budgets, with the Minister's amendment No 38 adequately covering the main points. On departmental coordination and multisectoral impacts, the Bill clearly affords the necessary latitude to be reflective and responsive to the circumstances prevailing at that time. Amendment No 35 is unnecessary, as it goes without saying that individual Departments' efforts would be complementary to the regional direction of travel.

It has been a lengthy debate so far, so I will draw to a close my remarks on the first group of amendments.

Ms Hunter: I welcome the opportunity today to contribute to the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill discussion and to speak on the group 1 amendments on targets, carbon budgets and nitrogen balance sheets. I also welcome the fact that the debate is not timed so that many can contribute and have their say.

As one of the youngest MLAs in the Assembly, I engage heavily with the younger generation and climate activists of all ages, and I know how much the consideration of the climate change legislation today means to them. From my engagement with a number of sectors ahead of the debate on the Bill, I believe this to be an exciting time in our history, as I have seen how keen our citizens, businesses and sectors are to diversify, innovate and learn how to tackle the climate crisis. We want to ensure that the legislation, with our amendments today, is strong and fair. Later today, we will discuss the importance of a well-funded just transition, oversight and clear policies across Departments.

I will move to some of the amendments. Above all else, we across the House can contribute today to clear and effective climate legislation. Today, the SDLP will support amendment No 9 and, if moved, amendment No 10, so that emissions targets can only be brought forward and not pushed back and, for a particular year, a "higher percentage" target. That reflects the urgency of the climate crisis and holds Departments to account. Protecting our environment should be a priority for our Government here. Thousands of young people on the island of Ireland, many of whom are too young to vote, have shown us through protest, speeches, petitions and climate change events just how much the topic means to them. Some argue that the North is small, but we can make a huge and positive step by creating appropriate legislation.

I welcome amendment Nos 32 and 35, which detail the Department's accountability for key factors when setting carbon budgets, such as "scientific knowledge about climate change", "technology relevant to climate change" and, most importantly, the "likely impact" on rural jobs and rural employment opportunities. Any decisions made on climate change must include a fair and just transition. As always, the SDLP is committed to working with our rural communities to bring about the change that we need.

I firmly believe that today is our chance for change. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the legislation and to contribute to the debate on the amendments in group 4 later today, when the SDLP will say that a just transition is necessary to meet targets ethically and that we can do that through having an adviser, correct coordination and appropriate fundamental just transition principles.

Dr Aiken: It is useful at this point to set out the Ulster Unionist position on the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill and, indeed, the Climate Change Bill. Behind the scenes, my party and I have encouraged the sponsors of the two Bills to come closer together. To many people outside, there is a degree of absurdity about the Northern Ireland Assembly debating two climate change Bills when we should be debating one climate emergency Bill, because that is the situation that we are in.

Our party's position is that we wish to support amendments to both Bills so that they read as closely together as possible, but the Bills should put us in a situation that allows our nation, the United Kingdom, to reach its net zero contribution by 2050 in such a way as to ensure that Northern Ireland's agribusiness and other sectors of the economy are not badly damaged. To us, that means that we need to be in a position to get to 82% or better by 2050. Our party will support the proposals made by the Minister for getting to that point.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Dr Aiken: Certainly.

Mr Dickson: I am interested in the Member's comment. On 22 March last year, you posted a video on your party's Twitter feed in which you said:

Yet you have just said that you think that we should only get to 82% by 2050. I wonder who the real Ulster Unionist is here.

Dr Aiken: I assure you that I am definitely the real Ulster Unionist and the real Ulster Unionist Party. One thing that we reflected on was that we would talk to the business community; we would talk to the agribusiness community; we would talk to the farmers. We talked to those people, and they said, time and time again, that they would not be able to get into that position. Yes, I would have liked to have a more ambitious target, but we are a party that listens. Unlike other political parties, we go out and talk to communities to achieve that aim. We listened to what was said clearly by the farming community. We listened to what was said by the agribusiness community. Having been at COP26 and, in my previous existence, having worked with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), I know that it is about realistic goals.

There are other things that we wish to see come through in the Bill. My learned friend our agriculture spokesman will talk about some of the amendments and what our position will be.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for giving way. Tomorrow, the Member's colleague the Minister of Health will publish our health performance statistics. In my lifetime — certainly in my time as an MLA — I cannot remember any of the targets therein being met. Following the Member's logic as he applies it to this Bill or these Bills, does he believe that we should therefore revise the targets that are set for our trusts and the Department of Health?

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed for that question. I, too, think that our Health Minister has been absolutely brilliant in what he is trying to do; indeed, our Health Department has been extraordinary in dealing with very difficult circumstances. I am certain that every political party in the Executive fully supports the Health Minister in his aims and objectives. Here, however, we are talking specifically about the climate emergency and how we achieve the position that we need to get to. We have to set realistic goals.

There are other things that we need to do. We need independent verification, and, as a party, we will call for a climate emergency commissioner and commission. We need to see that, and we will support the amendments that set that direction as well.

We note the Alliance Party's position on action plans. We will support those action plans because we need movement on where we are trying to get to. Those are key objectives. As legislators, however, we have to set out legislation that is achievable, that is not going to do more damage than good, and which will allow us to contribute toward net zero carbon by 2050 across our nation, the United Kingdom.

There are many aspects of the Bill — we will hear about them as we go through today — that will require a lot of discussion. We will encourage everybody to look at the wider picture in order to achieve our goals, aims and objectives. However, there are significant issues around those objectives as well. We need to understand what is meant by a just transition. The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), the CBI and other members of the business community have called on us to make sure that there are appropriate mechanisms for a just transition, because the climate emergency is with us. What will we have to do to achieve that? We need to explore how we set up a situation in which we can have a just transition and are able to fund that just transition.

There are opportunities available to us as well. It is a question not just of what we are going to have to cut back on but of what we are going to have to develop. That speaks to the ideas around action plans and making them work as we go forward. As legislators, looking at the raft of amendments to the Bill, and because there are two Bills, we need to produce two climate emergency Acts that enable us to achieve our goals and objectives without fundamentally damaging our economy while we are doing so.

To be honest, I cannot think of anybody here who does not believe in a climate emergency or in the real challenges that we will have with the rise in temperature by 2°C by 2050, which, regrettably, is our direction of travel at the moment. We cannot be in a situation where we are not all working collectively to get to where we need to be. We can do that. That is why we should be bringing the best parts of both Bills together for achievable goals and deliverables.

Those achievable goals are quite simple. One, we need to recognise that there is a climate emergency. Two, we need to have an independent verification method under a commission and a commissioner. Three, we need to have realistic goals, which must be for better than 82% by 2050: if we do not do that, we are going to damage our economy. The final piece of the puzzle is that we must have a just transition. We must have a mechanism to make sure that our communities are not damaged as we make the necessary transition in order to deal with the climate emergency.

My friend, our agriculture spokesman, will talk specifically about the amendments as we go through the group.

Mr Blair: We are most certainly in a position where we can focus on 2050 and on the specific net zero figure, and we should be moving forward with the debate on that basis. I commend the Minister and his Department for introducing the Bill, which is being presented at a time when legislation is long overdue and increasingly urgent and in a context where Northern Ireland is the only place in the UK, Ireland and, indeed, Europe not to have its own form of net zero climate law and the associated and necessary frameworks around that law.

While we will all experience the effects of climate change, we will not all do so equally across the world, nor do we all bear equal responsibility. The world's richest 10% of nations produce around 50% of all emissions. Meanwhile, the poorest half of the world's population — around 3·5 billion people — are responsible for just 10% of carbon emissions, yet they are the most threatened by catastrophic storms, droughts and other severe weather shocks that are linked to climate change. For that reason, the 2015 Paris climate agreement demands that high-income countries go further and faster in radically reducing emissions by no later than the second half of this century. It also requires Governments to reduce emissions on the:

We must reach net zero emissions no later than 2050 to achieve this goal of 1·5°C. The crisis will only increase in magnitude if immediate action is not taken to reduce carbon emissions rapidly. We must also address the fact that, in Northern Ireland, 68% of our emissions are carbon, 22% are methane, 8% are nitrous oxide and the remaining 2% are a variety of other gases contributing to emissions. Separating any of these from the overall emissions grouping is, I suggest, distracting and diverging, and leaves too much scope for variations within what was the original grouping of emissions. In addition to that, it will tie us to an approach not used in other places on these islands.

Right here in Northern Ireland, we must play our part and exercise our global duty. The race to net zero currently drives growth in economic opportunity among our neighbours and competitors. We can no longer be the exception to ambition. If we fall behind now, we stay behind forever. We risk losing out on economic benefits and new green industries with new jobs and export opportunities. There are also ecological benefits, more biodiversity and better air quality, more green space to enjoy, better infrastructure, less climate damage such as flooding, as well as community benefits such as quieter streets, active travel, healthier diets, smart cities, and comfortable, warm homes. We should never limit our ambitions for change or the potential for our sectors, and nor should we underestimate industries and how they might adapt to and with technologies still being developed or still to be brought forward.

In these expectations, we should all be aware of the timescale associated with all those issues and the planning that we are considering. To put it clearly: the target for 2050 is 28 years away. That, at the very least, should be considered as a generation. If we think back a similar period of time, we have to accept that the technologies that are widely available to us today would have been hard to envisage then. It is my hope that all Departments and sectors will work together to protect not only the environment but existing jobs and to bring forward new green jobs.

The Alliance Party is committed to a green and just recovery and an urgent and radical overhaul of the policies and practices that have hindered our progress to date. Today presents us with a historic opportunity to bring Northern Ireland up to pace with other modern democracies and to plan for a safer and healthier future for us and our neighbours, locally and globally. Let us now embrace this opportunity for net zero by 2050.

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Blair: Yes.

Mr Beggs: Will the Member address the issue about net zero for Northern Ireland? The specific issue is that, if, instead of exporting food, we rely on imports by decimating our industry and local production, we will increase CO2 emissions, because they will be produced elsewhere. Our agriculture industry is the epitome of sustainability. It is at the top end of low emissions. Does the Member not accept that net zero for the agriculture sector will result in increased global emissions from that sector elsewhere? It will, perhaps, even result in more of the Amazon rainforest being cut down so that Brazil can rear an additional 10 million cattle for export to Europe.

Mr Blair: I thank the Member for his intervention. I will say two things in response to it. The first is the issue of sectoral plans, which my party has put forward to offer assistance. However, we should deal with that separately. Sectoral plans are not in this group of amendments, so I do not think that it would be proper process for me to engage in debate on that at this point.

The second issue that the Member raised is what the rest of the world is doing. I do not take the view that, because others are doing less or are not doing enough, I do not have to do just as much as I can. I suspect, having heard what I heard, that the Member's view of global responsibility is very different to my view.

As I said, let us now embrace the opportunity for net zero by 2050 with ambition, positivity and hope. Let us do this by setting a single target —

Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Member for giving way. To "ambition, positivity and hope", will the Member add a scientific basis? We have a scientific basis for what is in the Bill's proposals. Will he give his scientific basis for going further?

Mr Blair: I have already alluded to the fact that I cannot predict what will happen in 28 years' time or the progress that will have been made along that road. We could not have imagined, 28 years ago, what —

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that Wales had set a 95% target but has now agreed to net zero by 2050? In Northern Ireland, different sectors will have to move at different paces. In Scotland, the target date is 2045, and it is no surprise that the level of funding of public transport in Scotland is the highest per capita in the UK. We need to up our game across different sectors in Northern Ireland.

Mr Blair: That is the type and pace of change that is required, and we should aspire to that.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Blair: I will not. I have tried to close three times, and I do not need to stretch this out any more.

Let us embrace the opportunity for net zero by 2050 with that ambition, positivity and hope. Let us do that by setting a single target for all harmful emissions, free from dissection, distraction and decoupling. Alliance colleagues and I will support the amendments that help us to do that.

Mr McGuigan: I have no doubt, because I have heard it a number of times today, that we will hear an awful lot about science. It is important to begin my contribution by stating that the science on climate change is irrefutable and very, very clear. Global warming is having and will continue to have, if decisive action is not taken, an increasingly devastating impact on our world. As a result of the clear scientific facts, the Paris agreement spelt out that, if we are to limit global warming to 1·5°C, we need, collectively, to reach net zero by 2050. As a legislature in this jurisdiction, that is the science and the ambition that we all need to follow.

Five months ago, the international scientific community released its sixth assessment report on climate, which revealed that, globally, we are already on track to miss the Paris target. The 234 scientists from 66 countries who compiled that report from more than 14,000 scientific papers were unanimous in their decision that the world's Governments are not doing enough and not acting fast enough. That was the stark scientific assessment just five months ago. Minister, 82% will not cut it, I am afraid. We in the North cannot allow ourselves to lag behind on climate. Global warming is not something for others to tackle on our behalf or a problem that impacts only on those living elsewhere. The third climate change risk assessment report, released in June last year, identified 61 specific threats to the North that are caused by climate change. More than half were categorised as being in the most immediate level of urgency, and all but 11 have increased in urgency since the last report. They included, but were not limited to, wildfires, flooding, coastal erosion, saltwater intrusion, threats to natural carbon sinks and an increase in pests, pathogens and invasive species. Along with the extreme weather events that we all recognise, those things, if not addressed, will continue to have an impact on us.

On the basis of the science, I will support amendment No 2, which sets a net zero emission target by 2050, and all the amendments that flow from it.

I welcome the fact that the Minister and the Department have introduced climate legislation — I wish that they had done so sooner — but that does not mean that it could not be better. I hope, through the amendments today and tomorrow, that we can move a step closer to having not only a historic Climate Bill but one that we can all be proud of.

Mr Storey: I thank the Member for giving way. I have listened to his arguments about the science. Obviously, the Member is more interested in the optic, given that he rode his bicycle to the COP in Glasgow. I suspect, however, that he used his car to come here today.

Political opportunism will not save farms in North Antrim. When will the Member opposite and his party show that they genuinely support farmers in less-favoured areas? The Member ran away from a meeting in his constituency to address the issue. Maybe he will come clean and tell the House and, more importantly, his constituents in North Antrim this: is he for farming or for political optics?

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Member, I suppose, for his intervention. He makes a very important and valid point on political opportunism, which was also made by Andrew Muir. It was that we need to do things much better than we are. A just transition is vital for rural communities because we need to ensure that no community is left behind. I want to be able to cycle to my place of work, but, because of our infrastructure and lack of accessible public transport, I am unable to do so. That is why I used a car today. Hopefully, if a climate Bill is passed, in 15 years, I will be able to cycle to my place of work.

I have talked about science. I am glad that the Members opposite have discovered science. I see that they have also discovered the meaning of the word "irony". The Member talks about the agricultural community. I should declare an interest, as I have immediate family members who are farmers, I represent a rural community and, at times, I was brought up on a farm.

I am not the one, unlike the Members opposite, who forced Brexit on us. Brexit has led to trade deals with Australia and New Zealand. The other day, at the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, we were told that, within 15 years, when quotas are reduced, the Australian market will be able to displace the whole agricultural sector of this island. Whilst we are discussing net zero targets for greenhouse gas emissions today, the Members opposite have produced a Brexit deal that, in all likelihood, will produce net zero agriculture by 2036 because of their actions. So I will not take any lectures from the Member across the House about protecting rural communities. Sinn Féin will stand on its record of defending rural communities, and we have tabled plenty of amendments to the Bill to protect rural and all other communities in the North as best we can.

I will give way.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Member —

Mr Speaker: Mr McAleer, please resume your seat for a second.

Let me say this, and, hopefully, I will have to say it only once. There is a Bill in front of Members today. I want people to stick to it and not to talk about cycling to Scotland, Brexit or anything else. Deal with the Bill. Thank you.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Member for giving way. There will be amendments to try to mitigate the potential impact of the legislation, but I will turn back to the comments that the Member made about its impact on hill farmers. Does he agree that the two biggest threats to hill farming are climate change and the DUP? On top of the shambles that the DUP made of Brexit, it took away the hill farm payment from the hill farmers —

Mr Speaker: Mr McAleer —

Mr McAleer: — and stopped the transition towards the flat rate —

Mr Speaker: Declan McAleer —

Mr McAleer: — which has deprived millions [Inaudible.]

Mr Storey: Listen to the Speaker.

Mr McAleer: Take the plank out of your eyes.

Mr Speaker: Sit down, please.

Mr Storey: Oh, settle.

Mr Speaker: Excuse me, Members. Order. I have made an edict, and I want people to stick to it. I do not want to have to repeat it to Members, because I will silence them.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Member for his intervention. He reminded me of a phone call that I received yesterday from a hill sheep farmer in the glens. I had forgotten it, but the Member has reminded me. The farmer was extremely critical of the Minister's agricultural policy proposals. In fact, the words that he used were that the Minister's proposals are "discriminating against" sheep farmers in the glens. The DUP has little to talk about on defending rural communities or farmers in my community. It might serve the DUP to use that argument as a deflection from its bad policy-setting record, but people out there will not be fooled by it.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member talks about Sinn Féin protecting rural communities. I am very proud of Northern Ireland. I am very proud of our rural communities, and I am very proud of our farming and agri-food sector. Today, the Ulster Farmers' Union tells us that supporting the Climate Change Bill, or even some of the amendments to the Minister's Bill that you will clearly support, could, in effect, jeopardise thousands of jobs in the agri-food sector in Northern Ireland. I speak as a representative of Upper Bann, where a huge amount of the agri-food sector jobs are based. How is that looking after rural communities?

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Member for her intervention. As a member of the AERA Committee, I sat through six to eight months of evidence from right across the sectors: businesses, science experts and the agri-food sector. I have listened to and dissected all the arguments that have come before me. Others have made the point that we are not asking people to do something above and beyond what is being achieved elsewhere without the destruction of agriculture. Sinn Féin —

Mr McGlone: I thank the Member for giving way. On that particular point, I, like you and the Committee Chairman, sat through many hours of evidence, listening to people and the arguments that they made. I thank those people.

The target of 100% by 2050 will not affect just agriculture and agri-food, although they will bear the major challenge of that target. Will the Member advise what types of support, education — I may be straying into what will come later on a just transition — and science will drive it to make sure that people will be able to arrive at that target and change to new and, if you like, more ambitious ways of doing things? As we know, society changes with that. Can the member give me some indication of how that can be done?

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Member for his intervention. No matter how much I try to keep a climate Bill debate on the totality of the subject, I always seem to be dragged into a debate about agriculture. I understand the importance of the agri-food sector, and I welcomed Mrs Dodds' intervention on that. Moy Park is obviously very important to my constituency. It is suffering as a result of Brexit in that it cannot get workers. Some of its work has moved elsewhere as a result of the immigration policies of the British Home Office.

The Member asked a specific question. Sinn Féin and others have introduced specific amendments that I hope will be supported when it comes to voting. Those amendments will add protection for every sector. The most important thing about the Bill is that it will not be imposed upon anybody, and particularly that the most vulnerable in our society will not be made to pick up the pieces from it. In my view, a just transition should be central to it, and we will support amendments on just transition.

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGuigan: No, I will make a few points before I give way again.

We also propose a just transition commission. People have asked how just transition will work. It is important that we bring the sectors — including the agri-food sector, farmers, businesses, trade unions and the public — together to work out how exactly just transition will work under the Bill.

On specific things for agriculture, we have amendments —

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGuigan: Go ahead.

Dr Aiken: Sorry. What would a just transition commission look like? How would that be developed against the idea of having a climate change commissioner or a climate change commission, which would be part and parcel? Do you propose a separate organisation or structure? If so, that would probably work against the idea of having a climate commissioner.

Mr McGuigan: That is a very pertinent question. Unfortunately —

Mr Speaker: Mr McGuigan, the Member has asked an important question, but it relates to a later group of amendments. I ask you to stick to the group that we are dealing with. Thank you.

Mr McGuigan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Those issues will be addressed later.

Going beyond a just transition and a just transition commission, we suggest that, when Departments develop carbon budgets, they must take account of, for example, the competitiveness of a particular sector of the economy. That could apply specifically to agriculture. The specific economic and social role of agriculture, including the distinct characteristics of biogenic methane, is another factor that will have to be looked at. There is also the risk of substantial and unreasonable carbon leakage. The Member across the Chamber has made that point a number of times. We are not suggesting that we do anything to impact on our agriculture industry and then import beef. That is important to say. Key to all of this are amendments that we are proposing throughout the legislation to add the protection of public and sectoral consultation and an Assembly vote. I think —

Mr Allister: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGuigan: Go ahead.

Mr Allister: The Member proclaims himself to be a co-sponsor of Ms Bailey's Bill. That Bill was produced to the House with no economic assessment, and it still does not have one. An economic assessment has now been produced on behalf of the Ulster Farmers' Union. It is the only game in town, as far as economic assessment is concerned. Does he accept it or not? He declined to come to Loughguile even to discuss it.

Mr McGuigan: I take the point. Both Members have stated that as if it is some kind of grand announcement that I did not attend the UFU meeting in Loughguile. They failed to inform the House that I sent my constituency manager along to represent me at that meeting. I rang the gentleman whose farm the meeting was on to apologise and tell him why I was not able to go. I also asked him to arrange a meeting that I would be able to attend and to give my phone number to the farmers who were there in order for them to give me a call. I have been taking calls all week from people in agriculture. I do not know what point you are trying to make about my not attending a meeting. I sent a representative on my behalf. It is not really —

Mr Allister: Tell us about the economic assessment.

Mr McGuigan: I am not going to disparage any account, but I note that KPMG did a similar assessment of agriculture in the South. I have made the point that the South is a step ahead of us in moving towards net zero by 2050. It has produced a plan. I can read from its plan that, by 2030, it intends to reduce agriculture emissions by between 22% and 30%.

Mr Poots: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGuigan: I am going to read this out. Measures include:

That is what the South is doing over the next 10 years to reduce its emissions from agriculture. If anybody, including KPMG and the Ulster Farmers' Union, is telling me that we cannot do that here in the North over the next 10 years, my God, I am sorry.

Some Members: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGuigan: I am not giving way any more. I have lost my place. I now have no idea where I am at. [Laughter.]

As I was saying, I am getting dragged into a debate about agriculture policy. I have made the point that that is the Minister's Department. I wish that he would do a better job than he is currently doing for the hill farmers in the glens of north Antrim. Tackling climate should be a positive discussion. It is a positive thing to do. It will bring many more benefits than it will negatives to the people whom we represent. The citizens of the North are entitled to the best air quality possible, to rivers and lakes free from pollution and to thriving biodiversity. Tackling climate change is necessary to create a resilient and sustainable future. At the same time, it provides economic opportunities, which flow from creating a growing green economy. The debate is not about agriculture or its future. Today is about the Assembly, hopefully, agreeing to move forward on landmark and historic legislation on the North's fightback against global warming.

It will also show the importance that we put on our people and our communities, the way that we will live our lives and the future that we want to provide for our children and grandchildren.

In our amendments, we in Sinn Féin are sending a clear message that, as with all legislation, we are standing up for workers, families and communities across all sectors of the North's society. Ambitious targets are needed to send a signal to business on the way forward. If we do that right, we will allow for confident investment and the creation of new and green well-paid jobs. We can produce the template that prepares our economy for improved competitiveness and economic growth without being prescriptive on future actions.

It is clear that climate legislation will improve air quality. We can seize the opportunity for improved and more efficient public transport in our cities and rural areas. We can improve active travel provision — I can satisfy Mervyn Storey's demand that I cycle everywhere — and policies that impact on climate, congestion and the health and well-being of citizens, ultimately helping to reduce costs and pressures on our health service. Refurbishing buildings will provide big opportunities in the construction industry. Investment in new and emerging technologies will, again, lead to job creation.

In the winter that we have experienced, with rising fuel costs that severely impact on the quality of life of our most vulnerable, who could argue against greater investment in renewable energy sources, helping, ultimately, to reduce costs to consumers but also offering secure supplies to all our citizens? Producing more energy locally from green, renewable sources instead of fossil fuels must be the way forward. Together with increasing energy savings through energy-efficient products and processes, we can end our dependence on fossil fuels.

Mrs Dodds: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGuigan: I am coming towards dealing with the amendments, and I have given way plenty.

That is all feasible and affordable. The costs of climate change for the economy and society will be much higher than the cost of fighting climate change now.

Agriculture is important. I have delved into that issue, back and forth, in response to interventions. We all need to remember that agriculture and farmers play a key role in maintaining our land and biodiversity. They are also a critical component of the rural economy. Policies to tackle food etc must put agriculture front and centre.

At this point, I thank the departmental officials for their engagement with the Committee throughout the process and for the work that they have done on the Bill to bring forward some of the amendments. I thank the staff of the Bill Office, who were helpful to us in preparing our amendments. I also thank the Sinn Féin team, who have supported us MLAs during the work on what people might consider to be the most important legislation to be brought to the Chamber.

As I have stated, I do not believe that the 82% greenhouse gas emissions target is ambitious enough. I believe that, today, we can meet the Paris agreement commitments and our ambitions in the North and play our part in the fightback against global warming, with a target of net zero by 2050. Following on from that amendment and the 2050 target, we need targets for 2030 and 2040 to ensure that we have a smooth transition to 2050. In amendment No 6, my party states that the Department must come back with those targets within two years of the Act's passing.

As I have said, one of the issues that we have with the Bill is the amount of power that the Department and, therefore, the Minister will have over all aspects of it to the detriment of future consultation with the public and sectors and certainly to the detriment of accountability to the Assembly and its 90 MLAs. We have sought, by amendment, to address those deficiencies throughout the Bill and have done so in amendment No 6, so that whatever targets the Minister brings for 2030 and 2040 must be approved by the Assembly.

We will support amendment No 9, tabled by the Minister, which will allow for ambitions and targets to be brought forward, should that be agreed.

We have proposed amendment No 15, as we believe that we should be able to explore options for the removal of gas beyond land use and deforestation. There are methods of removing greenhouse gas, including methods of direct air capture. While the technology is expensive, making the amendment will keep our options open, should, as, I expect, will happen, science and technology advance and make progress on cost-efficient methods of reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

In amendment No 29, we have again inserted a duty on the Department to carry out a consultation on its carbon budgets. It must consult the public and the climate commissioner, which is a role that we propose in amendment No 73. I will go into detail on that in that section. We also believe that a climate office and commissioner are important to bring local independent oversight and advice to the legislation and all its processes. The carbon budgets are obviously a key component of the Bill, so, when they are being set, we should consult the commissioner, the other Departments and a just transition commission, which we have proposed to set up in amendment No 53. A just transition is absolutely pivotal to the legislation to ensure that no sector of society is left behind, and it follows that we need to ensure that the just transition principles and protections are taken into account when setting carbon budgets. We propose that the Assembly gets to vote on the budgets. That is an important protection.

Perhaps amendment Nos 29 and 30 should have been the other way around, but, regardless, on amendment No 30, we think that, in setting the carbon budgets, all Departments should take advice from the CCC, but, given the nature of this island and our integrated air, environment, rivers, lakes and land, among other things, advice should be sought from the Climate Change Advisory Council in the South too. All that local advice needs to be put in the context of what the IPCC is saying.

Amendment No 32 is lengthy. I read some of it out in response to an intervention from Patsy McGlone. It is a vital amendment. We have put it together taking bits from climate legislation in other jurisdictions, including the South, Scotland, the EU and the United Nations. Again, in setting the carbon budgets, social, environmental and economic factors need to be taken into account, such as the competitiveness of particular sectors of the economy, small and medium-sized enterprises, jobs, employment opportunities and social circumstances, particularly the likely impact of the target on those living in poor and deprived communities.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Member for giving way. On the question of biogenic methane, which you referred to earlier, do you have anything to add? That is particularly important for a number of the sectors that we were talking about, such as the agri-food and agriculture sectors and the science that is driving that. What mitigation measures can be introduced to alleviate that sector — "alleviate" might be the wrong word — to help them or facilitate them?

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Member for the intervention. Setting carbon budgets, along with all the other things, is an important factor that we need to take account of. Some of those are interlinked. Without repeating myself, it is important that we take into account the economic capabilities of our agriculture sector and the fact that we do not want to invite policies that allow for carbon leakage or displace people from rural communities. The important thing with regard to all of those is that, when the policies are developed, an added protection for all sectors of society is that they will be brought back, if our amendments are passed, and MLAs can scrutinise them and vote in favour of them.

That is pretty much me for going through the amendments. Obviously, I have picked out some amendments that we support and other consequential amendments that we do not support. I look forward to the rest of the debate and to debating the other sections.

Mr Harvey: I welcome the opportunity to address some of the issues raised in the first group of amendments, which deal with targets, carbon budgets and nitrogen balance sheets. The Bill offers an opportunity to deliver on the commitments in 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA) and to create the necessary legislative framework for a balanced pathway towards carbon reduction across Northern Ireland. It is important that the Bill's content is viewed alongside what is already being undertaken by DAERA in the green growth strategy, the draft environmental strategy and the Department for the Economy's energy strategy.

The work that is ongoing shows a clear commitment, particularly by my party colleagues, to advance carbon reduction. It goes without saying that the setting of targets is key to any climate change legislation that will be agreed by the House now or in the future. Indeed, there are two key decisions to be made by Members: first, the date by which our emissions target has to be met; and the minimum reduction that is to be achieved. Those two factors are the major points of difference between the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill and the private Member's Bill in the name of Ms Bailey.

Amendments Nos 1 and 11 testify to the debate between the 2050 and the 2045 cut-off and the percentage reduction rates to be set. The AERA Committee spent considerable time receiving evidence on both those issues. At the outset, I acknowledge the gravity and solemnity of what is involved in the content of those clauses and potential amendments. The dates and percentages approved in the Bill will impact on the lives of many. In some cases, they will likely make the difference between business sustainability and business collapse. People's livelihoods are bound up in the legislation, and the path chosen by Members today will have long-term implications for Northern Ireland and its citizens.

It is fair to say that we are all committed to carbon reduction and to working towards net zero, as legislators and as a society in general. However, we must ensure that we build on firm foundations if we are to effect meaningful and lasting change towards sustainability. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, we have been reminded of the necessity of being guided by the science and the subject experts. There are parallels in that respect when considering legislation — the legislation before us today or, indeed, any legislation. We must be informed and guided by the experts. From the evidence received by the AERA Committee, it is evident that the Department was guided by the science and subject experts when forming this legislation. The 82% carbon reduction by 2050 target in the Bill is evidently grounded in the recommendations and advice of the independent UK Climate Change Committee and is entirely consistent with the Paris agreement. To put it simply, therefore, any path contrary to the goal of 82% by 2050 is not grounded in the sound evidence that has been made available to the House as part of the consultation with the necessary sectors and stakeholders.

Fundamental changes to clause 1, such as those proposed in amendment Nos 1 and 2, have been repeatedly rejected by the CCC and others. As I stated at Second Reading, it is important that we are boldly ambitious whilst retaining a sense of pragmatic realism about our targets. I welcome the fact that the Department is keen to stretch beyond the comfort zone of what could be referred to as "quick win" reductions based on best practice models in the likes of the agriculture sector and into more ambitious quarters such as going beyond 20% decarbonisation. Going on the CCC baseline that stems from the most detailed and scientifically credible analysis of the agriculture sector, methane or CO2 equivalents would reduce from a figure of 6·6 million tons to 4·4 million tons. A target of 33% is a significant reduction that is ambitious but, most importantly, achievable.

What is not achievable is the sort of figures advocated in the amendments tabled in group 1. For Members to advocate targets that will mean an 86% reduction in the national herd, in real terms, is, frankly, scandalous. The economic impact of a reduction in Northern Irish beef cattle, for instance, of over one million by 2045, from 1·3 million to 180,000, would be devastating for rural communities and those whose livelihoods depend on the farming industry. There would be 13,000 job losses at a farm level and £11 billion of lost economic output by 2045. Bankrupt farms and lost livelihoods will be the result of overambition if we fly in the face of realism on those issues.

Of course, unrealistic targets will not just impact on our agri-food sector. It has been evidenced that there would be a much greater risk of fuel poverty should we move away from CCC advice. Climate action should be bound up with sustainability and long-term viability for every sector, including our agri-food sector. I firmly believe that that should be the driver behind our efforts as we strive towards net zero.

Amendments tabled by the Minister take on board issues raised throughout the Bill's passage. I thank him for that, and I support amendment Nos 55 to 75 in the group.

It is incumbent on us all to strike the correct balance between the competing interests of carbon reduction and future economic impacts. The answer is to be found in reliance on the sound evidence of the CCC and the best available science. Such a course of action has support in the agri-food sector, the UFU and elsewhere, including the FSB. For those reasons, I will support the key elements of the Bill as they are.

Dr Archibald: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. At the outset, I thank the AERA Committee for its conscientious work on both climate Bills and to those, including the Minister, who tabled amendments in response to the evidence that was received.

We should not in any way understate the crisis that our planet faces from the climate and biodiversity crises. If we act to mitigate it, it will require a change in how we and future generations live our lives. However, if we put off change and do not act, it will be catastrophic, and the land that we live on and our environment will be unrecognisable within decades. That is what is at stake.

It is critical that we commit to taking action to tackle the climate emergency on the basis of the principles of a just transition. That means ensuring that those who are most likely to be impacted and those who can least afford to move away from fossil fuels and carbon-intensive industries are supported to do so and are not left to shoulder the burden. It means that workers and families, particularly those on lower incomes, are supported. We see it currently with the energy crisis. As the price of fossil fuels, including gas, oil and coal, soar, those who are least able to afford new types of equipment to heat or to insulate their homes are most exposed to the fluctuation of those prices. We cannot allow that to happen.

Climate action must be about fairness. The legislation that we pass must be not only ambitious but achievable and fair. We need to have ambitious overall targets —

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member for giving way. I am interested in what a just transition looks like. The Member just referenced it. I am keen to know whether she has any figures in mind for the cost to the public purse of some of the measures that she has just outlined.

Will the Member also comment on this? In some parts of the European Union, part of that transition means that, for example, the Netherlands is planning to pay farmers over €25 billion not to farm. Is that the Sinn Féin position?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her intervention. A just transition is detailed in the amendments, but I have outlined the overall principle, which is, of course, ensuring that those who are least able to afford it and are most impacted are supported.

My colleague Philip McGuigan and others have mentioned the fact that there are more ambitious targets in the South and Scotland than in the Minister's Bill. There are, of course, pathways to achieving those. As someone who worked in agri-food research for over a decade and a half, I am well aware of the types of R&D and innovation that are ongoing, and I am confident that we will achieve the targets that we have set out. Of course, we need to have ambitious overall targets, and that means nothing less than net zero by 2050. That is the Paris Accord target and the target on the rest of this island. We cannot shirk our responsibility. We need to do our bit; otherwise, we will be left lagging behind most of Europe. That means worse water and soil quality and greater biodiversity loss.

We need to be led by the science, but, as already mentioned, the CCC is just one group of experts. It has modelled on the basis of specific circumstances and within the parameters that it was asked to mode within. Other scientists have been referred to, particularly the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has pointed to the imperative to act. Its most recent report was dubbed a "code red for humanity". As my colleague Philip McGuigan pointed out, that report was compiled by 234 scientists from 66 countries and concluded that Governments were not doing enough to limit global warming to 1·5°C by the end of the century. Some of our amendments would require cognisance to be paid to those experts also. I urge Members to support those amendments.

Mr Poots: Will the Member give way?

Dr Archibald: I will.

Mr Poots: Has the IPCC contradicted what the CCC recommended for Northern Ireland? The Member quotes other scientists who have said something. Can she tell us what those other scientists have said about what Northern Ireland has to do? Mr McGuigan accepts the science that gets us to the point where we need to do something on climate change, but he does not accept the science when it comes to what we have to do on climate change.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Minister for his intervention. As I outlined, the IPCC has indicated that Governments are not doing enough. The panel is one set of scientists — a considerable set of scientists — who put forward their evidence and came to the conclusion that we need to do more. Otherwise, we will have surpassed the Paris Accord target by 2040.

I turn to the specific amendments. Mr McGuigan has already spoken to some of them, so I will keep my comments fairly brief. I urge Members to support amendment Nos 2 and 6 on targets. Amendment No 29 to clause 11 on carbon budgets requires a 16-week consultation on the proposed carbon budgets and for those proposals to be laid in the Assembly. It gives the Assembly a vote on the approval of those budgets. That provides an additional layer of consultation with the public and all stakeholders and sectors that want to have a say. It also gives future MLAs a say and provides for further accountability on what is contained in the carbon budgets.

Importantly, amendment No 32 inserts new clause 13A. Mr McGuigan outlined some of that. It relates to the setting of carbon budgets, specifically the social, environmental and economic factors that relate to those budgets. The amendment sets out in detail the requirement for consideration to be taken of the impact of our carbon budgets across a number of factors. Those amendments and amendments in other groups are proposed to ensure that particular account is taken of the unique circumstances of our society and our economic make-up and to ensure that the best science leads the decisions. Amendment No 35 requires all Departments to ensure, when developing policies, that those policies are consistent with targets in the carbon budgets.

I have listened to those who have expressed concerns about the climate Bills. It is fair to say that our farming communities have been the most vocal group. Let me say this clearly: Sinn Féin is committed to standing up for our rural communities and family farms. People should look at our track record in doing that. When Michelle O'Neill was the Agriculture and Rural Development Minister, she put in place the biggest rural development programme to support our rural communities. She maintained the area of natural constraint (ANC) payment, which was unceremoniously dropped by her DUP successor and has never been reinstated. My colleague Declan McAleer has sought to introduce legislation to do that.

As Ms Bailey referred to, currently, the biggest threat to our rural communities and family farms is Brexit, the loss of EU funding and the fact that there is no replacement funding for rural development. Farmers in my constituency of East Derry, like those in every other constituency across the North, wait anxiously to see what will replace the vital EU subsidies lost to Brexit. There are also the trade deals that the British Government are doing around the world, about which the DUP Minister and MPs have publicly expressed concern.

It is not as if they were not warned that the British Government would do those trade deals to undercut our high-quality food with cheap imports.

Creating a divisive narrative about the need to take climate action and the type of action that we need to take in order to prevent the breakdown of our planet, albeit the narrative is on a much more local level and is about protecting our family farms for future generations, suits the DUP because it puts a focus on something other than its disastrous Brexit agenda.

The legislation that we are debating is about setting a path, and we are proposing to add further safeguards to it. We can send a signal today that we understand that the time for action is now. There are amendments to the Bill that will strengthen it significantly and will ensure that collaboration and consultation are built into the action that will be taken because of the Bill and that account will be taken of all the factors that I have outlined. Later today or tomorrow, those amendments will be debated further, including those on the funding that will be specifically put in place to support the agriculture sector.

We all know that tackling the climate emergency is going to be hugely challenging. There are opportunities, and we need to have greater focus on those positives and on the opportunities to create a different and better society where the well-being of our citizens and our planet is prioritised and on the agenda and where we do not just focus on economic output. Of course, there are opportunities for a new economic dispensation for a green economy that is more resilient to shocks like the pandemic and for green job creation and skills. We should be ambitious now for young people and future generations, but we should also ensure that businesses, workers and communities and the families who are in them are looked after.

Mr T Buchanan: I welcome the opportunity to comment on the Bill during the Consideration Stage. I thank the Minister, the officials and all who have been involved in getting the Bill to Consideration Stage for deliberation.

In the New Decade, New Approach agreement, a commitment was given that the Executive would:

What we have in the Bill is not only in line with the Paris Accord but reflects the targets that were set out by the Climate Change Committee that said that the net NI emissions account for 2050 should be at least 82% lower than the baseline.

While some in the House have aspirations for what the targets should be, it is important that, as legislators, we set targets that are realistic, scientifically based and achievable by our agriculture and business sectors. The agriculture sector in Northern Ireland, which supports around 113,000 jobs, feeds approximately 10 million people and is a key part of the Northern Ireland economy, stands to be worst affected by climate change legislation. However, our farming community is resilient, directly aware of the challenges and not opposed to reducing emissions. Key to all this, however, is credible, evidence-based targets. The Bill's target is set as part of the UK's reaching net zero by 2050, allowing each constituent part of the UK to play its fair part in reaching that goal. I sometimes wonder, as I listen to the debate, whether some of the other parties have an issue with that target simply because it is a UK target. Sometimes when you listen to the debate, you wonder whether that is the reason why there is opposition to the targets that are actually set out in the Bill.

The Climate Change Committee, which carried out detailed modelling and analysis for every sector and region, stated clearly that to reduce targets to net zero before 2050 is not credible, is morally wrong and is not based on scientific evidence. Amendment Nos 2, 3, 5 and 11 are focused on changing the targets that are in the Bill, but there is no scientific evidence to back up that proposed change. No analysis has been done of their delivery, and there is no economic impact assessment of what the proposal will cost or of the devastating consequences it will have for our agriculture industry, our business sector and our citizens. No alternative advice has been forthcoming to counter that which has been provided by the Climate Change Committee.

To deviate from the targets set out in the Bill will be to say to the farming community and to others in the business sector that we in Stormont, as legislators, are in the business of putting you out of business. Is that what Members want to do? I, for one, will certainly not go down that road; I am here to support the business sector and the farming community, not to take forward something that will put them out of business.

Let us weigh up the evidence. The KPMG report makes for very stark reading. I will quote some stuff from it. It says:

This is alarming:

Folks, that is what Members will be presiding over should they seek to change the targets that are set out in the Bill.

Livestock reductions of that scale would decimate the agri-food sector and rural communities in Northern Ireland and result in the loss of 13,000 on-farm jobs, plus thousands more in the ancillary industries. Reducing livestock numbers in Northern Ireland and the UK will export our emissions overseas to regions that have higher emissions and lower environmental and animal health and welfare standards, as demand for food, meat and dairy remains. That is likely to result in higher global emissions.

Northern Ireland farmers are among the most carbon-efficient producers in the world. This question has to be asked to Members in the House: do you want to destroy that? We have a business and agriculture industry in Northern Ireland that is one of the very best. If we are not careful about what we do in the House today, we will destroy that. To deviate from the targets set out in the Bill will be to say to the farming community: we are here to put you out of business. This question has to be on everybody's mind as we vote on the Bill: do we want to preside over putting farmers out of business and reducing the agri-food sector to such an extent that our food would be produced in countries with a higher carbon footprint, such as Brazil? It was reported this week that, in Brazil, 13,235 square kilometres of rainforest were cleared in 2020-21. That is the stark choice before the House.

Today, I have heard many Members talk about the need to ensure that we leave a legacy that we can all be proud of for our children and grandchildren. Let us do that, and let us not destroy it by bringing in something that is going to put our farmers and our farming community out of business.

My colleague William Irwin has ably outlined our position on the other amendments, and I do not intend to repeat it. I have focused somewhat on the agriculture industry, but the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill goes wider than that. It will, of course, affect urban areas as well, and it will have an impact on those areas. Capital investment will be required to move to new heating systems, but the difficulty is that, if we move too quickly, that will result in the replacing of equipment before it has come to the end of its life. We would therefore be defeating the purpose, with the consequence of having a greater carbon footprint. There would be a real risk of increasing fuel poverty for those in society who are suffering the most, and there would be an impact on the Northern Ireland taxpayer.

Those are the issues that are before the House. We have a choice to make. You have a choice to make. Everyone who is sitting in the House has a choice to make. Do Members want to destroy what we have, or do they want to support what we have and strengthen it as we move forward? I hope that Members will reconsider and that they will think long and hard before going through the Lobbies. I hope that they will do what is right and support the Minister and the Bill that is before the House. We are here as legislators to provide good legislation. Let us be known for doing that by doing that which is right in the House today.

Mr McGlone: I was struck by Mr Buchanan's comments, particularly those around where we are at, in the here and now. He spoke about fuel poverty. I have just seen that one of the gas companies is due to increase the cost of gas, very significantly, again, in the near future. We talk about societal issues and societal changes. That increase will make people who are facing fuel poverty inevitably and increasingly dependent on coal and sticks. That is the anomaly that we have. Those are the difficulties that will arise: that is the practical reality.

I have listened to the debate intently, and I was listening earlier. The Committee took a lot of evidence on the matter. Net zero by 2045 was an extremely ambitious target. We heard of the serious difficulties that that would create for many sectors in the community. The SDLP welcomes the Consideration Stage of the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill. As the SDLP representative on the AERA Committee, I will speak on the group 1 amendments.

It has been a very long road to get here. I am sure that many who sat on the Committee thought that we were on two roads, and, at one stage, we hoped that there was a single destination and that we were coming to that single destination by different pathways, but, unfortunately, that was not to be the case. At least we have a climate change Bill at Consideration Stage, but, unfortunately, we did not achieve common ground. The Bill raises a huge number of issues for us, because all of us are going to have to make big changes in our lives. I was brought up in a rural area, I live in a rural area and I like to think that I keep my finger on the pulse of what is happening in that area, but the challenge for all of us, not just for the agri-food and agriculture sectors, is very significant, irrespective of whether there is an 82% or 100% target.

Later on in the debate, we will come to just transition and oversight commissioners, both of which are key pillars in how we manage climate change, how we try to reach our targets and how we try to help people transition to the new way of living. All of us have seen this in our constituencies when we have been out. I have been in a house that had just been built, in which the water had come up three feet high when the River Moyola broke its banks. I have stood in Magherafelt at 1.30 am as flash flooding went through people's houses in areas where that had never, ever happened before. The Chairman of the Committee and Mr McCrossan have seen the ravages of it in their constituency, down the Glenelly valley.

Those are but pictures. We have seen from the world that the scientific evidence is undeniable. How we get to the point of making our contribution to that is the vital bit. We are definitely behind the curve in taking responsibility for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions in the North. We can all talk about why that is — lack of motivation, three years of legislative scrutiny missed — but that is the reality. It is over 10 years since the UK introduced the Climate Change Act, and it is over six years since my party colleague from Foyle Mark Durkan, when he was the Environment Minister, proposed a climate action Bill. The delay has been caused by a combination of the resistance to putting the necessary legislation in place and, as I referred to, the three years during which the Assembly was not sitting, which prevented the introduction of any legislation.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: Yes, Mr Muir.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mr McGlone. Will you agree with me that one of the reasons for the delay has been that a significant number of politicians, particularly from the DUP, have been espousing climate change scepticism and denying that this is a problem until only recently? Even now, we take with a pinch of salt some of their conversion and understanding that this is a real issue that we need to face.

Mr McGlone: Yes, indeed. I remember that, when I was Chair of the Environment Committee, we had a motion of no confidence in the then Minister Sammy Wilson over his scepticism around climate change. It is reality and a fact, and you cannot get away from it.

I have listened carefully to the evidence presented to the AERA Committee, and I thank all those who contributed to that process. I see that some of the officials are with us here today, and I was speaking to them down in the canteen earlier. The impact on society and our economy of the changes required to achieve those targets could be a serious challenge for us. That is where those other pillars, the oversight commissioner and the just transition, have to come in.

I would really welcome some clarification around amendment No 2. Later on, we have a proposal for a special committee on climate change. If targets are set now, how or in what way will the mechanism operate whereby those targets could be reviewed to see whether the targets are in fact being met? Secondly, if those targets are successfully met, what would the mechanism be for them to be made more ambitious? If, in some sectors, those targets are not being properly met, can mechanisms be put in place and what would those be within the Assembly's legislative scrutiny to determine what action could be taken? I am hearing that, in Scotland, which did set itself an ambitious target, some of the MSPs are finding a bit of a difficulty with meeting those targets.

Mr Poots: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: Yes, Minister.

Mr Poots: Mr Durkan previously asked a question about health service targets. Of course, in the health service, targets are in place for emergency departments. I think that they have to meet a target of seeing 95% of people within four hours, there are to be no 12-hour waits and so forth. There are also lots of targets on waiting lists for people receiving primary care and so forth. Is that what people are really asking for in this Bill — that we set some aspirational targets and we engage in a game of bluff with the general public? We would be saying, "Look at how grand we were. We set a 100% target by 2050". We would be doing that in the full and certain knowledge that we were not going to be able to meet it.

I pose that question not just to the Member who was speaking but to all Members of the House. I thought, when Mr Durkan raised it, that it was a valid point: we have targets in other areas, but they are not targets; they are aspirations. Is it not more honest to take the science and say, "This is what can be achieved, and therefore that is what we are going to do. If we can do more, we will do more"?

Mr McGlone: The Minister takes me to an interesting analogy with the health service, given that we are coming through a pandemic. The analogy that I will draw is that, when people go to the GP, they are advised to follow a certain lifestyle and that, if they follow a different lifestyle, they will wind up in hospital earlier. I suggest that, in this case, the GP for climate will be the commissioner, with oversight from the Assembly. It is an interesting analogy, and it definitely has parallels when we come to think about the climate and our contribution to it. We make a contribution to our health, and we make a contribution to the climate, which we can, in fact, help.

That brings me to my next point. We are not dealing with cold data. We are living, breathing human beings. Generations of the same family have, in many cases, worked the same ground. I have heard that raw emotion from families when I have visited their farms. We know that the land question in Ireland is very historic. When you go to people's farms, you hear the emotion from them: "It was left to me by my father, and it was left to him by his grandfather". It is that legacy — that tradition — of something handed to the next generation for them to take care of and look after. As they do that, times change. They do not want flooding on their ground. They do not want to see animals and birds — whatever those might be — leaving their ground. We know that birds are migrating to other areas because of the change in the climate. The pollination of the ground and the different types of insects that inhabit our earth — all of that — have been affected by climate change. People do not want to see that. The younger generation are very conscious and aware of that, and many of them live on farms too. There are new methods, changes and new challenges. These are challenges for us all, and it is important for us to face up to them. The great mid-Ulster poet Seamus Heaney came from a proud farming tradition and paid tribute to that farming work.

People — all of us, farmers included — want to play their part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and many of them already do so. In some cases, they go even further than what would be regarded as their fair share. As a representative of a rural consistency, I share the concerns about the impacts on rural communities and the rural economy if we choose to set an unrealistic target of 2045. If we set a new target, we need to make sure that, as part of the target-setting mechanism, we have oversight and scrutiny as the science develops.

Mr McAleer: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: I will just make this point, Declan.

We need to make sure that that oversight mechanism is fit to keep pace with the science as it develops and to see how we can develop new things. There will be a pivotal role in this for the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) and our universities. It is a challenge to them, but I am sure that they can step up to the mark and do that and work with us all to achieve it.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Member for taking the intervention. One of the amendments that we put in — I think that the Committee proposed the amendment to the Climate Change Bill as well — proposed that the five-year climate action plans can come about only through co-design and working with the wider sector and after a 16-week consultation and that they must be subject to an equality impact assessment, an economic impact assessment and a rural needs impact assessment before they are ultimately agreed by the Assembly. Does the Member agree that that co-design aspect and working in partnership with all of the sectors, rather than imposing things on people from here, should be a crucial part of the legislation?

Mr McGlone: It has to be. I thank the Member for making that point. Go raibh míle maith agat. Unfortunately, the debate has been narrowed down to farming and agri-food. I cannot emphasise it enough: this affects every conceivable walk of life. With that come responsibility and a challenge to all those walks of life to see how we can do things differently. The oversight mechanism will be crucial, because, unless we hear from the people most affected, we will not know how we are facing up to the challenges, meeting targets or adapting to new ways of doing things, which is also vital. That is my next point.

Bringing people with us is essential to achieving the reduction in emissions required to meet our international obligations. That is clearly the work of more than one generation. We heard it referred to as a long-term project. No one who heard the evidence that the Climate Change Committee chair, Lord Deben, gave to the AERA Committee can doubt his commitment to addressing climate change through meeting the international obligations that all countries have signed up to. I came at that from a different point of view. I was expecting something from him that was different from what we got. I was expecting former Tory Minister John Gummer. I was expecting him to be in a different place from the one that he was in, but he challenged us all with his evidence that day.

It is an expert technical advisory body that provides advice on carbon budgets and targets, progress reports on meeting those targets and assessment of climate change risks and opportunities. It, too, would have to fit in with what Mr McAleer proposed. It brings that expertise, as will our local universities. It will be challenging for everyone in all sectors, and it will require more than just the new technological solutions that people appear to be relying on. It is about ways of life. It is about science. It is about technology, surely, but it is also about skills, awareness, training, our universities, our science and how all those work together to help us to transform society and to meet the challenge of the climate change crisis that faces us.

The SDLP believes that it is desirable to achieve a net zero society. On CO2, we can certainly achieve net zero by 2050. We support amendment No 9. I believe that amendment No 10 will not be moved. Is that correct, Clare? Did you say that amendment No 10 would not be moved? If I have picked it up wrongly, forgive me.

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: Yes.

Mr Beggs: The Member indicated that he believes that net zero can be achieved by 2050, but the scientific evidence presented indicates that that will mean a huge reduction in farmed animals that produce methane. How does he propose to deal with that? Will we virtually end a lot of farming in Northern Ireland, or is he proposing expensive carbon capture mechanisms?

Mr McGlone: I said that we could achieve net zero on CO2 by 2050. I am trying to tease out the other aspect of amendment No 2, which is how, by 2050, we can meet net zero full stop.

We support amendment Nos 9 and 10, which would ensure that emissions target dates can only be brought forward and that, for any year, only a higher percentage target can be set. We also support amendment No 16, to limit the use of carbon units in the net Northern Ireland emissions account for any given period.

Amendment No 29 introduces the reasonable requirement to consult the public and the climate change commissioner and just transition commission on carbon budgets. We also support amendment No 30, which requires the Department to consult the UK Climate Change Committee, the Republic's Climate Change Advisory Council and the IPCC when setting carbon budgets. We also support amendment Nos 32 and 35, requiring the Department to take account of social, environmental and economic factors when setting carbon budgets. Amendment No 34 introduces, for the first time, nitrogen balance sheets to record nitrogen use efficiency. That is another welcome measure.

Mrs Barton: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the group 1 amendments as the Ulster Unionist Party's agriculture, environment and rural affairs spokesperson. We have already heard from Steve Aiken, who is our party's climate change spokesperson.

I thank all those who gave evidence to the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. It has been a long and tiresome road, but we have got through it. I also thank the Committee staff, who worked with us as we scrutinised the Bill in the various sessions.

I turn to the first group of amendments for consideration. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the Bill's target for Northern Ireland to commit to an 82% reduction by 2050. We will vote against any amendments to the contrary. Farming and the agri-food industry are vital to Northern Ireland. We send nearly half of our produce to Great Britain, and we feed 10 million people across the UK annually. The agri-food sector is critical to rural areas and to balanced regional development. A recent independent review of the sector found that 86% of agri-food processors are based outside Belfast and almost 26,000 farm businesses operate in rural areas. We have to think about those of us who live in rural areas when we look at the amendments and what they may mean. Consequently, we call on all Members who value our farmers and the agri-food sector to vote with us against amendment Nos 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8.

We are comfortable with the Department's amendment No 4, which sets it out that:

Consequently, we will vote against amendment No 5. We will support new clause 1A to insert targets for 2030 and 2040, but we will vote against amendment Nos 7 and 8.

The Minister and others make sensible amendments from amendment Nos 9 to 17 on carbon dioxide emissions and targets, and we will be pleased to support them.

Northern Ireland has already achieved ambitious renewable energy targets, but we support new clause 10C in amendment No 20 to target 80% of electricity from renewable sources by 2030.

We continue to support the appointment of a climate commissioner, and we will support further amendments later in the Bill. However, we do not approve of amendment No 29.

Amendment Nos 30 and 31 are sensible additions to the Bill, and it is proper that we pay due regard to the expert bodies outside Northern Ireland,

Carbon budgets are an essential part of climate mitigation, and we will support new clause 13A in amendment No 32. We appreciate the fact that nitrogen balance sheets are another useful tool, but we are concerned that the 18-month time period in new clause 15A in amendment No 34 is too prescriptive. We will vote against amendment No 34 unless that timeline can be increased, but we are content with amendment No 35.

The Minister has made minor changes in amendment Nos 55 to 59, amendment Nos 64 to 66 and amendment No 75, all of which we will support.

As we make our way through the Bill, it is most important that targets are achievable, realistic and not aspirational. Our targets must be scientifically based. Our farmers and our agri-food sector must not be severely impacted by the Bill.

Mr Dickson: It is incumbent on me to comment on the Bill generally as it has progressed so far. My colleague Mr Blair set out where my party stands on the Bill and indicated which amendments we will support and those that we feel it is not appropriate to support at this time.

In this group of amendments, I want to deal specifically with amendment No 20, which is the renewable electricity consumption target. The amendment that colleagues and I propose is that the Department for the Economy should ensure that at least 80% of electricity consumption is from renewable sources by 2030. Some people have expressed surprise that we have raised this with another Department in this debate. This is a holistic Bill. It is about climate change. It is about delivering change for everyone, regardless of where government comes from. When we come to the group 2 amendments, there will be a wider-ranging discussion on that aspect. This is a narrow area: it requires the Department for the Economy to increase our consumption of renewable electricity. It is not an impossible call; in fact, it is very realistic. During the past decade, energy policy has become increasingly focused on the renewables sector. We have seen that time after time with initiatives that have taken place. We see the impact of wind farms across our landscape. There are those who do not like them, but there are many who like gazing at them as they produce and deliver energy for our homes across Northern Ireland.

A massive transition will take place from fossil fuels to green electricity, which will be one of the key drivers in providing energy. It is surprising, or perhaps not, that, in the last couple of days — in fact, on 30 January — Northern Ireland produced 1,042·96 MW of power from wind, exceeding all previous achievements and targets. We currently produce somewhere around 46% of our electricity from renewables, most of it from wind, and other sources include solar. The move to 80% will not be that difficult. There are opportunities through the Department's energy strategy, which the Economy Minister has brought forward. This is very much low-hanging fruit. That is why it is important that it is included in the Bill. It sends out the message that we are all in this together in attempting to achieve these changes.

We have proved that we can make that impact. Our renewables electricity sector has demonstrated that. It makes that impact today and every day in Northern Ireland. There is much more to be done. Onshore wind is somewhat less predictable than offshore wind. There is a much greater flow of wind offshore. Our energy strategy demonstrates that that is the next step that we need to take. As I understand it, arrangements have been made with the Crown Estate to ensure that that can be achieved, and we look forward to being able, very quickly, to develop offshore wind. That will take us way beyond that which we have been achieving in the last few days, months and over a reasonable number of years. It makes the target of 80% consumption achievable.

For me, it will end the inequity of a coal-fired power station in my constituency of East Antrim. It is already under threat because it does not meet the emission standards. It would be very difficult for it ever to meet them, and I look forward to it transitioning. This is important. A series of companies has owned and managed that power station, and those companies have been doing very innovative things such as battery storage, which is vital to delivering at times of peak demand, such as teatime, when power is needed quickly across Northern Ireland.

There is much to be done. I commend amendment No 20 to the House. I encourage us all to support it, because it is a very achievable target.

Ms Dillon: I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill. A number of Members have alluded to the fact that there are two Climate Change Bills, and we need to recognise why there are two. The Minister had no intention of bringing forward his Climate Change Bill had Clare Bailey not brought forward a private Member's Bill. That does not remove the fact that we appreciate that the Minister has now moved to the point of bringing forward a Bill. It would have been much better if he had done so sooner so that we would not be in this position.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Ms Dillon: No. I agree with the Member for Mid Ulster Patsy McGlone about there being a pivotal role in this for our universities. My concern is how we are going to fund them. My colleague Caoimhe Archibald spoke about the fact that, in a previous life, she worked in the R&D sector and that that role was funded through European funding. I have concerns about whether that funding will be replaced, because that is where the vital work that will help our farmers happens.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Member for giving way. A lot of us who sit in the AERA Committee in particular, and, I am sure, on other Committees, hear about the prosperity fund that was promised, although Boris Johnson has promised so many things. Our concern is that that is not just a similar promise to that which was on the side of that big red bus.

Ms Dillon: I think that the Member has been reading my mind, or maybe it is because we are both from Mid Ulster, but I intended to reference the fact that we are putting our faith in a party that followed somebody who put signs that had all sorts of promises on the side of a red bus. We saw where that got us and where ignoring the true facts got us.

Members have talked during the debate about the fact that it will be a number of generations before we realise the benefits of the Bill. I remember that when I was a child, which is not that long ago, people were talking about climate change. It is a while ago, but not that long. I remember watching programmes and being a bit frightened about what it meant but not really understanding it. We talk about the fact that there have been delays in addressing climate change. I am 45, so there has been a fair delay. I am talking about over 30 years ago. We are well past the time to deal with the issue.

R&D is really important for all sectors. There has been a lot of reference today to the farming sector. As someone from a farming family who is deeply steeped in the farming tradition, and as a representative for a massive rural and farming community and constituency, I understand very well the challenges that farmers face. I understand the challenges that they faced in recent years when Lough Neagh flooded and homes, farmlands and animals were absolutely decimated. Climate change is a massive threat to our farmers. They recognise that we need to do something, and we recognise that we need to support them so that they can deal with it. How do we help them to change how they do things? That is where R&D comes into it and where it is vitally important.

I believe that net zero emissions is the bare minimum. As I said, people have been talking about this subject all my life, and nothing has been done. To go for anything less than that is just unthinkable. I have a young daughter, and I hope that she will see in her lifetime the difference that will be made by the Bill that we pass in the Assembly and by future legislation that will, hopefully, be even more ambitious. As others have said, we have all sorts of innovative projects, innovative ideas from people, changes in science and all those things that will happen to make the change easier and allow it to happen.

If our produce comes from an area with lower environmental standards, that will be a challenge for our farmers, because who will want to trade with them? Who will want to buy their food? Very basically, as someone who goes into a shop to buy meat, I am fussy about where I buy my meat and where it comes from. I am fussy about how those animals were reared, how they were killed and how that meat was processed.

It is important to people. From my time on the AERA Committee, I know that the Minister is very keen on high productivity. It is, therefore, a wee bit disingenuous to talk about the DUP's concern for the hill farmers. There was no concern for them, because they were not producing enough to be considered worth assisting and financing. They were helping us to protect the environment in those hill areas, but they were not being supported to do so.

If we are to play our part in averting a global catastrophe, protect our local environment and protect the health and well-being of our population, net zero is the bare minimum. We have a responsibility to ensure that we deliver climate change legislation, because, when it is too late, it is too late — there will be no going back. We will not be able to turn back the clock, and our children and grandchildren will pay a very high price for our negligence.

All of it must be delivered in a fair and balanced manner that protects and supports our farming communities. They are, as has been said, the custodians of the land, and they will play a central role. For that reason, it is important that they be consulted and are very much part of the development of any action plan. We have a responsibility to protect everyone: all those who work across our community and their families.

I will refer to Mr Muir's point on the transport network in Scotland. I was able to test that network a few years ago, and Mr Muir is right: it is excellent. In the most rural areas, in the middle of nowhere, you are within a couple of minutes of a train station. Here, transport in our rural areas is like that in a developing country.

Other Members have mentioned the need for the Bill to be more ambitious. Stewart Dickson referred to the need for the Bill to be all-encompassing and holistic. That is absolutely what we need. I speak as somebody who left Newry one day to travel to Coalisland on a bus. It took five hours to make a 40-minute journey. That is the transport that we have in our rural areas. For one hour of that time, I sat in Newtownhamilton on a bus while the bus driver went home and we waited for another bus driver to come. That was grand, because I had time to sit there, but, in the real world, it is not acceptable.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Ms Dillon: Absolutely, yes.

Mr Muir: The Member touches on quite an important issue. In the first group of amendments, we are debating targets. We are being told why we cannot achieve net zero by 2050. There is a lot of debate on that, and I respect the different views that have been expressed. We have to pull ourselves back from that, however, and ask, "Why are we debating this? Why are we saying that we cannot achieve that target?". The reason is that there is a lack of ambition in Northern Ireland. We have a transport system that, we were told, had real issues of sustainability until it got some money through a monitoring round a number of weeks ago. Its financial future is not secure. If we are to be real about tackling climate change, we will need to put our money where our mouth is and invest to make those changes in Northern Ireland. Other parts of the UK have managed to do it; we can do it here as well.

Ms Dillon: I thank the Member for the intervention. He is right: that is exactly what we need to do. We need to be more ambitious. As I said, it particularly impacts on our rural communities. When I see ambitious transport plans, they sometimes do not include our rural communities. They talk about the towns and cities, and they forget about us. In many of our villages and towns, if people do not have a car, they have no transport links whatsoever. That is why we are in the position of asking for additional road networks and work to be done to roads. That is not acceptable. We should have better transport links. We should have the potential to get on a bus or a train to go to our place of work and not have to rely on a car.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Member for giving way. The whole issue of connectivity and rail and other public transport has to be taken into account, but there is another element to it. We spoke earlier about fuel poverty. I have a concern, which I have raised at the Committee. We often talk about electric vehicle (EV) charging points.

That is one thing. There is an absence of EV charging points. There are not enough of them. Furthermore, the cost of some of those cars is absolutely prohibitive for many people in rural areas.

There is therefore that additional issue of what you might call mobility poverty: a lack of access to mobility. Members know as well as I do that some people live in areas where there is not a chance of a bus coming down their road or anywhere near their road. They are therefore reliant on their diesel or petrol car, which may be 10, 12 or 15 years of age, if it has repeatedly got through the MOT, to take them to and fro. That is another aspect of poverty: access to mobility and, as a result, to services.

Ms Dillon: Absolutely. That is where the Bill presents an issue for more than just farmers in rural areas. We need an ambitious climate change Bill that addresses all the issues that our rural communities face.

Mr McAleer: Will the Member take an intervention?

Ms Dillon: Absolutely.

Mr McAleer: You are very generous with the interventions, Linda.

Does the Member agree that fairness and justice are at the heart of our conversations about climate change? A lot of Members have talked about the importance of young people. From all the evidence-gathering sessions of the AERA Committee — I should have expressed my thanks to the staff for putting everything together and to the people who attended — I remember the young people the most. We held over 52 evidence-gathering sessions and met separately over 300 pupils in schools. I was at every one of those engagements except for one, as a consequence of a family bereavement. In all of that, the young people stuck out the most.

In 2050, I will be 76 years of age. I hope, if God spares me, that I will still be alive, that my children will be adults and that I will have grandchildren. This climate legislation is about trying to balance the levels of emissions that we produce against what we sequester. If we go for 82%, come 2050, when we have grandchildren, the children of Scotland, Wales, England and the South of Ireland will have reached 100%. Their air will be much cleaner. There will be less nitrous oxide and methane in the air. Why should we sit here and tell our future generations that it is OK for the children of the North to have that lesser-quality air whilst the rest have better-quality air?

The other principle of fairness —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Mr McAleer. You are on the speaking list, so you will get to make all those points. [Laughter.]

Ms Dillon: Thank you for the intervention. I am glad that I inspired such a heartfelt speech. [Laughter.]

I am going to end my speech, but I agree with Mr McAleer that this is about fairness. It is about delivering for future generations. It is hopefully about delivering for this generation as well, but it is absolutely for future generations: for my children, for, hopefully, my grandchildren and for yours. That is what we are here to do. We are here to deliver. It is not about us today but about what we leave as a legacy for those in the future.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Mr Matthew O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. That was in the nick of time.

Others, including my colleagues Patsy McGlone and Cara Hunter, addressed the group 1 amendments in detail. I will touch on them, but I will talk about the general principles of the amendments in the group and about my party's feelings about the Bill and the amendments.

Being a legislator is an immense privilege. In a parliamentary democracy, the most fundamental way that we have of effecting meaningful change is through legislation: making law. Laws change when those of us who have that privilege come here and vote for that change to happen.

Change is already happening to our climate. Climate change and, indeed, climate breakdown are happening. They are happening not just in far-off parts of the world but here on this island. Floods, wildfires and coastal erosion are an increasing part of our lives, and particularly of the lives of those who work in our farming and rural communities. There are fires in the Mournes and in the Kerry mountains. There is flooding across all our constituencies. Large parts of this city — the city that I represent — are at increased risk of flooding because of climate change. A significant chunk of that flooding will happen, whatever we vote for today and whatever we are able to deliver by way of limits to temperature rises. In a sense, we are dealing today with our best effort at limiting climate change, but climate change is happening and will continue to happen. Many residents in parts of Belfast already have to live with the consequences and prepare for possible future consequences.

As I said, we come here every day to debate issues such as that. We also debate issues that are vitally important to our constituents, such as the delivery of public services, whether that is in the health service, education, roads, or public transport. We also, virtually every day in this place, debate questions of identity and allegiance that are particular to this place. They may be exhausting at times, but they matter to people. However, nothing — nothing — matters more than this issue. Nothing matters more than ensuring that we, in this jurisdiction, take demonstrably ambitious and meaningful action on the climate emergency. Nothing matters more to young people, especially. Young people are watching us today to find out whether we will, finally, take action in this place on the crisis that could shape all of their lives. We have not taken that action so far. Not to be too blunt about it, many of us sitting in the Chamber will not be here in 2050. For that matter, many of us will not be here in 2045. I do not say that to be morbid or anything else. I am not trying to be —

Mr Poots: It is just to cheer us all up.

Mr O'Toole: Indeed. There is a serious point. It is about the responsibility on all of us to legislate for future generations. We are not legislating for the here and now. It is not enough to say that we are grand and that other parts of the world, indeed the rest of these islands, can crack on and deliver on particular targets, including net zero, and we will go our own way. The truth is that, for far too long, we have been nowhere on these issues, at least in relative terms. It has been said repeatedly today that Northern Ireland has been a laggard. We have. We are the only part of these islands without a net zero target by 2050 in law. We are the only part of these islands without any climate change legislation. It was mentioned earlier by my colleague Patsy McGlone that our other colleague Mark H Durkan was one of the first Ministers to bring forward climate action legislation here. That did not make progress. For the three years that the Assembly was down, no progress was made. That places a particular burden on all of us to take seriously the responsibilities that lie on us.

There are a large number of amendments in group 1. I will not be speaking to all of them in detail. I thank the members of the AERA Committee for their detailed scrutiny. Many people in the Department have done detailed work in that regard. I do not agree with everything in AERA, but I know that serious, detailed work has been done by the Department and the AERA Committee, and by Clare Bailey, on her Climate Change Bill, of which my colleague is a co-sponsor. I will not speak to every single amendment in detail or give an indicative position or view on all of them because others have done, and will do, that. However, I will touch on the broad subject of targets, on which, primarily, the debate has focused today. Indeed, it is the essence of the group 1 amendments.

I will touch on what has been said by the Climate Change Committee, or the committee on climate change — I do not know whether there is a particular formulation that is right or wrong — which is led by Lord Deben and was established by the Labour Government. Its advice includes a target of a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions "by at least 82%". The important thing that has, sometimes, been missed out in today's debate is that it says "at least". It does not say that it would be wrong for Northern Ireland to go beyond 82%. As the Climate Change Committee also notes in its letter, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have gone beyond that.

I support many of the amendments that are being debated today. I will not go through them all in detail. I will support the maximum possible ambition in relation to the setting of targets, but I also want to address one of the other broad issues that has emerged from the debate. It is incumbent on us to deal with it, because, while it is critical and urgent that we take the most ambitious action possible, it is also important that we address the concerns that some people in the farming community have.

Earlier, Clare Bailey mentioned that the faming community is going to be completely critical to dealing with climate change. That is true. It will also be among the sectors that are most devastated by climate change in particular areas. I represent an urban constituency. It is pointed out by others, including, sometimes, the Agriculture Minister, that I represent an urban constituency. Before that, I lived in London. However, I am from a farming background. I come from a small family acreage in County Down that is still in my extended family. I care about those communities. I care about farming and the amazing contribution that farmers make. I do not see any contradiction between our having maximum and real ambition for dealing with climate change and celebrating and protecting farming and rural communities.

The truth is that we will all have to deal with change. Climate change is happening. It is forcing change upon us. We all have to be real about the responsibility and urgency that is on us to deal with it. I hope that this debate and the further stages of the Bill will mark a fundamental step forward for this place. Too often, people outside this place are completely despairing of our ability to deliver meaningful change. This is perhaps the most important opportunity to deliver change that we have had since we returned in 2017 — sorry, the place fell in 2017; since we returned in 2020. We should be really serious about that responsibility, because, as I say, people outside this place are not filled with confidence about our capacity as legislators to take action to improve their lives and deal with the most urgent problems of this century. It is incumbent on us all to use that responsibility to try to address that lack of confidence. I hope that today and, indeed, in the weeks ahead, we can continue to do that with this legislation.

Mr Gildernew: It has been an interesting debate. I come from a faming background. My father is a farmer, and my brother continues to run the family farm. I live in a rural community, and I ran a small engineering business in a rural community for many years. I am concerned that, to some degree, it appears that this is almost being set up as a choice between taking action on the climate and farming. It actually has to be both. It is absolutely clear that we need to take action to deal with the climate crisis that we face, but it is equally clear that we cannot do that in a way that is unjust or that impacts unjustly on anyone, including farmers and small businesses.

Farmers will actually bear the brunt of the impact of climate change. They can see that happening all the time. However, I think that farmers and small businesses actually see themselves as being at the cutting edge of how we move forward and develop solutions. Even 20 years ago, in our own business, we had already moved on to manufacturing environmental and recycling products. We have an entire industry in the south Tyrone and mid-Ulster area that exports environmental and recycling equipment all around the world. Innovation, ingenuity and those types of solutions will, I believe, be brought to bear here.

We speak to farmers every day of the week. It is clear that they are up for the challenge. They are family people too. They want their children and grandchildren to grow up in an environment that is fit to support them, where they can thrive and that they can enjoy. We are talking about targets in this section of the Bill. My own experience in business taught me that, if you did not have a target, and if it was not challenging, you did not know where you were trying to get to and could not build in the steps that you needed to take.

Those targets are important, and it is crucial that we ensure that they are achievable but also challenging. It is appropriate that they are challenging, given what we have learnt in the past and given the more our understanding has grown of the severe issues that are going on with the climate.

I also agree that we need to play our part to the full and not look for excuses about why we should reduce our targets. We should go for targets that are credible, realistic and achievable. We should support farmers, rural communities, small businesses —

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gildernew: I am finishing up. I have heard several interventions of a very similar nature, and, after the first repetition or two, it was clear that they did not add much to the debate. We absolutely need to speak up for rural communities and protect them, but we also need to protect the climate.

Mr Beggs: First, I declare that I own 25 acres of agricultural land that I let out. I also provide voluntary assistance to my parents with their small farming enterprise. That is like having a free gym membership.

I welcome the Consideration Stage of the Northern Ireland Climate Change (No. 2) Bill. We are far behind other regions of the UK, and we have a long distance yet to travel to deliver our fair share of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. We need to ensure that we carry our fair share of that and contribute to global and UK net zero by 2050.

A Northern Ireland climate change Act is long overdue. I credit the Member who introduced the private Member's Bill for forcing the Department's hand. I suspect that, were it not for that, we would not be standing here today debating a Bill that has been through the Executive and has had considerable thought and scrutiny given to it. I credit her to the extent that we are in the process of enacting legislation that will start to address that.

A Climate Change Act was passed at Westminster in November 2008. The UK set out a pathway to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. That was the first global legally binding climate change mitigation target set by any country. When I hear some of the critical comments that are being made by some about unambitious targets, I am quite surprised. The UK has led the world on the issue.

Scotland has had a Climate Change Act since 2009 and recently updated its targets to include a 75% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and 90% by 2040. Scotland is well ahead of us. It is13 years ahead of us, and, on top of that, it has a particular land mix topography. It has hydroelectricity and extensive wind farms. It is able to set those ambitious targets, and it is now aiming for net zero by 2045. Every region of the UK is different, and the particular topography and circumstances around Scotland, with the thousands of acres of moorland that is not being farmed, creates different opportunities, particularly for forestry, which we do not have to the same extent.

In 2016, Welsh legislation was introduced to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and, in February 2021, after five years of planning and actions and seeing how its process worked, it decided that it was able to update its targets, and it is now planning to achieve net zero by 2050. Wales has been at this for five years. It has particular circumstances that are different from ours. From its experience of working the system, it then decided to bring its targets forward.

Obviously, the UK has a climate change target to be neutral by 2050.
Many countries talk about reducing emissions, but the UK has delivered significant reductions in emissions and set credible legislative pathways to achieve that.

Mr Poots: I thank the Member for giving way. Previously, Mr McGuigan tried to tell the House that Ireland was leading the way. Over time, the Member will probably get the point that the UK has already considerably reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Over the same period, Ireland has increased its greenhouse gas emissions by some 10%, while Northern Ireland has reduced emissions by 18%. Mr McGuigan seems to be a little confused. Northern Ireland has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions while Ireland has increased its emissions by 10%. By 2030, Ireland is proposing to reduce methane emissions by 10%. I am interested to hear what the UK is doing. Mr McGuigan had some green-tinted glasses on and could not see through them.

Mr Beggs: I thank the Minister for his contribution. It is important to have the facts; it is also important to have credible pathways and legislation that delivers more than fine words. I very clearly support clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill. Those clauses set out the targets that have been deemed to be fair to Northern Ireland.

The UK Climate Change Committee is an independent expert panel with a wide range of experts who cover different fields. They are renowned scientists in their fields, and they have set those targets. The UK CCC has accepted that Northern Ireland is coming late to the game. The CCC has also examined our particular circumstances, topography and mix, and it identified that a fair target for Northern Ireland is an 82% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 so that we can play our part in the UK reaching net zero by 2050.

Have no doubt: an 82% reduction will be very challenging for all sectors, whether it be engineering, electricity or agriculture.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beggs: Certainly.

Mr Dickson: As I listen to Mr Beggs, I am fascinated. Can he clear up my confusion? His party's climate change spokesperson has said that net zero carbon emissions can be achieved by 2035 — that came down from a previous target of 2045. In fact, the spokesperson highlighted the fact that the National Farmers' Union said that it could be achieved by 2045. The spokesperson stated:

Maybe the Member could explain the confusion or the difference between his agriculture and climate change perspective on that matter?

Mr Beggs: I suspect that a lot of Members are not picking up the details of the matter. One of the biggest greenhouse gas emissions is methane from animals in the agriculture sector. CO2 targets are not included in those figures. When you talk about CO2 figures, it is important to remember that. Yes, some energy is used by machinery and harvesting, but it does not take account of the methane that is produced by ruminants — sheep and cattle. I am very surprised that some Members have not appreciated that. The big issue about net zero for our agriculture sector is the methane produced by ruminants.

Ms Bailey: I thank the Member for giving way. Is he aware that we are now being told by climate scientists that methane is posing a more immediate and greater risk than carbon and that we need to go further and faster with methane reductions?

Mr Beggs: I fully accept the scientific evidence that methane is also a problem for climate change. However, I ask others to look carefully at what the Bill does and what it will do. If we set a net zero emissions target, we will export our methane production to South America, Australia and New Zealand.

A lot of muck has been thrown about, and people have mentioned Brexit and a lot of other things, including hill farming support subsidies. What happened in the past is in the past. We are here to make decisions that will affect our community, our farmers and our rural community today. If we go for a net zero target, we will decimate the rural community.

The Climate Change Committee indicated that a 50% reduction in the number of our cattle and sheep will not be sufficient and that it will have to be higher. It warned of the dangers of import substitution.

As I highlighted earlier, but just so that everyone is very clear, the average carbon emission intensity of milk production in Northern Ireland is measured at 1·279 kg of CO2 equivalent per kilogram of energy-corrected milk. Figures from the United Nations and the Global Dairy Council show that the average global carbon emission intensity of milk production elsewhere is 2·5 kg of CO2 equivalent per kilogram. We have been given evidence that cutting our herds by half will not be sufficient, and the KPMG report indicated that the required reduction could be as high as 86%.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. There are a couple of points there.

Does the Member accept that the UK CCC, while a very respectable and internationally renowned group of scientists, is an advisory body? Does he also accept that, during our investigation in the AERA Committee, we met a range of other climate change experts — for example, Dr Ciara Brennan of Newcastle University, Dr Thomas Muinzer of Aberdeen University, Dr Andrew Jackson of University College Dublin and Professor Peter Thorne of Maynooth University, and there may be others — who do not agree with that analysis?

Also, the Member is quoting scientists. The KPMG report ignores the seismic work that has been carried out by DAERA, AFBI and Teagasc. The other week, I received a report on the fantastic work on abatement by Teagasc scientists. That was not included in the KPMG report, which concluded that the only way to reduce emissions is by cutting herds. That ignores the work done by scientists in DAERA and Queen's University. Does the Member accept that there are other opinions out there from other scientists who are also experts?

Mr Beggs: I fully understand that there are different viewpoints, but I examine the evidence and apply a little bit of common sense to what I read and see. If we are to have net zero methane by 2050 — that is a target that some wish to insert into this legislation — it will mean a dramatic reduction in the number of cattle. Cattle and sheep produce methane. I hope —

Mr Poots: I thank the Member for giving way. Importantly, people talk about other scientists. The IPCC, a recognised international group, recommends a 40% reduction in methane by 2050. I do not know where Ms Bailey is getting her science from, but she disagrees with the CCC and the IPCC.

Mr Beggs: I thank the Minister. This is alarming me even more.

Earlier, we talked about public transport difficulties in rural communities. The KPMG report estimates that, to get to net zero greenhouse gas emissions, dairy cattle and sheep numbers will need to drop by 86%. That will have a very direct correlation with farm incomes. I suspect that farm incomes will drop by even more than that because there is a certain fixed cost in any enterprise. That is the type of change to farming income that will happen if that net zero target goes through.

I suspect that public transport in rural communities will become even more difficult, because fewer people will live and be able to earn a living in those communities. As such, it will be even more challenging to provide viable public-sector transport routes in those rural communities. We need to look at all the after-effects.

I see heads going down when I highlight to Members what the implications of net zero will mean, but worse than that —

Mr McAleer: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Beggs: I have given way several times.

Worse than all that, I have continually highlighted that, by decimating our farming community and food production in Northern Ireland, we will increase global greenhouse gas emissions. The same food that is required in England or in other parts of Europe will be produced somewhere else with a higher level of greenhouse gas emissions, so the proposal is counter-intuitive. It will actually increase global greenhouse gas emissions. All Members should look very carefully at what they are doing. The figure is not aspirational; it is a figure that will be set in legislation, and, as such, Members ought to look very closely at what they are doing and be very sure about what will happen.

Some Members indicated that there will be new scientific discoveries. I hope that there are, but if there are not, KPMG and I have laid out what is likely to happen. I would much prefer that we set challenging but realistic targets, such as those that are indicated in the Minister's Bill, and that those targets are aimed for. When we see where we are and work out what has to happen to achieve those targets, if we find that, yes, we can achieve them and that, yes, other technological changes can be made, we can come back to the target and increase it further. We can be even more ambitious about what we are doing, but if we set it in legislation, we all know that it will be very difficult to tighten that legislation. It is very difficult to go back on what you have approved. I urge Members to reconsider the proposal to reach net zero by 2050.

Our emissions level is related to the fact that we provide food to other parts of the UK for some 10 million people. Those same people will still eat food, and they will eat food from other areas that emit higher levels of greenhouse gases. Lord Deben said that the 82% reduction would be:

It is very important that the farming community buys into the target. You have to set achievable targets. My big concern is that, in going for net zero, you will not get the farming community to buy into it. I do not see how any farmer or any livestock farmer can buy into net zero. There is a huge danger that the farming community will not buy into it, and a warning has been given to us about that.

Another reason why our figure has been set at 82% relates to the particular land mix that we have. We do not have absorbents in our peatlands but emissions from our peatlands. We have to spend time and money to address and to stop them. We also have a much lower tree covering, so our starting point has a much smaller net carbon sink. Our particular topography makes life more difficult for us. You can also look at our infrastructure, where you will see that we have a smaller gas network, and then there is the state of our housing stock. We still have the sizeable Northern Ireland Housing Executive housing stock of older, thermally inefficient houses and the fuel poverty that is associated with them. That needs to be addressed.

The Climate Change Committee indicated that we, as a location, are less likely to benefit from carbon storage. One amendment adds the issue of carbon storage, which I am supportive of, but do not save that up your sleeve as a solution that will solve everything. Carbon capture is expensive, and the technology is still not fully developed. There has been a clear message that, because we are a relatively small region, we are less likely to be chosen as a UK carbon capture storage area. We will not be able to rely on that to carry some of the load. Whatever we put into legislation will have a bearing out there. As legislators, we must take great care as we set binding legislation. This is not an aspiration.

The Committee report on the Bill indicates some of the cost implications of the Bill, as drafted. There is an annualised resource cost peaking at some £300 million by the early 2030s. It is right that we will have to do that. The report refers to a cost of 1% of GDP, and a net cost of some £4 billion between now and 2050. Those figures are based on the Minister's Bill. I would like to know what the cost of net zero would be. I fear that it would be much more. Where would the money come from to justify net zero? There may well be some UK transition funding but, if we voluntarily go at it faster and harder than is required of and suggested to us, I very much doubt that the Exchequer will say, "You decided to do that but that's OK. We'll give you some extra money." I suspect that we will suffer the related pain. Our industry and agri-food sector will suffer that pain. The huge potential reductions that are forecast may affect the whole viability of some of our industry, so we really should be looking at that.

In his evidence, Lord Deben stated that he is not prepared to suggest something that he knew could not be achieved. It is clear that he believes that net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 cannot be achieved in Northern Ireland given our background. The Committee report outlines Lord Deben's view that Northern Ireland could experience:

The Climate Change Committee will pull in behavioural scientists to guide all this change. It is not said lightly. We are trying to grasp something that is unachievable, and are liable not to take the community with us, making it even more difficult to achieve, and causing even greater destruction.

One of the greatest aspects of this matter is our agri-food sector, which we, in Northern Ireland, are heavily reliant on. It has provided stability during times of difficulty. However, look ahead to what will be the result of the Bill. Who will invest in our agri-food sector? Who will invest to bring about improvements? There will be a real danger when people see a potential 86% reduction in the number of sheep and cattle. You would be a very foolish farmer to invest in housing standards that are often better than other parts of the world. There are lots of knock-on effects.

I spoke about the Brazilian meat industry, which is actively pursuing a plan to increase cattle production by 10 million by 2030 — no doubt by cutting down its rainforests. We may well find that our customers, whom we will not be able to supply under the new targets, will be purchasing Brazilian meat in the future.

Furthermore, if we sacrifice our industry, or pay for carbon capture and take on a bigger share of the UK greenhouse gas emissions target, it will not result in any reduction in UK greenhouse gas emissions. People may feel good, but the target for net zero greenhouse gas emissions will remain a 2050 target in the UK. We could voluntarily carry a heavier load and pay the extra cost, but that would not decrease UK greenhouse gas emissions. It would simply mean that Scotland, Wales and England did not have to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to the same extent. Some people are under the impression that doing that would help global greenhouse gas emissions. It would not. The UK greenhouse gas emissions would remain at the same level, and, in fact, by offsetting our agriculture production elsewhere, we would be increasing global greenhouse gas emissions. That would be the net outcome of having a net zero target in the Bill. Members need to think carefully about what they are doing.

I asked the signatories to amendment Nos 2 and 3 to explain to the people of Northern Ireland why our agriculture economy would be binned. Our limited block grant would incur extra costs to try to compensate that part of the economy. From where in the block grant would the money come to compensate it? Would it come out of health or education funding? From where is this wonderful fund to come? I fear that there will not be much more money and that mitigation is easier said than provided.

There is another aspect to all of this. We need to stand back and think about what we are doing. It is easy to go for a popular headline, but to do so will produce the opposite effect. It will not deliver. It will not deliver what some people say is on the tin. Rather, as I have illustrated, it will increase greenhouse gas emissions.

The Climate Change Committee said:

— to be clear, we are talking not about CO2 but about greenhouse gas emissions —

I fear that we are not doing that. I fear that we are creating difficulties for us, the UK and the planet.

The UK is committed to reaching net zero by 2050. If we move ahead of it, and we can volunteer to do so, we will have to pick up the cost and the pain.

What is the scale of the just transition funds? The KPMG report states that the agriculture sector has net profits or income of £400 million to £600 million a year. If we were to reduce animal numbers by between 50% and 86%, one does not need to be an expert to work out the effect that that would have on the income of those who previously were producers. We would devalue their income by hundreds of millions of pounds. So, I say, here and now, to the proposers of the amendments to the Bill, are you going to subsidise, to the value of hundreds of millions of pounds, those who may have invested in infrastructure that was built to last not for five or 10 years but for 50 or 60 years? That is the length of time that most in the agricultural sector expect to get out of their buildings. In my dad's small farm, we are still using some of the buildings that we found when we went to Carnduff in 1966. That is not unusual. What we are talking about here is decimating the income and making that investment in infrastructure redundant on many occasions. So, I plead with you to rethink what you are doing so that there really can be a just transition and that we go with a planned transition, as indicated by the UK Climate Change Committee and as set out by the Minister in the Bill. I support the targets and the figures in the Minister's Bill.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I am aware that several enquiries have been made to the Speaker's Office about the possibility of a comfort break. Therefore, I propose, with the leave of the House, to suspend the sitting until 6.30 pm. When we come back, the next person to speak will be Mr Jim Allister.

Mr Allister: The debate on this group of amendments got off to a very good and interesting start, because the Green Party missed its target in respect of amendment No 1, and that, from my perspective, was very welcome. Tonight I am here to oppose, in word and deed, the anti-farming amendments of the Green Party, the Alliance Party and Sinn Féin. Having listened to Matthew O'Toole, I am not sure where I should put the SDLP in that regard, because he certainly espoused that farming-destructive measure of net zero, so we will wait and see what the SDLP does on that critical issue.

I want to begin by saying emphatically that farming is not the enemy of the environment.

Farmers, indeed, have more vested interest than anyone else in a sustainable future for our land and all that goes with it and have for centuries been the primary custodians of our land. It is the ambition of every farmer I know to pass on his land in better condition and facility than he inherited or obtained it. I want to refute clearly the commonly peddled mistruth that farmers are the enemy of the environment and the villains when it comes to climate change. Let us be clear: they are not the villains, but they will be the biggest victims of amendments such as those we have seen proposed today.

It is abundantly clear that the net zero brigade is inevitably and deliberately in the business of devastating our farming sector. It is doing that with full knowledge, because it has in the KPMG report, in flashing lights, the impact of net zero on our farming community. It could not be clearer. It is not as if people can say subsequently, "We did not know". There it is, writ large. It tells us that net zero demands will decimate our livestock industry, particularly cattle and sheep, and it calculates that there would have to be a staggering 86% reduction in livestock head of cattle and sheep. That is, of course, total devastation for most farming enterprises, particularly those of beef farmers, who are predominantly in what we have always called the "less-favoured areas". One striking statistic in the KPMG report is that even a 10% cut in livestock levels on a hill farm would make that farm non-viable. That is all that it would take — a 10% cut — to challenge and threaten the viability of those farms. It goes on to say that that means that 98% of farms in those less-favoured areas would be vulnerable. Think of what an 86% cut would mean. It would mean the greatest devastation in those areas since the famine. Yet that is what Sinn Féin comes to the House to advocate: net zero. That is what Alliance has attached its wagon to. That is what the Greens say to those rural communities — net zero — despite the reality of the devastation that that means.

I have to comment on those in the debate who have spoken out of both sides of their mouth, saying, "Yes, we want 100% reduction, but we are supporting the farmers". Sorry, you cannot do both. You simply cannot face in those diametrically opposed directions, and your voters know it. Many of them, I suspect, will remember it. I was at a meeting — I have been at many meetings about the issue — where, predominantly, those participating probably would have voted in the past for parties that, today, may be advocating net zero. Those people were clear that, for them, this was the defining issue and that, if their representatives voted as they had previously voted, they would have to take the message that will be delivered that, while it is only platitudes for them, it is destruction for them through their votes. I hope that that message gets through to the House.

Today, it was encouraging to see, outside the Building at the farmers' demonstration, that some parties were represented that, at the Second Stage of Ms Bailey's Bill, voted for 2045 and 100%. I hope that they were not just present today for the optics; I hope that they were present today because they have realised what persisting with the folly of 100% and 2045 would mean for our agriculture industry and thus for our entire economy. There is no more seminal component of the economy of Northern Ireland than our agri-food industry. It is the component on which so much is built. Without a vibrant, effective and flourishing agri-food industry, our economy is in deep trouble.

Rural communities, whose interests some claim to have at heart, are right on the front line of decimation under that proposal. Think about it: KPMG talks about 13,000 on-farm jobs before we even come to the spin-off processing industries. That is surely something that no MLA should have on their conscience when it comes to voting on these matters. Your job might be secure — some, maybe, less secure than others — but we are talking tonight about livelihoods. We are talking about the future of our rural community. It is not something to be played with in pursuit of ticking the politically correct boxes in this woke age. It is something to take seriously and make sure that we do not pursue the folly that the amendments advocate to us.

I heard Ms Bailey say that this was all scaremongering. A climate activist should be the last person to talk about scaremongering. How many false prophets have there been in the cult of climate change? I remember Al Gore telling us in this century, in 2009, that there was a 75% chance within five to seven years that the North Pole would be free of ice. I go back further to 1989, when a UN report told us that entire nations would be wiped out by rising sea levels by 2000. In 1982, the chief director of the UN environmental programme told us that, by 2000, devastation that was as complete and irreversible as any nuclear holocaust awaited us. We have had plenty of false prophets in the climate change brigade.

Go back 50 years to 'The Limits to Growth' report and the phenomenal threats that it made. Here we are again being told that we are in the last chance saloon.

I have a very simple question for the House. You pass net zero and do all the things that you want to do. Do you really think that it will change anything? Do you really think that it will stop climate change, which has happened through the years? Yes, of course we should do sensible, necessary, logical things to preserve our planet in the most pristine way we can, but do any of us really think that puny man, by going to net zero, will stop climate change?

Many of you will tick this box and vote for this woke proposal. You will do so with no assurance that it will do anything; you have only the assurance that it will devastate our agricultural industry. That is what many of you will opt to do tonight. It is time that you rose above the delusion that you, with your net zero, will make the phenomenal difference that you pretend it will. Just as the threats and the Armageddon suggestions of the last 50 years have proved to be untrue, this too, I fear, is another false prophecy.

I appeal to anyone in the House who cares about the future for their rural and farming constituents: the very least that you can do is vote against these anti-farming amendments.

It is not that the Minister's Bill is not without threats. To me, it goes too far, but it is by far more preferable to that which is on offer from the climate change alarmists in the House.

Now is a moment of truth for us all, and I will watch with interest to see who stands up for their rural constituents and who wants to put them down and off their land.

Mr Carroll: It has to be said that, globally, Governments have dragged their feet when it comes to taking the required action to reduce carbon emissions and stem the flow of climate change. The Minister's Bill, whilst dealing with climate issues, does not go far enough to implement the measures required to prevent climate disaster.

It is worth remembering the two reasons why the Minister introduced a Bill, albeit limited. First, there has been a movement on our streets, including by striking schoolchildren in 2019 and in the run-up to COP26, to demand less "Blah, blah, blah" and more robust action from Governments. Secondly, the Minister did not want to have egg on his face. After he said that a climate Bill could not be drafted before the end of this mandate, another Member did so with cross-party support. Therefore, the Minister rushed to introduce this Bill, which has forced the climate issue to be discussed once again but does not go far enough to implement the necessary measures.

Throughout today's debate, the Minister has mentioned the need to defer to the science. Minister, I say to you directly: the science is crystal clear. Beyond net zero is not only achievable but necessary to prevent our communities from being flooded and people having to live in uninhabitable environments.

If we are honest, implementing net zero by 2045 is not enough in itself, but even that has provoked outrage from the Minister and his party. They have said that we must not go too far, too soon. The truth is that, contrary to what some anticipate, we do not have the time to wait around.

The IPCC report made it crystal clear that we are in code red. We needed action yesterday, but, unfortunately, some are still willing to drag their feet.

The Member who spoke previously and others referred to farmers being impacted by some of the amendments in this particular group. There has even been a suggestion that we could see farmers put out of business altogether as a result of the amendments' being passed. In truth, there is division amongst farmers and those who work in agri-food. On the one hand, workers, farmers and those who work in the food industry see the need for urgent climate action not only to protect the environment but to have any chance of having a job for the next number of years. On the other hand, we see large corporations in the agri-food sector that want the most meagre action from government because, in short, action impacts and cuts into profits. There is no singular and universal farming experience. All farmers are not in it together. There is a class divide in farming, just as much as there is across our society. Poor and struggling farmers are the majority, and they are alongside a handful of farmers who are doing financially well.

I find it rich — it is laughable, even — to hear the DUP talk about standing up for farmers. When it designed its RHI schemes, it did not have small farmers in mind but big farmers and big landowners, who milked the system and did very well financially from it. The DUP was happy to turn a blind eye to that. The truth is that whilst everybody, in theory, is impacted by climate change, some are impacted more directly than others. The rich will be able to afford their own flood defences, private jets and other short-term measures to keep the rising seas at bay temporarily, but, ultimately, even they will be impacted.

Amendment Nos 7 and 8 will make a higher level of reductions in a much quicker time frame and should be supported for that. There should be targets for the reduction of carbon, and even the targets in amendment Nos 7 and 8 are not urgent or quick enough. However, the problem with the Minister's targets is that they set the bar incredibly low and park emission reduction to some time in the distant future. You cannot offset your way out of a climate emergency. Amendment No 16 is important for those reasons.

Whilst the Bill is far from perfect, some amendments, if passed tonight, could make it better. However, possible actions that are not proposed in the Bill are also not in any of the amendments. There is no moratorium on petroleum or fossil fuel licences despite me and others trying to get an amendment on those matters on the Marshalled List. The Executive have spoken out of both sides of their mouth. Whilst, on the one hand, passing motions to declare climate emergencies and sponsoring Bills like this, on the other hand, they support to the tune of millions the extractive industry and waive the £400,000 policing fee for Dalradian. The doublespeak and contradictory action need to stop. Petroleum licences and fossil fuel licences need to be opposed and scrapped. Dalradian needs to be kicked out from the Sperrins. The Mullaghglass landfill site that is causing so much unease, discomfort and nuisance to residents in west Belfast and Lisburn needs to be closed down. Those issues are not detailed in the Bill, so in order to take action on them and to prevent them, we will need to see the continued people power exercised in the communities that push back against polluters and those whose primary motivation is to maximise profit at all costs, regardless of the impact on the environment.

Finally, with regard to targets, we cannot forget that, globally, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of all emissions. If there is to be any sense of climate justice and a just transition not only do we need strong targets and strong legislation but we need to dismantle capitalism — the very economic and political system that brought huge emissions and the addiction to fossil fuels in the first place.

Ms Sugden: I do not intend to speak for too long. I just want to provide my rationale for what I intend to do in the Divisions this evening.

The Climate Change Bill has served a significant purpose because it prompted the Minister to do his job on climate change. I have no doubt that, without the work of Ms Bailey, the various co-sponsors of that Bill and the strong network of activists, we would not have this opportunity today to respond to an Executive Bill on climate change, which is actually a really good thing.

Northern Ireland is a small region of the United Kingdom, of these islands, of Europe and of the world, so our practical impact on climate change will be limited. It is leadership, however, that can have a greater impact, and Ms Bailey has demonstrated that. She, as a Back-Bench MLA, has compelled a Government to do something that they were unlikely to do. She has unified most parties of the House in recognising the need for action now. I have listened to criticisms of Ms Bailey today that are unfair. We should see her work in the wider context of getting climate change legislation into the Northern Ireland Assembly.

It was my pleasure to sign up as a co-sponsor of the Climate Change Bill. I did so with no preconditions that the Bill could not change, develop or take recognition of our context. An important feature of any legislative process is that it should allow various views to be heard and considered, with the aim of shaping the Bill so that we end up with the right law.

The targets in the first Bill, which have since found themselves as amendments to this Bill, are ambitious and rightly so. We are in a climate emergency. We should overstretch ourselves in that ambition to, at minimum, stop the decline of our environment and, preferably, reverse it to give generations after us a safe and healthy future. I am unsure, however, that we have capacity in Northern Ireland to meet those targets without significant damage and/or unintended consequences. The lack of capacity that I talk about is actually a criticism of government. We do not have joined-up government. Departments do not work together; they work in silos. They pass the buck; they say, "That is your remit, not ours". They do not think creatively or work consistently towards innovative solutions that could surpass the targets that Ms Bailey would have us vote for today. Therefore, while I support the ambition and the targets in principle, I really lack confidence about their application.

Sadly, given the current figures for agri-food emissions, I suspect that that sector will be the low-hanging fruit for that objective. The current debate, which is on a Bill and amendments that, I remind Members, do not specify a sector, is focusing on the agri-food sector. That leads me to believe that the Department and other Departments will focus their application and targets on the agri-food sector. I have no confidence that the Bill's application will be anything other than a cut of the herd, as we have heard from the agri-food sector. I have asked the Minister a series of questions over the past number of months, seeking or suggesting various interpretations of data to ensure that agri-food is not disproportionately and negatively affected and is recognised for the work that it does on countryside management and in other ways. I am sure that the Minister knows more about that than I do. I do not think that the sector is being listened to or that the information is understood. Perhaps it cannot be understood at this point, but that gives me cause for concern about the application of the Bill and its targets. It concerns me, primarily, as a representative of rural communities and as a member of the Economy Committee. Small and medium-sized enterprises — farms — underpin agriculture and the Northern Ireland economy. It worries me that many people, not just the Ulster Farmers' Union but others, including processors, people across the supply chain and those who get their jobs from that supply chain, have contacted me in recent days, weeks and months to say that they are deeply concerned about the Bill. It is my job — our job — to listen to those concerns.

When we talk of targets, it is almost as though we need to just meet them. We can surpass the targets despite what is set in legislation. To an extent, it gives me comfort to think that, if we are working towards a 50% target, we can go past it and review it. The target is a long time away. That does not mean that we should not set an ambition, but perhaps we need to look at it in the context and reality of how we apply it.

Either climate change Bill will be better for Northern Ireland, because, right now, we have nothing. Either one will be a positive step in how we move forward in our global effort to affect climate change, so I want to see at least one Bill passed in this mandate. I would like to see a more ambitious Bill and to think that the Government could support it. Sadly, my experience of nearly eight years as an MLA tells me that they cannot. Perhaps we should devise better government in the next mandate, and then we would be able to put more ambitious targets in place.

I will pose a question to the Minister. There are targets here that he disagrees with and is likely to vote against. If that is the case, and those targets are passed, is the Minister unlikely to move subsequent stages of the Bill? If that is the case, will we end up by the dissolution date with no climate change legislation in place? That is an important consideration, because we need to act now, not after the election or next year, when we can develop more legislation. We need to act now.

To bring my comments full circle, this did not start with Clare Bailey. It started with people outside this Building telling us that we needed to take action on climate change. I know that we often have to view that action in the form of tactile outcomes and targets, but really it is about influence and pressure, and I think that we have achieved that. Although there is a lot of negativity around the Chamber, the most important thing is that we get climate change legislation enacted in this mandate.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: No other Members have indicated that they wish to speak in the debate, so I call the Minister of Agriculture, Mr Edwin Poots.

Mr Poots: I thank the Chair and members of the AERA Committee for their scrutiny of the Bill. They raised helpful questions and proposed a number of areas for amendment. I was happy to consider those proposals and, ultimately, to table amendments for debate today, some of which are in the group of amendments that we are currently debating. I will touch on my amendments shortly. As we have heard, a number of other Members tabled amendments to the clauses on targets and carbon budgets. It is right and proper that we focus on those aspects in detail.

The facts do not bear out what Ms Dillon and Mr Carroll claim, despite what they say. We were working on this Bill — consultations were going on — when the other Bill was produced. Government has to go through due process when bringing forward legislation. It cannot just magic up a Bill and say, "This is good for you". It has to engage with the community and do consultation processes. All those things were carried out rightly and properly by my Department and were being carried out when the rushed legislation came through from Ms Bailey, backed by a number of other Members.

Clause 1 of the Bill sets out the emissions reduction target for 2050. As such, it is the key clause in the Bill. The remaining clauses essentially identify how we will measure our emissions, how we will take action and how we will monitor progress and ensure that we are on track to meet the target in clause 1 by meeting interim targets and carbon budgets. I am somewhat struck by how those who proposed it insist that we push ahead with their target of 100% by 2050. In spite of specific requests for those Members to demonstrate the scientific basis for their proposal, not one of them has come forward with serious scientific evidence to demonstrate that it is achievable. I offer them that opportunity again: if they have that scientific evidence, I am happy to give way and hear what they have to say.

There are 278 million milking cows in the world. If all the cows in the world were as efficient as the cows in Northern Ireland, the world would need only 76 million cows, and that would reduce the levels of methane from cows by 75%. The proposal of a 100% target means that we would export milking to somewhere else in the world, where it would be done less efficiently, producing more carbon. Instead of GB importing its milk and cheese from Northern Ireland, along with all the other excellent products that we have, it could then import them from South America, thus producing even more carbon, yet those who proposed the target will say, "Heigh-ho, didn't we do well? We put through a Bill that said that we will not do anything less than 100% net zero". That is in spite of the fact that they would be causing more carbon emissions throughout the world.

Others say that we should not be drinking milk at all or that we should forget about cow milk and go for alternatives. Why not go for almond milk as an alternative?

It takes the equivalent of 8 litres of tap water to produce 1 litre of milk from a cow. That is very nutritious milk; it is full of things that are good for people. It takes 158 litres of water to bring imported milk from California to us to drink. The experts in all of those things do not appear to have much knowledge of the real facts. We produce nutritious, healthy food in an environmentally responsible way.

Unfortunately, Ms Bailey has been a big part of setting up the environment versus farming. That is not right. People in the farming community are the custodians of the land. They consider the environment to be of the utmost importance. We now have a division between the environment and farming, and farming is perceived as being bad. Farming is on the cusp of a revolution, environmentally. So many farmers are looking at opportunities to capture more methane and turn it into gas to heat our homes and to run our lorries and tractors. The reality is that farmers will produce carbon. When a farmer ploughs a field, he or she releases carbon. When you cultivate land, it releases carbon, because the carbon is captured in the land in the first instance. However, Northern Ireland is very much a grass-based land base. Well over half of Northern Ireland is not suitable for ploughing. Grass is one of the best sequesters of carbon. When grass has been there for 30, 40 or 50 years, it is already storing lots of carbon and is still drawing it in. Going for some plant-based thing that will be imported from somewhere else in the world, using lots of water, will not seriously tackle climate change.

Sinn Féin has put up a few folks today from rural backgrounds to say how much they are concerned about farming. They are talking out of both sides of their mouth. They will support amendments that will be hugely destructive to farming. I had a conversation with my family about this. It is a bit like the Native American belief: the land does not really belong to us; we belong to the land. My parents worked darned hard to get it, with blood, sweat and tears. It has been lent to me by them, and I will lend it to the next generation. I am appalled that people would produce legislation and support such amendments, particularly those who live in the country —

Mr McGuigan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Poots: I will — particularly people who live in the country, who should know better. They should know the impact and the harm that they are doing to individuals for whom farming is a way of life. It is precious to them. It is not about making tens of thousands of pounds; they will never make that. It is about their family heritage. You are taking that away from them.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Minister for giving way. I wonder how he responds to the fact that, in the North, agriculture is responsible for 27% of our greenhouse gas emissions. In the South, it is over 30%, yet they have a target of net zero by 2050 and have just produced their plan, which does not call for anything like what the Minister is outlining would have to happen here. In fact, the Agriculture Minister in the South has expressly said that there will be no cuts to the herd in the South.

Mr Poots: I thank the Member for raising the point. The Irish Farmers' Association —.

Mr McGuigan: I am not talking about the Irish Farmers' Association; I am talking about the Minister.

Mr Poots: I know what the Minister is proposing. Being detached from your constituents is not something that belongs just to a North Antrim MLA.

Mr Durkan: Which constituents?

Mr Poots: Certainly the constituents that it will impact. The constituents —.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Minister. Will you resume your seat? It is not heckling, but it is not particularly pleasant. The Minister should be allowed to speak. We have had a fulsome debate, and people have been giving way all over the place. If Members want to make interventions, they should ask the Minister to give way and not chunter at him from a sedentary position.

Mr Poots: Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. Personally, I do not mind — they can heckle away there — but, if you do, that is your call.

The IFA, which speaks on behalf of farmers and voters, says that:

— it does not want that higher target —

According to the United Nations, the world population is projected to grow from 7·7 billion in 2017 to 8·5 billion in 2030 and 9·7 billion in 2050. That is a 26% increase. That growth will drive global food demand, which is expected to increase anywhere between 59% and 98% by 2050. It is projected that 58% more milk and 73% more meat will be required by 2050, compared with 2010 consumption. In light of the increasing demand for food due to that projected population growth, any contraction of food production in Ireland, and indeed in Northern Ireland, to meet the emissions ceiling may simply be replaced by production elsewhere, potentially in countries with a higher emissions footprint, resulting in carbon leakage and higher overall global emissions.

In case you did not know what farmers in Northern Ireland were thinking, or what farmers in the Republic of Ireland are thinking as well, I am glad to have facilitated you. It aligns. This is not political: it is about people's livelihoods.

Mr McAleer: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Poots: I will give way. This is about people's livelihoods and your willingness to play fast and loose with those livelihoods.

Mr McAleer: A while ago, you talked about carbon leakage and the potential of whatever type of legislation emerges to impact on that. Last week, the heads of the LMC and UFU were present at a meeting of the Westminster NI Affairs Committee on the Australia and New Zealand trade deals. They said that they wanted the gates open, and they got that. The head of the LMC said that the Australia and New Zealand trade deals have the potential to displace our position on the British market, which is our main market. Last year, the island of Ireland exported 105,000 tons of beef to the British market. The deal with Australia is for 110,000 tons of beef. That is a consequence of the hard Brexit into which your party forced the Tory Government. As well as displacing our share of our main market, you are on about income. Hill farmers survive on subsidies. Eighty-six per cent of their income is the single farm payment, which you have threatened as a consequence of forcing us out of the EU. Earlier, I said that climate and the DUP are the biggest threats to hill farmers, and I say it again.

Mr Poots: I think that they will find that the biggest threat to hill farmers is Sinn Fein's support for the climate change legislation. You do not have to convince anybody in the House about that, Mr McAleer. Why do you not go down to the farmers who were on the steps and convince them? I have not had to convince them. They have been lobbying us and you. They have invited every Member of the House to come out and talk to them. A few have taken it up, but it is quite remarkable how many Members have shown utter contempt for the farming community, which represents 10% of our gross domestic product and employs over 100,000 people in the economy. It has been shown contempt by many MLAs. You should hang your heads in shame.

I had better get on with my written speech, because I am still on the first page, and there are 45 of them. If we keep going at this speed, I do not know when we will get there. We have said and started a few things anyway. [Laughter.]

Clause 1 sets the evidence-based target of at least an 82% net reduction in all greenhouse gases from the baseline position by 2050. That is the target that has been recommended by the UK's statutory independent and world-renowned advisory body, the Climate Change Committee. It has been clear in highlighting that the target represents a fair and equitable contribution by Northern Ireland towards the UK net zero target.

It is also consistent with the aims of the Paris agreement and — listen up, folks — the recommendations of the IPCC in the recent report often quoted by Members as being code red for humanity. In other words, the target will deliver on the climate ambition at a UK and global level, which was recommended by the Climate Change Committee and the IPCC. Where are all the experts coming from on the other side of the House? Where is the science coming from?

Some Members here today have suggested that the target recommended by the Climate Change Committee, reflected in clause 1 of the Bill, is not ambitious enough and leaves Northern Ireland behind other parts of the UK and the Republic of Ireland. I want to reassure Members that that is simply not true. Achieving an at least 82% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 will be hugely challenging and will require substantial change across all sectors, but it will also allow us to deliver a just transition.

The Climate Change Committee has indicated that reaching net zero requires strong efforts in all parts of the UK. At least 82% of all greenhouse gases in Northern Ireland represents equivalently stretching emissions reductions efforts to the targets legislated for in Scotland, Wales and England, once the differences in starting points and opportunities available to each region are considered. The Climate Change Committee advised that it considered each country's respective capabilities and the circumstances and opportunities in Northern Ireland, as well as what is deliverable through policies and actions in Northern Ireland.

The Climate Change Committee has advised that further reductions beyond the balanced pathway are technically possible but unlikely to be achieved. So, why try to fool the public out there that we are going to do this 100% thing and get a headline if we do not believe that it is achievable?

It is worth dwelling on the phrase "technically possible", as some Members have used it throughout the wider debate on Northern Ireland targets. Lots of things are technically possible, but the practicalities of them are very different. If we had an infinite budget and if we had no concern for the livelihoods of people who live and work here, it is technically possible to make reductions beyond the balanced pathway. However, when you consider the actual circumstances that we are faced with, "technically possible" becomes "practically and financially impossible".

The Climate Change Committee further highlighted a number of risks of going for a higher target, including the potential for carbon leakage and huge costs associated with a massive reduction in our livestock sector or much greater reliance on the use of engineered greenhouse gas removal technologies than is appropriate, or, potentially, the costly combination of both. I want to be clear that the costs associated with both those potential impacts will be huge.

When we have sought money for green growth, which will be the engine for tackling all those issues and producing a much better environment in Northern Ireland, it has been amazing how the Sinn Féin Finance Minister has been very slow at coming forward to release the purse strings. The response to the requests that have gone in is minimalist in tackling environmental issues. So, we have more doublespeak. Farmers can bear the brunt of the pain of this, and we will not even release the finances from the public purse to help people to achieve what we are telling them that they have to do.

Although amendment No 1 has not been moved, I want to highlight that KPMG recently published a report on the economic impact of the alternative target proposed by some Members of this Assembly to be net zero by 2045. It concluded that the impact could be beef, dairy and sheep herd numbers falling by 86% and pig and poultry herd numbers falling by 11%, representing a 54% decrease in farm employment alone, with around 13,000 jobs lost in that primary agricultural sector, not to mention the tens of thousands of jobs lost in the processing sector. I want to be clear that simply shifting the net zero target to 2050 for Northern Ireland, as some have proposed through amendments, will have similarly devastating impacts. It is just delaying them for a few years.

Our agri-food sector is the largest manufacturing sector in Northern Ireland. It is ranked second when it comes to exports outside the UK. In other words, it is a very significant part of the economy. In addition to that, the agri-food sector is critical to rural areas and balanced regional development. Some 86% of agri-food processors are based outside the Belfast City Council area, and almost 26,000 farm businesses operate in rural settings. We must support and protect such an important sector for our economy and the communities concerned.

If the Assembly decides to vote for a higher target than is set out in clause 1 and chooses to rely heavily on engineered greenhouse gas removal technologies instead of or in combination with cuts to our livestock sector, the costs will be colossal, with no end point. Who is paying for that? What Departments will hand money back? Is it the Department of Health? It is the wealthiest Department and receives the most money. The Department of Health has a lot of needs, and it cannot afford to hand money back. Is it the Department of Education, the Department for Infrastructure or the Department of Justice? What Department will hand back money? Members are making a decision that will impose spending requirements.

The Climate Change Committee has indicated that aiming for net zero by 2050 and relying on engineered greenhouse gas removal technologies could cost up to £900 million per annum by 2050, a cost that will continue to be incurred every year after 2050 until we are somehow able to remove those residual emissions through other means. At present, the other means identified are limited to greatly reducing our livestock sector, which I cannot and will not support. The additional cost until 2050 will be several billion pounds more than the costs of aiming for the targets in clause 1. The costs could be anything from £10 billion to £25 billion extra depending on when and how quickly we start to deploy that technology. Let me be very clear: that is only the cost until 2050. The cost of those technologies will persist at a similar level for many years after 2050.

Furthermore, the Climate Change Committee has confirmed with my officials that no part of the UK can reach net zero without engineered greenhouse gas removals. However, not every part of the UK can physically house greenhouse gas removal facilities and geological CO2 storage. Northern Ireland is very poorly geographically positioned to physically enable deployment of such facilities due to limited access to space that can be used for CO2 storage, unlike Scotland, which is extremely well positioned. There is the science of, "Scotland can do it, so we can do it". I will leave that with you.

The Climate Change Committee has confirmed that, if greenhouse gas removal deployment capabilities are removed from its revised emissions reduction targets for each region of the UK under its balanced pathway, and the differences in land use and agricultural production are taken into account, the real emissions, reductions, aims and ambitions are similar in each sector in Northern Ireland with what is required in all other regions of the UK to meet UK net zero. Under the "at least 82% reduction" will not in any way lag behind other parts of the UK. Shame on those people who call that community "laggards". Shame on you. We are delivering effective policies and emission reductions across our key sectors. Therefore, the narrative put forward that we are climate laggards is false.

The Climate Change Committee has also indicated that setting a net zero target for Northern Ireland might not lead to additional overall reductions in UK greenhouse gas emissions but rather act to shift a greater share of the UK-wide cost of reaching net zero to Northern Ireland. Again, I ask: where will the funding for that come from? Are our finances in such a good state that we can effectively subsume a greater share of the costs for UK net zero than has been recommended or is, indeed, needed? The Finance Minister has confirmed that it will be for the Executive to agree and fund the climate change programme from their overall Budget, even if that programme costs more than any equivalent Barnett consequential.

It is further indicated that, should funding be provided by the British Government that is conditional on its use for climate change, any additional costs will have to be borne by the overall Executive Budget.

Do we really want to ask the people of Northern Ireland to do more than their fair share for no overall benefit, given that we will still reach 100% net zero? Moreover, I have to ask this yet again: if we do, how can we fund it?

I have consistently highlighted to Members that the right thing to do is to follow the independent evidence and science. We should set an ambitious target and take effective and sustained action to meet and, hopefully, go beyond that target. If the evidence supports it, we can update and increase the target at a future point, as the UK, Scotland and Wales did in their approach to climate change legislation. That is the proper way to deliver effective legislation on this crucial, long-term issue.

That view is rightly shared by the Finance Minister — in his writings anyway. He was clear when he corresponded with me and, indeed, Executive colleagues that legislation should be ambitious and deliverable, so that we achieve the best possible outcomes, and that it needs to be evidence-based. I have not heard the evidence for the 100%. I have offered Members the opportunity to provide it to me, but they have not done that. He also stated that it should be underpinned by financial modelling. Nobody has suggested how they will meet the bills that I have brought before the House and warned it about.

According to the evidence and the science, the target in clause 1 is the only evidence-based, long-term target that Northern Ireland can soundly commit to and realistically deliver on at this time. In recommending the target, the Climate Change Committee took into account all of the key factors relevant to the Northern Ireland environment and economy, as well as global and UK drivers for addressing climate change. Nobody else has carried out that type of analysis or delivered any alternative evidence, so why would we move away from the evidence base?

I turn to the amendments that I propose to clause 1. In recommending a target of at least an 82% net reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050, the Climate Change Committee indicated that Northern Ireland would need to reach net zero emissions of carbon dioxide by 2050. We have a net zero target in the Bill, and it is achievable. Achieving that reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is consistent with the advice and evidence from the IPCC. While it is important that we reduce all our greenhouse gases, the IPCC has been clear that, in particular, we need to address emissions from long-lived greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Those gases accumulate in the atmosphere, meaning that continued emissions of them will lead to continually increasing warming. Reducing that warming requires the active removal of long-lived greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

The AERA Committee recommended an amendment to clause 1 to include a separate net zero target for carbon dioxide. I support that recommendation, as it aligns with the advice from the Climate Change Committee. Therefore, I tabled an amendment to clause 1 to add a supplementary 2050 net zero target for carbon dioxide. The addition of that target requires additional consequential amendments to ensure that the Bill remains operational. The consequential amendments are amendment Nos 12, 13, 14, 17, 31, 55 to 59, 64 to 66 and 75. They ensure that the Bill sets out the baseline for the carbon dioxide target; identify how we will determine whether the carbon dioxide target is being met; specify how any purchased carbon units will be apportioned towards the carbon dioxide target; and update any relevant reporting requirements, so that progress against the target for carbon dioxide is also captured.

The addition of a supplementary 2050 net zero carbon dioxide target is also consistent with the Department for the Economy's new energy strategy, which aims to achieve net zero emissions from energy by 2050. The Economy Minister has confirmed his support for the targets in my Bill, highlighting the risks of aiming for an early target that could lead to Northern Ireland having to deploy energy technologies before they are commercially mature and, thus, at a much higher cost than would be otherwise needed, potentially increasing fuel poverty. That is critical. Today, we have received notification of a 33% rise in gas costs, and we know how people are suffering with the cost of fuel this year because of particular circumstances. Whilst we will move to renewable technologies — I am totally committed to doing that — we need to do so in a way that enables us to produce consistent and affordable renewable electricity and energy. That is at risk, and I am not prepared to take that risk. Our hard-working families are already feeling the squeeze. Why would any of us want to put those on the lowest incomes in a worse position?

Turning to the amendments that other Members tabled on targets, carbon budgets and nitrogen balance sheets, as you heard, Ms Bailey's amendment No 1 was not moved. As a result, amendment Nos 7 and 8 will not be moved. I am glad that we will not be asked to support those three unevidenced targets. However, I note that, instead, Ms Bailey, along with some other Members, will now support a 2050 net zero target. I am disappointed that those Members are unable to see reason and to understand and accept the evidence that has been provided to them. That evidence makes it clear that aiming for such targets at this stage would be completely unrealistic, hugely costly and likely to disengage some of the people who can help to deliver positive outcomes.

I have already outlined the advice from the Climate Change Committee about the potential costs of reaching the net zero target by 2050 and the increased likelihood of carbon leakage that is associated with such a target. The difference between the evidence-based target and a net zero target is less than three quarters of 1% of global emissions. On a global level, that is around 0·0075% of emissions — 0·0075% — yet you will drive 13,000 farmers off their family farms. What does that say? If we shut down our efficient agri-food sector and shift food production to somewhere else in the world that has more carbon-intensive farming, we will be adding to global emissions and doing the exact opposite of what people are setting out to do and what we are collectively trying to achieve.

People have tried again today to convince us that the target that I propose is purely an economic decision and that an alternative net zero target is based on the best available science, but nobody produced that science or, indeed, any proper evidence to support such a target. I have heard Ms Bailey saying things like, "Scotland and Germany are aiming for a 2045 net zero target". When I went to school, that was not science; that was geography.

In contrast, the Climate Change Committee and the other scientists who carried out the analysis, who have expertise on those issues and who considered all the relevant facts, confirmed that the target that is in clause 1 of my Bill aligns with the Paris agreement and is entirely compatible with the agreements on the global pathway ambition to limit warming to below 1·5°C and with the advice from the IPCC. They have strongly cautioned against pursuing a net zero target partly because conditions in Northern Ireland are suboptimal for greenhouse gas removal technology, which means that we would have to rely on deeper and more extensive reductions in other areas such as agri-food in order to try to meet that target. There are a number of factors, including economic reasons, in why a net zero target should not be pursued.

Mr Blair, Mr McGuigan and Mr McAleer, who are supported by other Members and their parties, also proposed amendments that seek to change the target in clause 1 to a target of reaching net zero by 2050. Mr McGuigan and Mr McAleer also tabled an amendment that would require my Department to set new interim targets for 2030 and 2040. As co-sponsors of the other climate change Bill that is passing through the Assembly, I am pleased that they have seen some sense when it comes to moving away from the 2045 net zero target that they originally supported, but, unfortunately, they still need to move a bit further towards the evidence, advice and science.

I do not believe that their amendment, which requires my Department to set targets for 2030 and 2040 that are in line with the 2050 target, is necessary. The Climate Change Committee has already provided advice — it is science-based advice, of course — on what the targets for 2030 and 2040 should be. It also advised that the only way that we could go beyond its recommended targets is to either make huge cuts to our livestock sector or to invest massively in engineered greenhouse gas removal technology, even though the geographical conditions are not optimal for its deployment in Northern Ireland. During the AERA Committee's deliberations on my Bill, the two Members who tabled that amendment indicated that we should not look to take forward either approach at an early point. I fail to see what has changed for them. Why did they say that in the AERA Committee and then propose this today? It is more doublespeak, I suggest.

Mr Blair and some of his Alliance colleagues have also tabled an amendment to meet net zero carbon dioxide by 2045. Again, that is not backed by or based on any evidence, and, therefore, I cannot support it. The amendment is inconsistent with the Executive's recently published energy strategy. As I highlighted earlier, aiming for such a target could lead to us having to deploy energy technologies before they are commercially mature and thus at a much higher cost than is otherwise needed, which will exacerbate fuel poverty. Let us have a go at the farmers and, in particular, hill farmers, and then we will go for the people who are experiencing fuel poverty; that is what those Members are doing.

Some Members who tabled amendments to clause 1 have indicated that there has been widespread support for a net zero target, but there has not been. In the only official consultation, which was carried out by my Department through a proper process, the preferred option of respondents was an evidence-based target. In the AERA Committee's call for views on the two climate change Bills, one resulted in no majority position in favour of any target while the other resulted in a small majority in favour of a net zero target. There is no consensus among stakeholders, and it is plainly wrong to suggest otherwise. Indeed, during the AERA Committee's voting on clause 1, there was majority support for the evidence-based targets in this Bill, unlike with the net zero by 2045 target in the private Member's Bill, on which there was a split vote, with only one Committee member other than the three Bill co-sponsors voting in favour of the net zero target. As politicians, it is our job to make the right decisions based on the best evidence available, and that is what I have done.

Dr Archibald suggested that the IPCC is against our Bill. The IPCC has confirmed that our Bill is consistent with the Paris agreement. Members should not be misled on the issues. I have to be very clear about the facts, and I have to deal with facts and nothing else. For the reasons that I have outlined today, I cannot and will not support any of the amendments that have been tabled by other Members to clause 1 of my Bill or to the interim targets in clauses 2 and 3.

Mr Muir: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Poots: Yes, I will.

I urge all Members to reject those amendments and instead support the amendment that I have tabled to clause 1 and support the evidence-based target that will deliver on the UK net zero ambition, which will lead to real global emissions reductions and deliver a sustainable Northern Ireland economy whilst protecting and enhancing our environment. I will give way to Mr Muir.

Mr Muir: I thank the Minister for giving way and for his lengthy penultimate winding-up speech, if I can describe it as that. It has been a useful debate on the group 1 amendments. We have three more groups to come, probably later tonight and tomorrow. We may not agree on some of the points, but there has been a debate on the amendments in group 1. Obviously, the House will vote on the amendments once Clare Bailey makes a winding-up speech. Can the Minister confirm that he will respect the democratic will of the House in the voting on the amendments and the clauses and will not impede the passage of the Bill at Further Consideration Stage and Final Stage?

Mr Poots: With every piece of legislation, Further Consideration Stage allows for further amendments to be put to the House, and it is for the House to accept or reject those amendments. I reserve the right to table amendments should things not go with the evidence-based scientific legislative proposals tonight.

I will turn to clause 4. An important element of any legislation that sets targets for several decades away is to ensure that there is flexibility to update those targets as circumstances change. Clause 4 provides the power to amend the targets in clauses 1 to 3 as the scientific evidence changes in future years. Use of the power is subject to a number of restrictions, which are set out in clause 31. In summary, clause 4 allows for the targets to be modified should updated advice from the UK Climate Change Committee recommend that, or if the Executive consider that it is appropriate to do so as a result of significant developments in scientific knowledge, technology —

Dr Aiken: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Poots: Yes.

— UK or international law or policy relating to climate change. Should such developments take place, we will be in a position to make the targets more ambitious in the future. I am hopeful that that will be the case.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for giving way. As we know, climate change targets are likely to increase. If the CCC, or the IPCC, makes recommendations for tightening the requirements, will the Minister be looking to those? Will respecting the CCC's judgement be the driving factor?

Mr Poots: Absolutely. We are in a position from which we cannot backslide, but we can go higher. Should the science suggest that we go higher, that is what we will do. That is the sensible and rational way forward, rather than hurting some of the lowest earners in our society.

Regulations made to amend emissions targets must also be laid before the Assembly in draft form, so Members will be responsible for the approval of such regulations, and Executive agreement for making any changes will be required. The targets could therefore not merely be amended by my Department. My Department would simply be responsible for making any relevant legislation to reflect such decisions by the Assembly and the Executive, as a duty for making regulations has to be placed on a Department. During the Second Stage debate on the Bill, Members raised concerns that that power could be used to set less-ambitious targets. I made it clear that the power was intended only to increase the ambition of targets, not decrease them. That matter was further discussed during Committee Stage. Although, on the basis of current and predicted trends and evidence, the power could be used only to increase a target, I am more than happy to bring forward an amendment that would restrict the use of the power in order to ensure that the targets could be updated only to bring them forward to an earlier point or to set a higher percentage reduction. That amendment to the Bill would make it clear that the intended use of the power was to amend the targets in the Bill to make them more ambitious.

Ms Bailey and Miss Woods tabled a virtually identical amendment to clause 4, with the only difference being the addition of "only" in two places. As we have heard, however, they will seek to withdraw that amendment. Thankfully, they have realised that the addition of "only" is not necessary and does not change the effect of my amendment. We should not be seeking to add superfluous words to legislation. I therefore urge Members to support my amendment No 9 to clause 4, as it will prevent future targets being set that are less ambitious than the current or future updated targets.

I turn now to clause 7. Mr McGuigan, Mr McAleer and Dr Archibald tabled amendment No 15, which seeks to add:

to the categories under reasons for Northern Ireland removals of a gas. Clause 7 provides the power to amend the definition of "Northern Ireland removals of a gas", so we have the capacity to add further categories as and when we come to use them. We do not currently use such technology, but, nonetheless, I am content to accept the amendment.

I highlight once again, however, the costs associated with such technology. It would cost hundreds of millions of pounds per annum, and the geographical conditions in Northern Ireland for its deployment and use are suboptimal. I know from engaging with the Department of Finance around the green sign that it thinks that we may have to rely on that approach in order to meet our emission targets and budgets for a period. Although it is right and proper that we provide ourselves with flexibility, it was my expectation that, if we had set the right target in the first place, we would not need to rely on purchasing carbon credits at all, as we could deliver the reductions through our own actions. Instead, the Members seem to think that their 100% target is so unrealistic that a shocking 25% of the emission reductions would have to be met through the purchasing of carbon credits. Let us understand that. I am hoping to get to at least 82% without purchasing any carbon credits, yet Members are proposing that we set a 100% target and allow ourselves the space to purchase up to 25%. It is back to school for some Members. When I was at school, when you took 25 from 100, you were left with 75. We are involved in some sort of a con job. We are telling people that we are reaching 100%, and then we are going across the world to buy in 25% of it, or up to 25%. I am proposing that we do 82%, and more if the science is available to demonstrate to us that we can.

Based on the level of carbon credits that the Members propose we could use, they are acknowledging that their favoured targets are unattainable and that they think that even the target that I have put forward is too challenging for them to meet without carbon credits. There will be a cost associated with the purchase of carbon credits, a huge cost, and it is likely to rise as demand for carbon credits increases as countries try to beat their own local targets. I am content to accept the Members' amendment, albeit it will require some drafting to make it operable.

Clause 9 currently provides a power for my Department to introduce regulations setting out the circumstances in which carbon units may be debited. With the green growth strategy, it is very difficult to secure the funding that we need for the most immediate interventions, and the support that we are currently being offered will not get us anywhere close to achieving the ambitious targets in my Bill. I am not sure where the funding for the future use of this technology will come from because the Department of Finance, led by a Sinn Féin Minister, has not been so good at divvying up when it comes to the environment, when it comes to climate change, when it comes to sustainability and when it comes to green growth. It is ironic that two of the Members who have tabled this amendment indicated, as part of the AERA Committee's deliberations on the Bill, a preference for not investing in such technology or, at the very least, delaying investment in such technology. These people seem very confused.

Ms Bailey and Ms Woods, through amendment No 16, appear to be putting forward a limitation on the percentage of our emissions reductions for a period that we can achieve through the purchase of carbon credits. I am happy to support this amendment in principle, but the drafting is defective and will have to be fixed at Further Consideration Stage. Before I explain what needs to be fixed with this amendment, I have to highlight the fact that it is ironic that Members are so focused on reducing emissions through the process of purchasing carbon credits from other countries. It is not a good credited to our emissions account.

The clause also provides the option for my Department, through the regulations, to set a limit on the amount of such units that can be used to contribute to Northern Ireland meeting its emissions targets for a period. However, the proposed amendment removes the words that connect with the optional power to set limits in 9(1). By doing so, it imposes a limit on the reduction in the account per se. Moreover, the regulations do not themselves specify reduction; rather, they set out a mechanism for calculating the account. Therefore, the actual proposition should be that regulations must set a limit and that the limit must not be more than 25%.

Mr Blair, Mr Dickson and Mr Muir have tabled amendment No 20, which seeks to place a duty on the Department for the Economy to ensure that at least 80% of electricity consumption comes from renewable sources by 2030. This is, obviously, outside the remit of my Department, and, as far as I am aware, it does not align with the targets in the recently published Executive energy strategy, which was supported by those Members' party leader. I believe that the target was 70%. I have spoken to the Minister for the Economy on this amendment, and I have to say that this has the ability to threaten people's electricity supplies in that we will not have adequate electricity supplies. It is not that we are not going to achieve 80% soon, but 2030 is too quick. The 70% target is a reasonable target, and, if we achieve more, that is good.

I turn to the amendments tabled on carbon budgets. Mr McGuigan, Mr McAleer and Dr Archibald have tabled amendment Nos 29, 30, 32, 33 and 35. I will deal with amendment No 29 first. I am in favour of consulting widely and consulting effectively when it comes to new policies and regulations. However, while I support the principle of consultation, I have to question the need for this amendment. Perhaps, in the first instance, the Members who have tabled those amendments are not entirely clear about what carbon budgets are and what they entail. Carbon budgets are the maximum amount of total net emissions that Northern Ireland can or is allowed to emit over five-year periods once we put that into legislation. As per the requirements in the Bill, they have to be consistent with the interim and 2050 targets set in the Bill. The Climate Change Committee advises each of the other UK Governments on the appropriate level of carbon budgets where applicable and will advise Northern Ireland on the appropriate carbon budget levels for Northern Ireland. The Bill also requires that regulations setting carbon budgets are made under draft affirmative resolution, so it is not necessary to state that again or to state that my Department should lay the proposals in the Assembly. The regulations under clause 11 will be subject to the agreement of the Executive, so there is no need to require engagement with other Departments.

The references to engaging with the climate change commissioner and the just transition commission are obviously dependent upon decisions taken on other amendments. In any event, they are not necessary, as relevant engagement would naturally happen as a matter of government and departmental standard engagement with such bodies, if established. It is also important to note that, as per clause 14, the first three carbon budgets have to be set by the end of 2023, while the climate change commissioner may not be established, if the relevant amendment is agreed, until 2024, so the timings do not align. Furthermore, my Department will, as a matter of normal business and in line with the relevant processes, also consult on any regulations made under the clause, so the amendment is both pointless and defective. Therefore, I cannot support it.

I do not agree with amendment No 30 and will not support it. Fundamentally, it would not be appropriate to place a requirement on my Department to take advice from bodies that have no jurisdiction in Northern Ireland on such matters. The Climate Change Committee's role in advising on matters such as carbon budgets is already based in statute and, under my Bill, the CCC will have to advise on the setting of carbon budgets. The Department will also have to take into account consideration of developments in scientific knowledge about climate change and in UK or international climate change law, so any advice or reports from the IPCC will already be taken into account. Of course, the Climate Change Committee already considers such matters when providing advice to the UK Administrations, so we are already covered in that regard. In addition, the amendment purports to cover the seeking of advice from those bodies "on other environmental issues". Including such a broad requirement as that is not appropriate in this context, because there will be other statutory bodies that are responsible for providing advice on certain other environmental issues, and other legislation will cover that. On those grounds alone, the amendment should not be supported, and I certainly will not support it.

To some extent I agree with the principle of what the Members are trying to achieve with amendment No 32, but there are a number of issues with it that mean that I cannot accept or support it. Fundamentally, the drafting does not make sense, and I highlight that because it is important in the context of the proposed amendment. The title of proposed clause 13A refers to factors relating to the "Setting of carbon budgets", while the first sentence refers to "setting targets". Those are two different things in the context of the Bill. Subsection (1)(a) then refers to:

That further confuses things, as an "emissions budget" is not a term that the Bill uses. The proposers are basically butchering the Bill with a poorly worded amendment. I assume that they intended to set out considerations to be taken into account in the context of setting targets rather than carbon budgets, as the title suggests, but the clause is incoherent, and the amendment should probably have been to clause 31. I highlight once again that the carbon budgets have to be set at a level that is consistent with the targets, so the key is to get the target right. On that front, the relevant Members who tabled the amendment support a target that does not take account of a number of considerations that their amendment outlines. In particular, I note that one of the considerations is:

Notwithstanding the fact that those qualifying terms are not defined, the Members have proposed a target that experts have indicated is likely to lead to carbon leakage. You cannot propose something that will lead to carbon leakage by offshoring food production to places that most likely have more carbon-intensive farming practices and then add a few words to the Bill to say that the risk of that has to be considered — doublespeak again from the Members. The thinking around the amendment is clearly confused. The amendment itself is unclear in its intent, and the Members should have instead considered the risks of carbon leakage before going for an unevidenced, unscientific target.

Amendment No 35, from the same proposers, attempts to place a requirement on each Northern Ireland Department, when developing policies under clause 16, to ensure that they are consistent with the targets set out in the carbon budget. Again, this amendment is entirely unnecessary, as it merely duplicates what is already required by clause 16(1), and there is already a duty on all Northern Ireland Departments under clause 29, which is applicable to both the targets and carbon budgets, to carry out their functions in a manner that is consistent with achieving those targets and budgets. Therefore, I do not support this amendment, and I hope that the proposers do not even move it, as it would be a waste of Members' time to even consider a vote on it.

Turning to amendment No 34, tabled by Ms Bailey and Miss Woods, I understand that AFBI is looking into having nitrogen balance sheets for some sectors. I am also aware that work on that has been taken forward in Scotland. Based on the work being undertaken at the moment and the experience in Scotland, 18 months is not an achievable time frame. To pull aspects together in order for the whole system to cover agriculture, food production, waste, transport and energy will require more data gathering and will rely on access to data from all sectors, data manipulation and modelling, as well as on getting input through stakeholder engagement. A more realistic time frame is probably 36 months. With anything short of that, we will end up with a non-granular, unintegrated approach that will not be robust and that will widen the uncertainty around estimates. That will result in obvious issues. Standing up to scrutiny, being open to challenge and providing the supporting evidence for application in a regulatory context will be extremely difficult.

If the Members are genuinely interested in having the work progressed and seeing effective results from it, it can continue to be taken forward without legislation, or I can table an amendment at Further Consideration Stage that covers the requirements outlined but commits us to timescales in which we can deliver the right result. As the amendment stands, I do not accept or support it.

That concludes my comments on the amendments grouped for debate. In summary, there are two amendments from other Members, amendment Nos 15 and 16, that I am happy to support. I cannot support the other amendments for a range of reasons, not the least of which is that some are entirely unnecessary, given what the Bill covers, while others are not entirely clear in their intent. Most fundamentally, I cannot support the amendments tabled to clause 1 of my Bill or those that relate to the interim targets in clauses 2 and 3. I urge Members to reject those amendments and support instead the amendments that I have tabled.

I noted that, in a newspaper at the weekend, Mr McAleer said that — I will find the correct quote — his party would never support climate change legislation that could have a detrimental impact on the agriculture sector. That lasted well, from Saturday to Tuesday. If he goes through the wrong Lobby, that is how long the promise will have lasted.

I ask Members to support all the amendments that I have tabled, including the consequential amendments, and therefore the evidence-based targets in my Bill, which will deliver the UK net zero ambition, deliver significant changes and emission reductions in Northern Ireland and deliver for the Northern Ireland economy and environment. As an Assembly, we need to do the right thing and ensure that we tackle the complex and urgent issues of climate change collectively and in a way that gains support and maximum buy-in from all the sectors.

The targets that I have proposed, based on the best available independent science and evidence, will do that. I have to reiterate once more that the targets will help to deliver UK net zero and are consistent with the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are consistent with the Paris agreement pathways and ambitions and are consistent with the preferred option of the respondents to the Department's public consultation to support an evidence-based target in Northern Ireland's first climate change Act. I commend my Climate Change (No. 2) Bill to the House.

Mr Speaker: I call Clare Bailey to make a winding-up speech.

Ms Bailey: I thank Members for their contributions to what has been a lively, at times, and mostly interesting debate. We have all been listening intently, so I do not intend to summarise Members' comments, but I have picked up common themes relating to this group of amendments, and I want to address those.

"Fair share" got a mention. What is a fair target for Northern Ireland? I remind Members that we are small; there is no doubt about that. We make up 0·02% of the global population, but we emit 0·04% of global emissions. That is twice our share of emissions by population. We emit more emissions per capita than anywhere else in the UK. We emit more emissions per capita than China. What we think of as fair is subjective, depending on the data that we use.

As a developed country, we emit more, so we also have a duty to decarbonise faster. The worst impacts of climate change will be felt in poorer and more vulnerable countries.

I want to address some points in relation to the science, which has been spoken about a lot. As has been mentioned, the science could not be clearer: we are in "code red for humanity". In order to keep 1·5°C within reach and to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate breakdown, we must reach net zero by 2050 at the latest. That is what the science tells us. The science also says that we need to cut global emissions in half by 2030, which is eight years from now. It might be better to frame that in the Chamber by saying that it is two electoral mandates away.

We need to follow the science as it is now and as it will develop in the coming years. Once upon a time, humans believed that the earth was flat until science proved that to be wrong. Human history is the story of being led by science and allowing it to help us to find new ways of living. Then there is the ethical evidence. When we know that our behaviour causes harm, the onus is on us to stop that. When we know that we are harming the life and the ecosystems that we need to survive, we must stop that and find new ways of living within our means. The science tells us that, if every person in the world were to live the lifestyle that we enjoy, it would take three Planet Earths to sustain us. We are well beyond our means. We use up more than our fair share, and it is time to turn that around.

The CCC is a highly respected body. No one has ever claimed differently, but it is one advisory body. The CCC advises Northern Ireland solely in relation to its commitments under the UK Climate Change Act 2008; it does not take account of Northern Ireland's unique political and biogeographical context. It is not a policy-setting body, and the CCC's chief executive has also made it clear that, if politicians want to make the political decision to go beyond 82%, they are free to do so. Scotland and Wales did, and we can too, but the CCC will continue to offer advice.

I want to address some of the questions raised on the balanced nitrogen sheets. They are vital for the effectiveness of good climate legislation. They are present in Scotland's climate legislation and have been a great success in helping to establish baselines and in feeding into other strategies. Nitrogen balance sheets do not set targets; they just establish how much nitrogen is being efficiently used — for example, by applying them to grass for agriculture and seeing how much is being lost to the air as ammonia pollution and to our waterways. They are not best located in policy. They are a key element of up-to-date climate legislation and will help to improve public health, water quality, soil quality and biodiversity, as well as helping us to understand nitrogen flows across the island. They are essential to transboundary commitments. Nitrogen balance sheets will help farmers, policymakers and the environment. They are part of good practice and will help us to lower our emissions.

The issue of methane and biogenic methane has also been raised. Of course, we all know that methane behaves differently; it is a short-lived greenhouse gas, although it is far more potent than CO2 due to its heat-trapping ability. No matter what measurement you use, reduction in methane emissions is essential. Unlike with other GHGs, reducing methane and doing it quickly will lead to much-needed cooling effects. It is one of our most powerful levers for slowing global warming. It is for that reason that the Green Party is wary of amendment No 32. We just cannot support the splitting of targets contained in other amendments.

Many Members have cited the KPMG report. We looked at it and found it flawed in its methodology and in scenario planning. They cannot explain where they got their figures from. The report used farm-level financial information to develop models. Subsidies and grants, however, were not included in calculating each farm's income. That automatically skews the figures, especially given the high dependency on subsidies here. In Northern Ireland, 86% of most farm incomes comes from public subsidies, so the figures in the report are simply misleading.

Mr Allister: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bailey: Yes.

Mr Allister: The Member makes criticisms of that report that I do not accept, but where is her report? Where is her economic assessment, or does she think that we should blunder into this without one?

Ms Bailey: I thank the Member for that. If I had had, say, £40,000 in my back pocket, I could have commissioned KPMG to do one for me, but I did not. Business models are being worked on for the other climate Bill, as has been mentioned many times. That, however, is not the one that we are debating or voting on today.

If you were to calculate farm incomes now without including subsidies, you might also find that the impact on farm incomes was equally devastating. The core assumption used by the model states that there will be dramatic cuts in herd numbers by 2045: up to an 86% reduction in beef, dairy and sheep herds by that date. The figures, however, are not based on the private Member's Bill or on the CCC scenarios. KPMG has not been able to explain where it got its figures from but has told us that it left out public subsidies because it could not guesstimate what they would be in the future. The report does not highlight the impact of climate change and extreme weather on agri-productivity or food production or the job losses that will result from that; nor does it factor in the green jobs that will be created from climate change adaptation and mitigation.

We have all heard about the devastating impacts that Brexit will have on agri-food exports. We have talked about the New Zealand and Australian trade deals that are set to displace most of NI's current GB market. Net zero enables farmers to access EU markets, and we need to grab those opportunities now.

I also want to highlight the evidence that we do not necessarily have to reduce volume or profits to reduce emissions. Options include breeding and pasture-based systems. We would like the CCC to explore such options for agriculture, rather than assuming that it cannot be done under restrictive intensification models. Farmers, however, are stuck in the high-input, high-cost, high-volume output model, and yet they receive, more often than not, less profit or are unable to break even.

We need to understand that farm profitability is linked to partnership with nature and to pay farmers accordingly. The Green Party's amendment in the next group, which is to create a just transition fund for agriculture, will ensure that farmers do not bear the brunt of our green transition. We need, however, to look at Northern Ireland farming and its economic, social and environmental sustainability. We need new policies for farmers that encourage young people to take up farming and ensure a profitable, sustainable industry for them in the decades ahead.

I have listened to farmers tell me how food processors and retailers have become so powerful across these islands and, indeed, across Europe and the world. I hear them when they tell me that there is no longer a free market for food in the EU and the UK and that it is a corporate-controlled free market. I pay attention when I read about a third-generation dairy farmer who started farming in 1965 with 40 cows and could make a living. Now that he has 160 cows, he works seven days a week to keep on top of his business and stay afloat. We need to recognise that not all farmers are against net zero and not all farmers see climate targets as anti-farmer.

Let us recognise that the total number of farms in Northern Ireland has fallen from 32,118 to 24,817 since 1997. Maybe, just maybe, it is not climate action that is the threat to farmers; maybe it is the model of business as usual and the pursuit of intensification that are the real threats.

I have listened to the debate and commentary around the costs and to many arguments about the cost of achieving net zero. It is useful to highlight that the Department had to write to the AERA Committee, during its scrutiny of the Bill, to clarify that the Department's cost estimates were gross overestimations in its projections of the cost to deliver net zero by 2050. The Climate Change Committee also distanced itself from those figures. It was really nice to hear the Minister practise his sums for us this evening when he was doing some carbon credit purchase scenarios. No one anywhere is trying to fool themselves that achieving net zero in Northern Ireland will not involve significant investment and change. There are huge economic opportunities, but we talk very little about those. Let us talk about unlocking green investment. Let us talk about the investment in green jobs. We need to move away from the single-sided narrative that this is all about cost and no return.

Climate action can bring future investment. Climate inaction will not. We must also consider the cost of that inaction. Damages that are avoided by climate action must be compared with the cost of meeting targets. The cost of action has been estimated at about 1% to 2% of GDP. Inaction, on the other hand, could lead to a reduction in global GDP of 10% by 2050 and 25% by the end of the century.

I am, however, glad to hear that there is consensus on the fact that we need to do something about climate change. Regardless of what target is passed here today, I have, and I will continue to have, little faith in the ability of this institution and the five-party Executive model to deliver what is needed. We will need independent oversight if we are to have any hope of holding our feet to the fire and getting the job done. That discussion will follow in the debate on another group of amendments, but it shows how far we have come that climate denial has lost its footing in Stormont. It has, in many instances, however, been replaced by climate delay.

I have concerns that many here do not appreciate the scale and urgency of the crisis that we are facing. I have heard Members say that they supported having net zero even earlier than 2050 until they spoke to businesses and industry, despite the fact that our current way of doing business and our current industries are exactly what are causing the crisis. I have heard Members say that we need an approach that balances jobs and the planet, but there will be no jobs when we reach extinction.

Finally, I acknowledge sincerely the efforts of the departmental Bill team for their engagement with the AERA Committee. I also thank the AERA Committee team for its efforts and the RaISe researchers for all their hard work on the Bill and the first Climate Change Bill. I thank the Bill Office for its continuous work with me on amendments. Members, we are at a crossroads today. It is time that we set a new direction for Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: Amendment No 2 has already been debated.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Mr Speaker: I remind Members of the requirements for social distancing while the Division takes place. I ask Members to ensure that they retain a gap of at least 2 metres between themselves and other people when moving around the Chamber or the Rotunda and especially in the Lobbies. Please be patient at all times, observe the signage and follow the instructions of the Lobby Clerks.

Mr Speaker: I will not call amendment No 3 as it is mutually exclusive to amendment No 2, which has been made.

Mr Speaker: I will not call amendment No 5 as it is mutually exclusive to amendment No 4, which has been made.

Mr Speaker: We have agreement from the Whips that we will have speedy voting, as it is called. I call it "speedier voting". In accordance with Standing Order 113(5)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division.

Mr Speaker: I will not call amendment No 10 as it is mutually exclusive to amendment No 9, which has been made.

Mr Speaker: Members, that concludes the voting on the group 1 amendments. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 10.30 am tomorrow.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Today is a continuation of previous business, so there is no need for prayers. I ask Members to resume their seats. Thank you.

Mr McGuigan: On a point of order, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I listened while travelling in this morning to the AERA Minister being interviewed on 'Good Morning Ulster' about the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill. Is it appropriate for the Minister to indicate that he is considering defying the democratic decision of the Assembly taken last night on the Bill? Furthermore, is it appropriate for the Minister, after seven months of Committee scrutiny and almost eight hours of debate in the Chamber yesterday, to label that democratic decision as "stupid"?

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: On your final point, that is the expression of a political opinion, and the Minister is entitled to express a political opinion, even if Members do not agree with that political opinion, which, clearly, after last night's vote, the majority do not.

On the other point of order that you raised, my job, and the job of the Speaker, is to give rulings as they relate to the workings of the House. If there are issues with how the Minister operates his Department, there is democratic recourse through questions to the Minister or through the bringing of motions to the House to be debated. My business, and the business of the Speaker, is really about the conduct of debates and how we conduct the business of the House. You have, however, placed your comments on the record, and I am sure that the Minister will see those comments. I hope that that is acceptable. Thank you.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: We now come to the second group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 18, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 19, 21 to 28, 36 to 42, 45 to 49, 51, 76, 77, 79 and 80. Amendment No 42 is mutually exclusive to amendment No 41, and amendment Nos 77 and 79 are consequential to amendment No 38.

I call Mr John Blair to move amendment No 18 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Blair: I beg to move amendment No 18:

Mr Blair: It is a pleasure to speak to this group of amendments, a number of which I, along with Alliance Party colleagues, proposed. My colleagues Andrew Muir and Stewart Dickson will speak later in the debate in more detail on infrastructure and energy issues and the economy.

We recognise that tackling the climate emergency goes hand in hand with economic and social justice. It is our hope that, by passing long overdue and increasingly urgent climate legislation, we can not only rapidly decarbonise our economy but create an equitable, sustainable economy filled with well-paid, secure green jobs in existing and emerging industries.

I turn first to amendment No 18, which is on the sectoral plans envisaged. It is our hope that all Departments will work together to develop and publish plans for areas of the economy, to be known as sectoral plans, that will set out a bespoke time frame and support system for how each sector can achieve net zero by 2050. All sectoral plans should also support a just transition through a number of measures, such as supporting the creation of secure green jobs and building pathways into green careers. That should be done in partnership with industry and unions, with workers' rights and health and safety at the centre.

Workers and communities currently dependent on the high-carbon economy should be supported in that transition. The transition to a green economy should also be supported with net zero carbon investment in infrastructure. It should tackle inequality and break down the barriers of division in doing so.

The next set of amendments sets out those sectoral plans. Amendment No 19, for example, is about sectoral plans for energy. The sectoral plans set out how the sector will contribute to the achievement of net zero by 2050. The greenhouse gas inventory states that the energy supply sector produces around 13% of our greenhouse gas emissions, but that sector has also led the way in reducing carbon emissions. It delivered the largest reduction between 1990 and 2019, in which carbon emissions were down by 48%. Those reductions were driven by the energy sector switching fuel from coal to natural gas; a move that was replicated in the residential sector.

Keeping that pace will be crucial in meeting ambitious emission reduction targets. We have the capacity to massively increase the supply of low-carbon electricity and to decarbonise our homes and transport systems, as well as industry and the wider economy. We cannot do that without the support of policies, proposals and investment for creating green growth and opportunities across Northern Ireland. Across the UK, the energy sector has supported 700,000 jobs and invested billions. It is committed to supporting the training and upskilling that is required to enable long-term skilled employment in the low-carbon economy. We must support it in that transition.

Amendment No 21 is based around infrastructure. Sectoral plans for infrastructure will set out how the sector will contribute to the achievement of net zero by 2050. My colleague Andrew Muir will speak about more of the detail around that sectoral plan. Amendment No 22 focuses on industrial processes. Sectoral plans for industrial processes will set out how that sector will also contribute to the achievement of net zero by 2050 and support energy-intensive industries for which the transition to climate neutrality constitutes a challenge.

Amendment No 23 is about waste management. We envisage that sectoral plans will set out how that sector will contribute to the achievement of net zero by making advances. Northern Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions from the waste management sector were estimated to be around 3%. That sector also delivered a significant decrease, which was driven by the introduction of methane capture and oxidation systems in landfill management. Again, the sector should be reported as trying to strive forward faster.

Amendment No 24 is about agriculture. No one underestimates the impact that this Bill will have on our agri-food sector, but we must consider the broader level. There is no consensus within our farming community. There are organisations and representatives with varying views. In protecting one strand of one industry, we stand to lose enormous economic and social opportunities and to confine Northern Ireland to being the carbon outlier of Europe. The Alliance Party is committed to working alongside farmers to build a sustainable farming system that tackles both the climate and —

Dr Aiken: I thank the Member very much for giving way. I would like you to acknowledge comments from the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), the business community, manufacturing, the agri-business sector and the food manufacturers. After yesterday's debate, during which we raised the issue of the 82% level on many occasions, they raised some really significant concerns. Although we, as a party, will support the sectoral plans, there are those real concerns. I would like you to specifically address what you will do to alleviate those fears and concerns.

Mr Blair: I thank the Member for the intervention. At the start, I referred to the fact that my colleagues will pick up on individual portfolio and departmental responsibilities in more detail later. I hope that the Member will accept that the very purpose of the sectoral plans is to address the issues and concerns that he has raised. I understand those concerns. Of course we also envisage that, as this legislation develops and the policy frameworks are set in place around it, much of that detail will, in turn, be put in place in response to the demands of the various sectors.

As I was saying, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, the Alliance Party is committed to working alongside farmers to build a sustainable farming system that tackles both the climate and wildlife crises, while also producing quality food. As a starting point for agriculture, our proposed sectoral plan includes fully carbon-funded audits for farms. Audits will assess where performance improvements and savings can be made, as farms with a low carbon footprint are often the most efficient and profitable.

Amendment No 25 deals with the fisheries sector. Fisheries must also play a leading role in this transition. Policies and programmes to support a blue economy and establish the future of sustainable fisheries management are crucial to the sector. It is also my hope that fisheries administrations will introduce policies to mitigate and reduce emissions to achieve the overall objective of the Bill.

Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Member for giving way. I do not have any objection in principle to sectoral plans, but it would be helpful if the Member explained where he got the sectors from. They do not fully align with the standard sectors that are used by the Climate Change Committee (CCC) for the purposes of its advice and analysis. In a recent consultation on the draft green growth strategy, over 90% of respondents indicated that we should follow the Climate Change Committee's sectors when developing plans. Will he consider changing those to the sectors that the Climate Change Committee uses so that they align with the sectors that are covered by the green growth strategy and with what over 90% of the populace who contributed asked for?

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that intervention. I am sure that he will accept that the sectors that are chosen are based primarily on those that could easily be deemed to be the most in need of support, as well as, of course, those that contribute significantly, or most, to the problem of carbon emissions. That is the basis on which decisions and selections were made. Of course, there will be opportunities to discuss that further, not least at Further Consideration Stage.

Amendment Nos 26 and 28 deal with those sectors that involve transport and active travel. We need clean, accessible transport that works for our communities, environment and economy. Significant infrastructure investment is vital for a clean, sustainable transport system that works for everyone. As well as drastically reducing emissions, investment will create meaningful modal change, support equal opportunities, reduce social exclusion and break down the socio-economic transport divide. Members will be aware that we addressed some of those issues, such as connectivity, in discussions in the Chamber yesterday. We must also rapidly ensure that walking and cycling are accessible and safe across Northern Ireland by setting a minimum spend on active travel from the overall transport budget.

Amendment No 27 refers to a land use strategy. Supporting land managers' transition to alternative land uses, including help with skills, training, information and support, with upfront costs and long-term payback of investing in alternative uses, is vital as we progress the ambitions of the Bill. We have seen that in other regions, such as Wales. Northern Ireland is undoubtedly lagging behind the rest of the UK and Ireland in tackling the climate crisis. However, that means that we can hit the ground running, with best practice that has already been tried and tested in other regions and countries. We need ambition at a political level. The opportunities are now ours for the taking. These plans are a vital component of preparation for the plans that we are laying to achieve net zero by 2050, addressing the needs of sectors in doing that and reaching that to which we aspire to deal appropriately with climate challenges and do our bit in this global emergency.

Mr McAleer (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I will speak on the group 2 amendments.

The Committee recognises that, although emissions targets are vital, of equal importance is the pathway that will be followed to get there and ensure that key stakeholders are engaged with, supported and encouraged to take the steps that are necessary to reduce their carbon outlay. Virtually all the respondents to our call for evidence informed the Committee of how important it is to ensure that just transition is built in to the Bill, and that our leaders and policymakers should work collaboratively with those in other jurisdictions to ensure that we keep pace with our neighbours and are not left behind.

The Committee identified a number of significant shortcomings in the Bill in terms of the provision obligating Departments to prepare policies to meet carbon budgets, set out in clause 16. In particular, the Bill does not mention just transition and does not provide any mechanism to support industries with regard to adopting new ways of working. The Bill also offers no explicit provision for cross-border working or recognition of the need to address climate change on a collaborative basis across jurisdictions. To that end, and in response to the overwhelming feedback from stakeholders, the Committee requested that the Department make amendments to the Bill to obligate government to have regard to just transition and transboundary considerations.

The Committee, therefore, welcomes the introduction of clause 16A via amendment No 38, which means that, when setting their policies to meet the carbon budget, Departments will have to adhere to the just transition principle, ensuring that their plans support environmentally and socially sustainable jobs; support the agriculture sector and other sectors of the economy that are likely to be most affected; engage with workers, trade unions, communities and business; and create decent, fair and high-value work. The Committee understands the central importance of a just transition to support sectors of the economy to engage in climate action and considers that that addition to the Bill will provide appropriate support and safeguards for core industries.

Clause 16A will also obligate Departments to have regard to harmonising their policies with those of other jurisdictions, both in the South of Ireland and Britain. That takes account of the importance of cross-border working in alignment with our neighbours. It was also recommended that Departments be required to promote the use of nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation, where possible, in order to harness the abilities of the natural environment to reduce emissions, such as through carbon sequestration via reforesting, peatland restoration and conservation of the blue marine. The inclusion of that provision in clause 16A to ensure that those strategies will be promoted by government is welcome. The Committee is also content to support amendment Nos 76, 77 and 79, which are consequential to clause 16A.

The Committee considered at length the provisions for progress reporting, as set out in clauses 17 to 20, and the concern that was raised by stakeholders that the proposed time frame for laying reports is too long. The Committee recognised that it is a difficult issue and that a balance must be struck between having regular reports and allowing sufficient time for measures that have been put in place to take effect. On balance, the Committee supports the provisions and did not seek any amendment to them.

Mr Irwin: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the group 2 amendments. At the outset, I must state that I am deeply concerned about the direction of travel that has been set in action by yesterday's vote on net zero by 2050. That has not been a reasonable outcome by any stretch, and, in my opinion, it totally affects the Bill's financial implications across multiple Departments and has significant implications for business and society generally.

Amendment Nos 18 to 28 refer to the capacities of other Departments. I believe firmly that the Departments that are referred to in those amendments should be required to fully respond to the realities of the legislation. It is now even more pertinent that Departments respond, given the amendments that have been tabled by other parties and the vote on net zero that will impact catastrophically on Northern Ireland as a whole. That, of course, is in light of the updated costs of net zero by 2050, and net zero by 2045, that have been provided by the Climate Change Committee.

Those who have tabled the amendments to parts 1, 2 and 3 that I have referred to have proposed amendments that are not economically sustainable. Individual Departments deserve the right to respond to those circumstances in line with the Department's Climate Change (No. 2) Bill, which I support as being the most realistic pathway for Northern Ireland to meet its objectives and obligations in the UK context.

There will be a need for clear and concise planning around sectors and industry efforts. In my opinion, there will also be a requirement for financial assistance to enable them to access and avail themselves of new technologies in order to realise those targets. Whilst I agree that sectoral plans represent a worthwhile pursuit, they can be pursued only in line with the more realistic and achievable pathways that were laid out in the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill.

I am opposed to a land use strategy as laid out in amendment No 27, as it will not have an improving effect, but rather it will be the designation of land that could be undesirable. Of course, it is no surprise that farmers, in particular, as custodians of the countryside, do most to protect and enhance the vast majority of the rural mass in Northern Ireland.

It is clear that the impact of the proposal in amendment No 28 focuses on the Department for Infrastructure. It should be for that Department to carry out its own work in that regard, as the amendment refers to expansion of the road walking and cycling network. The Department for Infrastructure must bring forward its own costed aims and objectives.

Amendment No 38 presents an utterly sensible new clause; one that further expands and responds to some of the issues that have already been raised about the onus on other Departments.

It is clear that Minister Poots and his officials wish to move forward in a responsive and responsible way. That is reflected in the new clause, which I fully support. Consultation is a clear element of the clause, and it is a welcome addition to the Bill. Without adequate consultation and planning by Departments, it will be difficult to move forward. The inclusion of aims that seek to give due regard and protection to agriculture and small business is welcome and signals an intent on the part of DAERA and the Minister not to impose regimes that would be to the detriment of or, worse still, the destruction of those sectors.

It is no surprise that amendment No 38 tabled by Minister Poots does not meet the approval of those in the House who would push Northern Ireland's economy over the cliff edge with an unrealistic, unachievable and economically damaging policy, and, yet again, we see four amendments — Nos 39, 40, 41 and 42 — that would significantly alter and complicate amendment No 38. Amendment No 39 uses the words "climate resilient". It is so open-ended that it lacks any real meaning in the Northern Ireland context. Farmers have been at the forefront of climate resilience for centuries and face all the challenges that climate can throw at them, and food still ends up on consumers' tables across the Province.

Minister Poots is consulting on future agriculture policy proposals for Northern Ireland. A resilience payment for farmers is one element that the public are asked to give their views on, and I urge farmers to respond to that consultation.

Amendment No 41 is a considerable departure from amendment No 38 and is a huge overreach into other Departments' remits. Again, that should be the focus of respective Departments and not the focus of the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill.

Amendment No 45, which proposes new clause 16D, focuses on soil and biodiversity, which is already the remit and reserve of DAERA. Farmers already spend considerable time on the issue, as it goes without saying that soil quality is directly related to the productivity of the land. The amendment is unnecessary in light of that ongoing work.

Amendment Nos 46, 47, 48, 49 and 51, which propose new clauses, are unwelcome inputs that serve only to further complicate the Bill unnecessarily, given Minister Poots's amendment No 38, which more than adequately expands on clause 16.

It will come as no surprise that I find amendment No 76 not in keeping with the Bill's overall aims and direction, and I reiterate the fact that Northern Ireland's ability to meet the targets set in the Bill will crucially be achieved only as part of the United Kingdom's overall climate change strategy, which has the expert input of the UK Climate Change Committee.

Minister Poots's amendment Nos 77 and 79 are technical in nature and take account of new clause 16A, which I support.

I have covered most of the amendments in group 2. I am conscious of time, so I draw my remarks to a close.

Mrs D Kelly: I make these comments on behalf of my colleague Patsy McGlone, who has business in his constituency but will join the debate later today.

If the legislation is to be effective, it will have a huge and long-lasting impact on our society and economy. We share the concerns of others about gaps in the Bill in regard to the development of policies and proposals. We believe that the legislation should identify better ways to coordinate those policies across government and in collaboration with the rest of this island and with our neighbours in England, Scotland and Wales.

We will support amendment Nos 18 and 19 and amendment Nos 21 through to 28 on the development and publication of sectoral plans. The amendment that we propose in the group, No 51, identifies the desirability of coordinating proposals and policies with those elsewhere, and we ask Members for their support. It also requires Departments to engage in existing mechanisms of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC), the British-Irish Council (BIC) and other bodies to cooperate on meeting the challenges of the climate emergency.

We have also identified the need for consideration of policies and proposals beyond those directly linked to carbon budgets, in particular, policies and proposals in pursuit of wider and longer-term Executive commitments on climate action.

In amendment No 51, new clause 16J(2)(d) would require Departments to consult the climate adviser on those policies and proposals. We also support amendment No 80 to expand the definition of sector or sectors.

Dr Aiken: In broad terms, we support the sectoral plans advocated by the Alliance Party. As I have stated, however, we would like answers to some specific questions, and I welcome the fact that the Alliance Party has made other Members available to answer those questions as we go through.

In general, it is obvious that we need to have sectoral plans to enable us to make sure that our economy is well suited to and ready to deal with the challenges of the climate emergency that is before us. I have outlined our real concerns about the likely impact, and those concerns have been echoed by the business community, the agri-business community, food manufacturers and small businesses. Whatever is in the sectoral plans, all MLAs need to be in a position where we can address the issues as we go through. Any legislation by the Assembly needs to be made in such a way that it is not counterproductive to what it aims to do.

First, amendment No 19 looks at sectoral plans for energy. One of the most significant issues that we have, of course, is that Northern Ireland does not have a fit-for-purpose energy system. We have real concerns about access to the grid; indeed, Mr John O'Dowd is putting through legislation that looks at small-scale generation. The problem is not small-scale generation; the problem is access to the grid. Both EirGrid and the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) have adopted a monopolistic position on grid supplies across Northern Ireland. Their positions are counterproductive and work against what we are trying to do. When we talk about amendment No 19 and sectoral plans for energy, I would like an expression of what we are doing to make sure that we have a grid and an energy system that are fit for purpose and under a form of utility regulation that will mean that we are not hampered by what, frankly, the integrated single electricity market (I-SEM) is trying to do, which is to make sure that Northern Ireland energy is not secure. In fact, it is being made an offshoot and is not being looked after effectively. There might be some real questions to ask about whether the Utility Regulator for Northern Ireland is the right person to deal with our future energy strategy and the problems of the climate emergency. Would it be better under Ofgem as part of the rest of our country's generating process?

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Dr Aiken: Certainly.

Mr Dickson: I very much appreciate the comment about the Utility Regulator and the roles and responsibilities of that office. I put down an amendment that would have strengthened the role of the Utility Regulator. There are gaps in the current legislation, and that issue cannot be debated here. Obviously, it is important to the House, and it will be important going forward. I very much take Mr Aiken's point. The issue of regulation, particularly those aspects of the Utility Regulator, needs to be urgently addressed.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed for the intervention.

Amendment No 21 looks at sectoral plans for infrastructure. We must address how we deal with the real challenges of waste water and storm surge rises. I want to hear the perspective of the Members who tabled the amendment. How will we protect our most vital infrastructure from storm surges and the likely impact of increased rainfall? Obviously, because of the serious underinvestment in Northern Ireland Water, we have to look at how we deal with the storm drainage water that is coming off the system. We are dealing with those problems right now. Yesterday, we saw reports that rainfall levels have already increased significantly. The climate emergency is with us now. What will we do to make sure that we have a utility, in this case Northern Ireland Water, that is capable of dealing with the significant waste water problem? What will we do to defend our low-lying areas? Many people in coastal areas can already see the impact of storms and other weather surges.

I would be delighted to get any commentary from you on what you plan to do about those areas as well.

The second amendment in group 2, amendment No 19, deals with sectoral plans for industrial processes. Again, that relates directly to what we were talking about with the utilities, the grid and the water infrastructure. Those things need to be joined together, done holistically — I hate to use that word, but I used it anyway — and in a way that means that it all works effectively together.

While the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill is obviously within the remit of the Agriculture Minister, the reality is that it needs to be cross-cutting for all of the Executive. One of the things that the Ulster Unionist Party, would like to see — if we ever have another Government and a new Programme for Government — is, rather than having 42 outcomes, or whatever it happens to be, our fundamentally dealing with the climate emergency as a clear deliverable outcome of any future Programme for Government. That has to be cross-cutting and bought into by all Departments.

Amendment No 23 deals with the sectoral plans for waste management. I declare an interest. I am, obviously, fundamentally against incineration, particularly the incineration that has been planned in my constituency by Arc21. We are moving towards 70% waste recycling. That is a goal that we should have, and, rather than continuing to hold the people in the Hightown area and across south Antrim and north Belfast to the insidious incinerator that is supposed to be built at Hightown, we should get to the point where we realise that we need to increase recycling rates. I would like Mr Blair — this would probably be most appropriate coming from him or from Mr Muir — to address the Arc21 incinerator specifically and say why it needs to be stopped and stopped now.

Amendment No 24 deals with the sectoral plans for agriculture. Minister and other Members, that amendment goes to the core of the issue. I welcomed Mr McGuigan's comments yesterday about a just transition, and, at some stage, I would like an explanation of how we see the just transition process working. A just transition process has to be built into any plans. However, we are not dealing with something that is static or standing still. With the way that the climate emergency is working, our agribusiness sector and, indeed, the vast majority of our rural economy will be impacted much more rapidly than we thought previously. We need to understand and have a process in place for a just transition.

On the sectoral plans for fisheries, again, one of the issues that we heard many times is, of course, that seawater temperatures are rising and that new species are coming into the area as a result. We also see issues with fresh water fisheries. How will we effectively manage those? I know that Mr Blair has been quite interested in that area previously, but it is important that that vital element of our aquaculture is managed and managed effectively. It is about how we will look to do that.

Amendment No 26 deals with the sectoral plans for transport. That is very clear. One of the things that we need to do is make sure that we have an appropriate EV charging system. That is simple, and it is available in the rest of our nation. Anybody who drives into a motorway service station anywhere near the M6 or the M62 — indeed, even if they take themselves down South to an Applegreen — and looks at the number of available charging stations will realise that Northern Ireland is not only badly served but appallingly served. We must be able to create a structure in Northern Ireland that supports a sustainable and environmentally friendly transport infrastructure.

We hear quite a lot about moving towards green hydrogen. We should all welcome that and make sure that it comes forward. However, we need the infrastructure to be built around it. It needs to be joined up, and we need an approach to it. That goes back to the point about why we desperately need to reform our planning system. If we are in a situation where it is virtually impossible to build charging units anywhere except on local government land and every time we try to do it somewhere else the likes of ESB and the electricity companies want to charge — I know of one example in my constituency — close to £300,000 for the connection of an EV charging unit to a new filling station area, that is gouging and needs to be investigated by the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Office. That degree of dysfunctionality that is created by our monopolistic energy companies has to be dealt with and addressed.

We will not support amendment No 27 on the land use strategy. We have real concerns about how that is to be effectively managed and how it can be done without the full cooperation of the agricultural community, the rural community and local government. All of those issues have to be addressed. Going back to Mr McGuigan's comments, that has to be tied in with the just transition process. It cannot sit alone. Those things must all be brought together.

On active travel, I go back to Danny Kennedy and his approach of supporting bicycling. We need a much greater push towards active travel. I remember the comments about Mr McGuigan cycling all the way to COP26 and the difficulties there. One of the things that he will have noticed as he travelled in Scotland is that there are cycling lanes virtually everywhere, with the exception of the Campsie Fells. The infrastructure has been well laid out. We have an opportunity to do that, but it needs to be joined up in a much wider way with the rest of our transportation system.

Again, it comes back to a just transition. On my way home last night, several members of rural communities communicated with me that they were unhappy, to say the least, with the result yesterday. No doubt, many of you who have rural communities in your constituency will get similar telephone calls from people saying how unhappy they are with yesterday's result. They kept saying, "You are trying to bring this in, yet where is our rural transport network that you are talking about? Where are all the things that are supposed to be there to support us? We hear about how you want to get to zero net carbon by 2050, but where is the support, the infrastructure, and the joined-up thinking?". We need to consider those things as well.

I could go through other items — and, no doubt, we will — but those are the key points that I want to get across on the group 2 amendments about proposals and policies. As I said, our party's position all the way through has been that we want one climate emergency Bill that is joined-up, that works for all of us, and that sets realistic targets that can be met and will not destroy our economy. After yesterday's vote, it is vital that those on the other side of the House and those who support a just transition and other things explain how it will be done and what the budget lines are likely to be. As Chair of the Finance Committee, I am happy to work with anybody to look at financing, budgets and where we are likely to get to, but we need to achieve that.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The next Member on my list is Mr Philip McGuigan

Mr McGuigan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I really was not expecting to be called.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I should have put my glasses on; it was actually supposed to be your colleague, but tear away [Laughter.]

I should have had my glasses on.

Mr McGuigan: My comments were to be brief. I assure you that they will be even briefer now [Laughter.]

I was literally just going through it. Obviously, the headline is about the overall target and objective of net zero, and that has been achieved. Today's debate has to be about filling in the gaps and details to ensure that we achieve all the things that we talked about yesterday such as the smooth operation, the just transition, leaving nobody behind and consultations with the public and the sectors. All of that is vital. It is important that we get that right.

I turn to some of the amendments in group 2. Certainly, we will support amendment No 18 on sectoral plans. We think that that is important. That amendment clearly identifies the need for all that to be done along with the just transition and tackling and breaking down inequality. As we move towards the green new deal, the important thing is that we take along with us workers, particularly those who are most vulnerable, so that they are not the ones who are made to pay for that move.

We have no difficulty with the detail of the new clauses that are inserted by amendment Nos 19 to 28; in fact, I agree with most of those things. However, given some of the things that we said earlier in the debate about consistency and the need for consultation and to work with the sectors, we are perhaps a wee bit unsure about the process.

For example, the Member who spoke previously, Steve Aiken, talked about rural transport issues and active travel. I certainly agree with that. It is important that some of the sectoral plans be rural-proofed, because we do not want unintended consequences. If we are trying to do something for the right purposes and achieve climate targets, we do not want unintended consequences in our rural constituencies and in rural parts of the North where public transport is perhaps not up to standard. It is the same with active travel. I am a fervent supporter of active travel, and Dr Aiken mentioned my trip to Scotland. He is right: for about 10 miles outside Glasgow, I was on a wide, segregated cycle lane that was safe and secure. I cycled it at 1.30 am, so there were not an awful lot of cyclists on it at that time, but I imagine that, during peak times, it is very useful and very busy. Those are the kinds of things that, overall, we need. It is disappointing that we did not use the opportunity of the pandemic to make some of those changes. We perhaps should have gone much further, because some of the things are cost-effective and efficient to introduce. As I say, the key point to make in all of this is that we do not want to have unintended consequences.

My colleague Caoimhe Archibald will go into more detail. I will talk about some of the other amendments. Our amendment No 36 states:

All of that is important. There is also amendment No 37. We will support amendment No 38, which is the Minister's amendment. It is a useful amendment. For example, it mentions that, when making policies and proposals, there will be a requirement that we look at policies across these islands. We have said and will continue to say time and time again that we cannot deal with the climate issue or any environmental issue on this island without consulting and coordinating and without ensuring that our policies align, particularly, with those in the South. That is important. The Minister has also included the just transition principles. Another thing that came up during Committee discussions on both Bills was the fact that it is desirable to use and support nature-based projects as we move towards net zero. Subsection (3)(b) of the Minister's new clause is about:

That is vital.

My colleagues will go into detail on this, but I note that there are similar amendments on the climate commissioner. It is clear from the amendments and from the discussions that there is the will in the Chamber for having some independent climate commissioner-type body and office to oversee whatever plans and targets we have and to ensure that we have local accountability and independent advice for the North. That will ensure that, every step of the way, we do what we are supposed to do and do it properly.

Mr Harvey: I will make a few overarching points at the outset on the second group. It has been evident from the debate that there is a collective resolve to address the climate issue, and many have thanked the Minister for the work that the Department has put in to get us to this position. It is, however, somewhat disingenuous of Members opposite to claim that the Minister was prepared to introduce climate legislation only subsequent to the commencement of the private Member's Climate Change Bill, given that Ministers from other parties effectively blocked this Bill's inclusion for discussion and approval at the Executive for months. Indeed, in the debate, some Members appear to have managed to blame the global climate crisis on Brexit.

The relevance of Brexit to today's debate escapes me. The matter in hand is addressing the climate issue and its effects. That is what matters to those outside of this place. As we turn to consider the second group of amendments, we must be mindful of the purpose and intent behind the proposals and policies, as laid out by the Department in the Bill and the relevant amendments.

Repeated mention has been made, by Mr Aiken and others, of the need for a just transition, and rightly so. It is hugely important that there is a just transition, particularly for those sectors that stand to be impacted on most by carbon reduction. The inclusion, in the new clause at amendment No 38, of the duty on all Departments to have regard to the just transition principle is a welcome addition. Members will be aware that the Department has already catered for just transition procedures in the green growth strategy. In that strategy, there is provision for the establishment of a just transition commission for Northern Ireland. Such a commission will likely be of greatest benefit in the coming years, when the various sectors that will likely feel an impact as a result of the legislation at different times will require fluctuating levels of support.

However, the fundamental principle to all of that is that a just transition can only be delivered effectively if it relies upon correct targets. I fear that if Members are hoping for transition funding from central government to offset the pending pain of making beyond-ambitious targets, they will be bitterly disappointed. There may be some transition funding but nothing that will equate to the unachievable targets set by this place.

I have already referred to the green growth strategy. Many of the amendments in this group are an attempt to cover ground that is already covered in the strategy and in the amendments already laid by the Department, or, indeed, rephrased from within the content of the Bill. For instance, the bulk of amendment No 47 on nature-based solutions is already provided in the departmental amendment No 38, which defines nature-based projects as:

Much of the content of new clause 16A was developed from concerns that were raised during the Committee Stage by consultees and, more importantly, Committee members. It is unfortunate that some have decided to proffer new variations of what was agreed at Committee Stage. That serves only to overburden the process. As such, I see little benefit to the amendments listed in the group, beyond those laid by the Department, which I will be supporting.

Dr Archibald: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the group 2 amendments, which are on proposals and policies. A number of the amendments make additional clauses to the Bill. I will lay out Sinn Féin's position, albeit Mr McGuigan has already covered some of it.

Amendment Nos 18 to 28 relate to sectoral plans and would insert new clauses 10A to 10K. I offer broad support for the concept of sectoral plans, so we will be supporting amendment No 18. The sectoral plans should be consulted on, in keeping with the spirit of consultation and collaboration that we outlined yesterday in our contributions on the first group of amendments. Philip has already set out some of that.

We are proposing climate action plans in amendment No 74, which will be discussed in group 3, and we are keen to understand and explore how the sectoral plans would interact with those. While we are supportive of some of the targets that are set out in the plans, we feel that the Bill should be a framework to be developed fully, but we will not oppose any of the amendment Nos 19 to 28.

Amendment No 36 to clause 16 is a Sinn Féin amendment in the names of Declan, Philip and myself. It requires Departments, when bringing forward to DAERA proposals and policies on carbon budgets, to fully consult with relevant sector-specific groups. It is timely at this point to mention also amendment No 80, as it details the sectors that we are referring to for the purposes of this Bill. I ask Members to support both of those amendments, which strengthen the Bill, to ensure that there is that requirement to consult with those being impacted by the plans that are being brought forward.

We will support amendment No 37, tabled by the Greens, to clause 16 in relation to publishing the report on consultation. I think that it is important that there is transparency to get that public buy-in. We will also support amendment No 38, tabled by the Minister, which will insert the new clause 16A in relation to the requirements for policies and proposals made under carbon budgets. It adds transboundary elements, just transition principles, nature-based projects and the impact on small businesses. We will support amendment Nos 39 and 41. Even though amendment No 41 is mutually exclusive to our amendment No 42, it adds some further detail. We will also support the new clauses proposed in amendment Nos 45 to 49 and amendment No 51, which add clauses 16D to 16H and clause 16J. Again, those clauses add further detail to the measures that are being introduced in the new clause 16A.

Not finally, but getting near to the end, amendment No 76 is a Sinn Féin amendment to clause 29, which is on duties to ensure that targets are met. This amendment adds to the duties on Departments a duty that, as far as reasonably practicable, plans, policies and strategies should align with those in the South. Given that, as an island, we are a single biogeographic unit and that our waterways, air and soil do not recognise borders, it makes sense that, where policies can align, they do so. The amendment is obviously qualified with the language "as far as reasonably practicable", so I hope that Members will be able to support this sensible and practical measure.

We will not support amendment Nos 77 and 79, which give the Department additional powers to make regulations to amend the new clause 16A in relation to the subsections on just transition and small business and do not require advice to be obtained about proposals to make regulations.

I will not rehash all the contributions from yesterday's debate on the previous group, but I emphasise that I believe that the amendments that have been outlined by us and others will add to this Bill. They reinforce the spirit of collaboration and consultation that I think is really important in getting the buy-in from communities that we all represent that they will have the opportunity to be consulted and to be part of the process. Effective climate action will only be achieved and be successful if there is real buy-in from individuals and organisations. Departments may develop plans and policies, but they will be delivered by other people. Those who have expressed concerns, along with all our other stakeholders, need to be involved in shaping the plans.

That is the commitment that Sinn Féin is making: climate action will not be done to people and communities but will be done with people and communities in a spirit of partnership. I emphasise again, as has been much talked about already, that the basis of action to tackle the climate emergency has to be on the principles of just transition. That is what is being written into this legislation through amendments in this group and others. This climate legislation needs to deliver fairness in action — fairness for workers, for families, for communities and for businesses. We must ensure that those who will be most impacted on and those who can least afford to move away from fossil fuels will have the support that they need to do that. That is what we are committed to.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Once again, I apologise for calling your colleague in front of you. If it is any consolation, I do have an appointment at Specsavers this afternoon — if we get out of here — so, hopefully, that will not happen again.

Mrs Barton: Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, you have already heard my colleague Dr Steve Aiken make general comment on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party on the group 2 amendments. I will go into a little bit more detail on what we are proposing to support.

We will support amendment Nos 18 to 26 and No 28. We do not support the insertion of the land use strategy, which Dr Aiken referred to, into the Bill, and we will vote against amendment No 27. Amendment Nos 36 and 37 have our support. We believe that the new clause proposed by the Minister in amendment No 38 is a particularly judicious insertion, dealing as it does with just transition. Therefore, we will not support amendment Nos 39 to 42. We support amendment Nos 45 to 49, which insert sensible new clauses on "policies and proposals". We will not support amendment No 76. However, we fully support in principle working in tandem with our neighbours. We support the Minister's amendment Nos 77 and 79. We do not think, however, that amendment No 80, which inserts a new clause, is necessary.

Mr Muir: I will speak on amendment No 18, which relates to sectoral plans; amendment No 21, which is on infrastructure; amendment No 26, which relates to transport; and amendment No 28, which relates to active travel.

Yesterday, the Assembly debated the first group of amendments and agreed to a target of net zero by 2050. From my perspective, whilst we can debate and set targets, action will be required across government, business, society and all our communities in order to meet those, otherwise they will be unachievable. That is why the Alliance Party has tabled a number of amendments on sectoral plans, and those are absolutely key in order to achieve the targets that we agreed yesterday. I am glad to hear that there is support for amendment No 18, which relates to overall sectoral plans. It was crucial that we passed the amendment and got support for that from across the Chamber, because it provides the basis for us to be able to proceed.

I will speak first to amendment No 26, which is on transport. If we are to ask other sectors such as agriculture to make changes, we need to make real changes to how we travel. There are lots of reports that tell us why and how, but we need to do it. That is why we have tabled that amendment on transport.

I turn first to the issue of roads. The Department for Infrastructure has a list of roads projects that it wishes to progress. In that is the widening of the Sydenham bypass to a three-lane dual carriageway. To me, that is the epitome of the problems that we have and why we need to face up to those and bring forward sectoral plans on transport. As people have said in previous years, the widening of roads to reduce congestion is a bit like loosening a belt to tackle obesity. Projects such as widening the Sydenham bypass to a three-lane dual carriageway do not align and are not compatible with net zero by 2050 and cannot proceed if we allow the Bill to pass.

I look at the approach to new road building projects in other parts of the UK. In Wales, as we know, they have agreed a target of net zero by 2050. The Deputy Minister for Climate Change recently announced a freeze on new road building projects whilst a review of highway schemes across Wales is carried out. That is what is happening in Wales. The Deputy Minister also stated:

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr Muir: I will just finish the quote, if that is OK:

Yes, Mr Aiken.

Dr Aiken: Thank you for giving way. Obviously, I am not aware of what is happening with the proposals for the Sydenham bypass. With something like the York Street interchange, we must bear in mind that we need to be able to move — it does not matter whether it is electric vehicles, vehicles powered by green hydrogen or whatever it happens to be — and that a degree of support for infrastructure is required. Are you proposing a moratorium on all road building? What about things like the York Street interchange, which will improve logistics and transportation flow and help the green agenda? What is your perspective on that?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mr Aiken. That is an important point. I will come on to what they are doing in Scotland, and that will, hopefully, address some elements of that.

The Scottish Government have agreed to a target of net zero by 2045. Their Programme for Government states:

I am aware of the York Street interchange issue and the air quality issues. I am also aware of the impact on local communities, but, when we are prioritising new road building, we need to put it through what Scotland describes as a climate compatibility assessment. That is what we need to put projects through and to review. Agreeing targets and passing the Bill are meaningless unless we are prepared to agree sectoral plans for transport and to look at road building from a different perspective.

For me, the phase 2 junctions upgrade of the A1 comes under road safety, because the number of people who have been killed or seriously injured as a result of that scheme not proceeding provides clear justification for it to proceed, but we need to put road-building projects through a climate compatibility assessment.

The other issue is public transport. It has been well documented that the level of expenditure on public transport in Northern Ireland puts it at the bottom of the league in the United Kingdom. Spending on public transport is at 2·1% of expenditure overall, compared with the percentage for England, for example, which is 5%, and Scotland, which is 4·8%.

The Fiscal Commission recently reported that transport is the only public service in Northern Ireland on which spend per capita is significantly below the UK average. The UK connectivity review highlighted the fact that per head spending on public transport in Northern Ireland is only about 27% of the average spend in the United Kingdom. That is linked to the Budget. We have a draft Budget for the next three years that is out for consultation. It is not strategic and does not link to the Programme for Government. Most importantly, it does not link to our climate objectives for the future.

If we are to agree a Budget, it has to link back to this Bill, and it has to link back to the Programme for Government. If we do not invest in public transport, we will not be able to achieve the goals that are set out in the Bill. That is fundamental. Yesterday, there was a lot of forthright debate about targets, but we need to face up to some of the real issues of what we need to achieve on transport. The Budget is part of that, because you cannot achieve the changes required without putting funding towards certain areas.

Mrs D Kelly: I thank the Member for giving way. He makes valid points in linking investment in infrastructure — public transport in particular — with climate change. The issues can be collaborated on well, if the political will is there to do so. Does the Member agree that such collaboration would not only help investment in public transport to meet some of the climate change targets but act as a key economic driver for recovery?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for her intervention. I agree.

The argument in some of the objections of the party opposite to the sectoral plans put forward today has been, "That is for another Minister". That points to where the problem is for Northern Ireland, not only in how it faces up to the climate crisis but in how it faces up to wider issues in government, with siloed departmental working and no collaboration. People expect collaboration. Just because the system of government in Northern Ireland is different from that of the rest of Europe does not mean that we are not capable of doing that collaborative work and linking the issues together. That is why the sectoral plans are crucial.

Dr Aiken spoke about electric vehicle charging points. Northern Ireland's electric vehicle charging points are abysmal. We all know that. Northern Ireland has fewer of them than any other region of the United Kingdom, and rapid charging is also an issue. There is a real need to take that forward, yet we are told by different Departments that energy sits in Economy and that we have Infrastructure, which deals with transport, and then there are certain environmental elements in DAERA. There is no collaboration to deal with that. That is why we need a sectoral plan for transport.

Mr Poots: Will the Member give way?

Mr Muir: Yes, no problem.

Mr Poots: I have corresponded with the Infrastructure Minister about electric vehicles a number of times, impressing on her the need for action. Action certainly does not lie with my Department, but I can see the evident benefit of it. How are we supposed to encourage people to move away from vehicles that use fossil fuels when the infrastructure for the vehicles that are now available is not there? It is important that the Department for Infrastructure acts to ensure that electric vehicle charging points are available across Northern Ireland. The Department needs to act promptly. We would all love to hear what it plans to do, because it has been very slow at coming forward.

Mr Muir: I thank the Minister for his intervention. That points to the issue that the Bill is cross-departmental and therefore requires action from across government. There have been promises of certain developments in electric vehicle charging, and funding came through recently from the UK Government. From my perspective, however, if you are making a longer journey, the state of the charging network means that it is hit-and-miss as to whether you will be able to recharge your vehicle, and that needs to be addressed.

The other issue that needs to be addressed is the connection charge at electric vehicle charging points. At the moment, a significant fee has to be paid for the supplier to be able to do that. The connection policy needs to change, and that needs to be driven by the Utility Regulator and the Department for the Economy. I share the frustration that no one has taken a lead. A working group has been established, but we need action.

That brings me to the next issue, which is the sectoral plan for infrastructure. Infrastructure — I will speak specifically about construction and planning — has a key role in delivering our goal of net zero and in what the Alliance Party has set out in terms of the green new deal and the 50,000 jobs that we envisage could be created as a result of investment in green technology and green growth.

Thus far, much of the discussion at Consideration Stage has been about the negative connotations associated with climate change. There are, however, positives around that in terms of jobs and growth. Again, there are particular issues around cross-departmental working when it comes to building regulations, how those relate to planning and how all of that can be coordinated.

I also want to talk about Northern Ireland Water. Climate change is a significant inhibitor of growth in Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland Water has a key role to play in combating it. Northern Ireland Water's representatives have been giving evidence to the Committee for Infrastructure this morning, but I have had to miss that meeting in order to be in the Chamber. One of the key things that needs to happen is that Northern Ireland Water needs to be given the tools and the funds to invest in improving our infrastructure. One of the issues that we need to face up to is the mutualisation of Northern Ireland Water. I know that there is no consensus in the House on that, but, if we are to pass this Bill, we will have to take some really difficult decisions. To be honest, the institutions in Northern Ireland are not very well known for doing that, and we will have to face up to that.

Mr Poots: Will the Member give way?

Mr Muir: Yes, Minister.

Mr Poots: I totally agree with what the Member is saying about Northern Ireland Water. We need to enable Northern Ireland Water to do the job that it needs to do. It has a vital role in protecting the environment from sewage overspill. Quite rightly, Mr Aiken mentioned storm drains: so many dual storm drains are connected to sewage outlets. Consequently, when flash floods occur, that material ends up in our waterways. Northern Ireland Water needs real investment, and the Assembly has hampered that investment for many years. As a body, Northern Ireland Water is one of the most forward-looking organisations when it comes to the steps that it is taking on renewable energy, and it needs to be fully supported in delivering that.

Is the Member not a little behind the curve on sectoral groups? The green growth strategy is already in operation: it is an Executive strategy, and all Departments are feeding into it. The green growth strategy's course of work is the engine and driving mechanism for tackling environmental issues. We are already doing that, and Departments are feeding in issues and providing the joined-up working that is required.

Mr Muir: I thank the Minister for his intervention. I agree that Northern Ireland Water is leading the way in many of the things that it is doing, particularly on energy generation and hydrogen, but it needs the funds to be able to continue that good work, and it is being starved of that funding. It frustrates me that people protest and say that they want change, but when change is presented to them — what we need to do to achieve a net zero future — they balk at it. Northern Ireland Water is a clear example of that. The Minister asked why we are enshrining the sectoral groups in legislation rather than leaving it to the green growth strategy. This is an opportunity for us to enshrine in law the requirement for change.

The next issue that I will talk about is planning. I spoke about it on Monday in Members' Statements. There was a statement from the Minister for Infrastructure last Thursday on the review of the Planning Act 2011. The evidence on the performance of our planning system in Northern Ireland is extremely clear in the statistics. The planning system could aid our efforts to tackle climate change, but it is not, and that is connected to processing times for applications. We have regionally significant applications — Dr Aiken talked about one of those — that have been sitting in the system for years. The processing time for major applications is meant to be 30 weeks, yet if we look at the most recent statistics, we see that the average time that is taken is 56·4 weeks. In England, the target processing time for major applications is 13 weeks, not 30 weeks, and 88% of decisions meet that target.

Miss Woods: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that it is not just about waiting times for decisions but that the entire planning system does not take into account the biodiversity and environmental impacts of development? We can see that in the recent discussion and community backlash against the removal, without any consultation or transparency, of trees that are protected by preservation orders. Does he agree with me that we need an equal right of appeal for communities in Northern Ireland?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for her intervention, and I agree entirely. The whole consultation process in the planning system is flawed. CBI Northern Ireland recently made recommendations for change to our planning system. One of its recommendations was that the pre-application process be put on a statutory footing. However, that was rejected last Thursday. Also, it was recommended that there should be processing agreements. One of the worst things is that, when you put in a planning application, you do not know how long it will take. It could take weeks, months or years. If the decision is a rejection, it may as well be a rejection that was decided in a more speedy fashion and with the proper consultation with local communities. The system is not working. The planning system could be a major driver for tackling climate change, but it is failing in that respect. That is why we propose the sectoral plan for infrastructure.

This issue is not aired enough. We hear it not only from applicants in particular but from objectors. There was an opportunity to consider whether we should introduce a third-party right of appeal as part of the planning review, but that was also rejected. The system is not fit for purpose. If we are going to be real about passing the Bill, all Departments need to step up. Frankly, from my perspective, the Department for Infrastructure has failed abysmally on planning in Northern Ireland.

Mr Poots: I thank you for giving way again, Mr Muir. Does the Member recognise that an awful lot of the planning applications that are being held back are applications for renewable energy? The planning system has become so emasculated that it is now a deterrent to tackling the issues around climate change. It is ironic, but many of the people who object do so for environmental reasons, yet the absence of a decision causes environmental harm.

Mr Muir: I thank the Minister for his intervention. That was going to be my concluding point on planning. How do renewable energy and climate change relate to planning?

Mrs D Kelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Muir: I will just finish this point, Mrs Kelly. When you apply for a renewable energy project, a significant amount of money is spent on that application. If a decision is going to be yes or no, once the statutory consultees have eventually replied — I note that some of the statutory consultees who are slowest at replying are from the Department for Infrastructure — it is best that the decision is quicker and prompter than it is at the moment. People put applications in for renewable energy and then have to wait for years. Because of the system, some applicants decide not to make those applications in Northern Ireland, so they make them in other parts of the UK and Ireland.

Mrs D Kelly: I thank the Member for giving way. Infrastructure gets all the blame for planning delays in infrastructure, but challenges by vested interests in the judicial review system hold up the legal system and cases from being heard. Vested interests can front up via community groups from time to time. I speak to my local planning service about delays, which I am very unhappy about, but the service tells me that the voluntary exit scheme had a hugely detrimental impact on it because many experienced planners left and it has been difficult to recruit planners ever since.

The Department for Infrastructure has continually been starved by the Executive and, in particular, the Finance Minister, who, over the past year, failed to fund even inescapable pressures in Northern Ireland Water and other arms of Infrastructure. If there is to be blame, there is plenty of it to go around.

Mr Muir: I thank Mrs Kelly for her intervention. The most recent funding bids by the Minister for Infrastructure were all met in the monitoring round, but there was a failure to make any further bids. We are moving off the subject.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for giving way. One of the key factors in the action plans has to be the planning process. It is a damning indictment of us all. We are all legislators. We know that the planning system is broken. What are we, as a bunch of MLAs, doing collectively to sort out the planning system? The problem has been going on for years. Can we not decide to do something about it and make it work? Rather than an action plan, can it be an action for all of us in the Assembly to sort out the planning system once and for all? Between 250 and 500 weeks is far too long for any planning decision to come through. That is enough.

Mr Muir: Thank you for making the case for my amendment.

Mr Speaker: I remind Members to stick to the matters in the Order Paper and not other issues, which are important in their own right but are not for this debate. Thank you.

Mr Muir: I welcome Mr Aiken's support for the amendment and his case for it.

The last amendment that I will talk about is amendment No 28 on active travel. I declare that I am a volunteer with Sustrans, which has been a strong advocate in that area. It is also one of its manifesto pledges, which have been circulated to political parties. If parties are going to support the Sustrans manifesto, they need to support the amendment because it gives it real meaning. We should also note that Scotland, in its Programme for Government, has committed to spending 10% of the transport budget on active travel. Another region of the UK has committed to net zero and is doing something similar to what we propose. In Northern Ireland, the budget sits at 2%, which is £7 per head; other parts of the UK and Ireland are moving much further ahead.

As Mr McGuigan said, during the pandemic, walking and cycling played a significant role in people's lives. We should have taken the opportunity to build on that, but, unfortunately, we did not. This is an opportunity to deliver on the goals and on active travel. I encourage Members to support the amendment.

Mr T Buchanan: I will make a few comments on the second group of amendments on the proposals and policies. My colleagues have already dealt with a number of the issues.

The green growth strategy, taken forward by the Minister and supported by the Executive, deals with a wide range of the issues covered in this group of amendments. The strategy is a key driver in encouraging change in a wide range of sectors. DAERA has already started to deliver on those changes. I think, for example, of Forests for Our Future — it was launched in the middle of last year — the soil health scheme and the rural policy framework, which are already under way. The Minister has been way out in front of the Bill in taking action in those areas to help to deliver climate change initiatives. The green growth strategy incorporates a lot of the issues covered in this group of amendments.

Amendment No 38 and new clause 16A, tabled by the Minister, will place additional legislative requirements on the Northern Ireland Departments. Amendment Nos 18, 19 and 21 to 28 appear to be variations of what is already covered in the Bill. I do not see the need to be repetitive on those issues. While those amendments suggest sectoral plans, they do not align with the current sectoral emissions data. That is a problem.

I was interested to hear Mr Muir talk about the planning system. The farming community has, over the past number of years, been prepared to make changes to comply in line with climate change, yet it has been hampered by the planning system. For example, the dairy, poultry and pig sectors have all been hampered in getting planning permission for new buildings that would greatly reduce ammonia emissions and so on. There is a huge onus on the Department for Infrastructure to step up to the mark on that issue.

Mrs Barton: I thank Mr Buchanan for giving way. He spoke about planning: does he agree that farmers are still being denied planning permission even when they are trying to upgrade their property to more efficient buildings and to bring in new, more efficient methods for having the same number of cattle in the new buildings as in the old ones?

Mr T Buchanan: Absolutely. That is a huge problem. I do not know whether I can say this, but I will: I am dealing with a planning application that has been in the system for six years for a farmer who wants to upgrade. The application is still sitting there, and we cannot get any movement on it. That is the situation that the farming community faces today.

Amendment No 47 talks about supporting:

That is covered by amendment No 38, so why table another amendment for the same thing? Amendment No 76 suggests that we should align ourselves with the Republic of Ireland. We saw how the vote went in the House last night — that we should have net zero by 2050 — yet the same people suggest that we should align ourselves with the Republic of Ireland, which has an abysmal record of delivery on climate change. In fact, since 1990, its emissions have increased far beyond those of Northern Ireland. There is no logic in saying that we should align ourselves with those who have an abysmal record on climate change.

A number of concerns were raised during the Committee process, and those are addressed by proposed new clause 16A, under amendment No 38. It is unfortunate that Members decided to table amendments that are variations on what is already in that amendment. Is that not overly bureaucratic? Do we really need that?

The Climate Change (No. 2) Bill is the most realistic and achievable pathway to addressing climate change. We need to get that into our minds and support the Minister's departmental Bill.

Ms Ennis: Members will be glad to hear that I intend to speak very briefly and generally on the Bill and the amendments in group 2. At the outset, however, I will say that people outside the Chamber think that it is farcical that two climate Bills are making their way through the House. We know that the Assembly was put in that farcical situation by the Minister's refusal to bring forward climate legislation when the House first called for it. That is down to the Minister and the climate change scepticism that remains a worrying tendency throughout his party.

Earlier, Members opposite asked, "What does Brexit have to do with the debate?". We have only to look at Brexit to see a glaring example of what happens to ordinary people when the DUP puts ideology before reality. Farmers in South Down are still waiting anxiously to see what will replace the vital EU subsidies that were lost because of Brexit, which the DUP enthusiastically supported.

Mr Poots: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ennis: I will not give way. This is the first time that I have spoken on the Bill. Members have had plenty of time to air their views, both yesterday in the House and on the airwaves, so I will continue.

Reducing our carbon emissions and engaging in more sustainable practices across society need to be at the core of any climate change Bill. It is not enough just to set targets, however. If targets are to be achieved, they have to have the consent and support of the people. By engaging with communities, industries, workers, trade unions, young people and others, we can ensure that we reach our targets in a manner that does not disadvantage anyone.

Rural communities are at the coalface of climate change and could see more flooding or periods of drought if political leaders do not provide the necessary leadership now. Putting in place plans to support and empower people is how we will meet our climate objectives. If this Minister was genuine about protecting rural communities or small farmers, they would not be worried about the future of single farm payments due to Brexit, and hill farmers, like those in South Down, would not be impacted on by the removal of their areas of natural constraints (ANCs) payments by a previous DUP Minister. Those are the issues that the rural communities that I represent in South Down are concerned about.

The most effective climate action will be taken in partnership with rural communities and farmers, and it must be fair. Those in the farming community are the landowners, and they are the custodians of the countryside. Without their buy-in and partnership, we will not achieve anything. This is a framework Bill, and it is up to all of us, inside and outside the Chamber, to put the meat on the bones of it. That is what the Sinn Féin amendments attempt to do in group 2, and in group 1 as well, in particular amendment Nos 36 and 80.

In recent weeks, I have met dozens of farmers in South Down, and the Ulster Farmers' Union, and they told me directly that they are up for the challenge, and that they want to farm more sustainably if they are given the option and support to do so. In many ways, they are increasingly doing that. We need to enable them and all of society to do more. Sinn Féin will not tolerate any scapegoating of farmers, rural communities, individual workers and families for the failure and reluctance to show leadership on this issue.

We cannot have a situation where those least able to carry the burden, and who are less responsible for emissions, are left to carry the cost of the global polluters and big corporations, which continue to pursue profit at the expense of the planet and our future.

Ms Kimmins: I, too, will keep my remarks brief. I welcome the opportunity to finally speak in the debate. As my colleague said, it is disappointing that it has taken the Minister this long to finally accept the stark realities of climate change. The DUP's approach of putting its head in the sand has run out of road. It now has to come to terms with the fact that climate change is happening, and we need to act now.

Whilst the Minister and the DUP have paid lip service to protecting rural communities and farmers, they have brought about, as others have said, the single greatest threat to our farming community when they lobbied strongly for the Brexit shambles that we are all now paying the price for.

Climate change is not based on ideology. It is reality, and we have a small window of opportunity to tackle it. The proposals and policies to deliver the net zero target that has now been agreed by the majority in the House must be developed in partnership with the sectors, communities and industries that will be impacted, and based on a fair and equitable approach with the principles of a just transition at its core. No one should be left behind, and that can be done, even when setting ambitious targets.

We have a duty of care to all sectors and communities, but particularly to our farmers and the agricultural community, who will undoubtedly face unique challenges. Therefore, policies and proposals must be developed in consultation with them. It simply cannot be done without the input of those who know best.

Like many others, I have met and been engaging with farmers from my constituency, and representatives of the farming community, who are clearly up for playing their part in tackling climate change. In fact, many are already taking action to reduce their carbon footprint and adapt to more sustainable ways of working in the absence of any legislative direction. The people on the ground are already in this space, and it is up to us to show leadership and ensure that nothing is imposed on those vital industries.

Sinn Féin fully recognises the crucial role of our agricultural sector. If we are to achieve fair, ambitious and deliverable climate change action, those who would be most impacted on must be part of the solution. Proposals and policies that will support and empower people is how we achieve our objectives. Scaremongering and misleading people simply kicks the can down the road and will expedite the problem to the point where the small window of opportunity that we have to take control of our own destiny in terms of climate change will be closed.

I welcome the references to transport in these amendments, particularly the move to active travel and the use of electric vehicles. We need to get serious when it comes to improving and enhancing our active travel infrastructure. Like my colleague said, there was a missed opportunity to do that during the pandemic. However, this is not only about putting in place infrastructure; we need to change the cultural mindset to encourage people out of private cars. There is a role in that for all Departments, be that Health, Education or Economy. Active travel must be an integral aspect of all our lives.

My final points relate to the importance of ensuring collaboration and cooperation on an all-island basis in relation to the policies and proposals. That is relevant right across the piece. Not only are our agri-food sectors inextricably linked on a North/South basis — it is essential that that link is continued to ensure that the industry's potential is maximised and that no disparity is inflicted as a result of political boundaries — but there is a real opportunity to explore active travel proposals by sharing good practice with our southern counterparts and creating cross-border linkages to harmonise our efforts across the island.

In conclusion, despite the attempts to undermine and create fear around the setting of ambitious targets, achieving net zero is a real possibility. It can be done, while protecting livelihoods and industries across the spectrum. It is up to us to show strong leadership, to have meaningful engagement with the sectors and to bring people along with us. We have one chance to do this and one chance to do it right.

Mr Dickson: I welcome the opportunity to speak today on the group 2 amendments and specifically to support the comments that my colleagues John Blair and Andrew Muir have made about sectoral plans.

Setting a clear road map across all sectors is fundamental to tackling the climate emergency. If we are to genuinely achieve net zero carbon emissions, we need a bold and holistic approach that is sustained by long-term government commitment. Without detailed plans and targets to underpin our environmental pledges, the road towards decarbonisation will become very difficult to navigate. Any real and meaningful change has to be based on the firm foundation of support, targets and advice.

Amendment No 19 places a duty on the Economy Department to develop and publish a detailed strategy for a greener and more sustainable energy sector, in line with emissions targets. In my roles as a member of the Economy Committee and the economy spokesperson for the Alliance Party, I cannot overstate the need for a comprehensive plan of action: targets and assurances that a Minister will be committed to delivering. We recently saw the publication of the energy strategy. Although that is a welcome document, which sets a template for the future and for going into the next mandate, it regrettably lacks ambition in targets and decarbonisation. In particular, the lack of policy intent about fracking and petroleum licensing was very disappointingly notable. Other countries, such as Denmark, France, Spain, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland, have announced plans to stop new oil and gas prospecting and licensing. Sadly, that has so far been omitted from plans in Northern Ireland. There is a void and silence from Ministers. We need to hear a very clear change to the prospect of licences for petroleum, fracking and other fossil fuel exploration in Northern Ireland and across the island of Ireland.

Alongside those plans, we need to look at our workforce and labour as we go forward. Renewable energy will offer a transition that will allow us to take on a considerable amount of new work. However, we can only deliver that by planning ahead. That could be by planning through the Department for the Economy, for example, in how it delivers on further and higher education, upskilling and training people to go forward to deliver the new, sustainable industries that will need to be developed to deliver all that is contained in the Bill and much more in the future. We need to be able to deliver access to high-quality and environmentally sound green jobs right across the whole of our economy. That is why it is vital that we set out those sectoral plans very clearly at the beginning of this project. Delivering new heating and cooling systems has to be central to delivering change in our energy sector. We need to be able to develop those systems to harness local and renewable energy. All of that falls to the economy and other sectors to deliver.

Amendment No 22 relates specifically to developing and publishing plans for industrial processes. It is no surprise that our industrial sector is a significant direct and indirect source of greenhouse gas emissions. A report that was published by the University of Exeter found that industrial and commercial businesses accounted for 63% of the consumption of all electricity, 55% of the consumption of all gas, and 74% of all coal that was used in Northern Ireland. Undoubtedly, the Department for the Economy will have to play an important role in assisting, guiding and working with those businesses to not only reduce their carbon emissions but keep them in business and working, which will deliver the type of green economy that will make Northern Ireland stand out in the world. The Department needs to lay out plans that will give our industries and businesses the support that they need. We need to look for ambitious projects that are backed by the latest scientific research and certainty to take us forward in respect of climate change. The focus must be placed on levelling up our industries, setting a clear framework for targets, and aiding their transition to new ways of doing things. That will bring down the cost of new technologies, such as electric vehicles, and of heat pumps. If we are genuinely going to achieve net zero by 2050, our key objective must be delivering those sectoral plans. That will deliver very exciting opportunities for Northern Ireland, particularly in that sector.

We need to move away from political short-termism. There has to be a commitment to working with all sectors to develop detailed plans to deliver that net zero target. Quite simply, sound bites and unfulfilled manifesto promises do not cut it any longer. It is important that we support our industries and all those sectors to move to greener alternatives. If we do not begin to address the long-term complex challenges that face us, the cost to our climate and consumers will be detrimental. Today, for those in the Chamber who support net zero by 2050, and even for those who do not, it is time, in terms of delivering sectoral plans, to not only talk the talk but walk the walk.

Miss Woods: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the group 2 debate. I will try to speak to a number of the amendments in this group in as succinct a way as possible, but I make no promises.

Amendment No 37 seeks to change clause 16 to mandate the Department to conduct a public consultation on plans and policies for meeting the carbon budget for a relevant period. It is disappointing that such an amendment even has to be proposed. Public consultation on such a document is the bare minimum level of public participation that should be expected. The fact that that was not included in the Bill is an indictment of how we view public participatory processes in Northern Ireland more generally. It is also unfortunate that, due to the narrow scope of the Bill, we are unable to discuss other amendments relating to public participation, such as the creation of a citizens' assembly, but that is for another time.

We know that reaching net zero will be challenging. It will require an economy-wide transformation. The transition will unlock many benefits well into the future, but the reality is that it will also mean that we have to change how we do most things. We need to bring people along with us; if we do not, we will fail. People need to understand why changes need to happen and to be part of shaping the solutions. That is why amendment No 37 will require the Executive to consult publicly on policies to meet carbon budgets, as a start. I hope that the Department realises that working with people and communities through that transition is not a useful thing to do, but an absolute must if we are to be successful.

Our amendment Nos 39, 40 and 41 amend the Minister's amendment to create new clause 16A. The Minister's amendment covers several policy areas, including the coordination of policies and proposals with policies in GB, the Republic of Ireland and elsewhere; the use of nature-based projects; the impact on small businesses; and the just transition. Our amendments relate to the just transition. While I am glad to see that the Minister was willing to take on board the Agriculture Committee's support for the inclusion of a just transition, the objectives of the just transition principle in amendment No 38 are too restrictive.

Our amendment No 39 expands the requirement to support environmentally and socially sustainable jobs to a requirement to support:

It places an extra onus not only to support current low-carbon jobs but to actively grow jobs in those and other sustainable sectors. The term "climate resilient" is defined in our amendment No 41 as the:

We want new jobs that are created to be secure in the face of the challenges of climate change. Going forward, everything that we do must be considered with regard not only to how we lower current emissions but to how we adapt to the irreversible impacts of climate change.

Amendment No 40 serves to remove the mention of:

from the just transition principle. I have to say for the record, and from the outset, that that is not to say that business and industry will not have a huge part to play in the transition to a green economy: they absolutely will. However, to include those interests in the just transition principle in the Bill is to entirely subvert what a just transition is all about. Business and industry interests already have a voice. The just transition principle must be about building consensus among people and communities, and empowering them in the context of huge corporate power and dominating agendas.

Amendment No 41 adds to the list of objectives for the just transition principle, mandating that action be taken to reduce poverty, inequality and social deprivation, as those issues must be tackled alongside climate change. Indeed, many green solutions can simultaneously tackle social deprivation and poverty as they result in lower fuel bills, better-insulated and warmer houses, and more energy-efficient homes. However, green technologies must be made available to people who are on low incomes.

It is important to recognise what society is experiencing today. Many Members spoke about that yesterday and, indeed, this morning. We have known about the fuel price crisis for many months, if not years. We have consistently raised it in the Assembly over the past few years. Last year, we all met the Utility Regulator. It was clear how serious the fuel price crisis was becoming. We had the opportunity to act, certainly before Christmas, but the Executive failed to do so. Despite months of warning, the Communities Minister announced the emergency fuel payment scheme only at the start of this year. It has been beset with difficulties, with an arbitrary cap on the number of daily applicants. While short-term fixes are welcome to deal with the here and now for some people, where are the more long-term sustainable solutions? The Finance Minister's January monitoring round left £100 million unallocated. There is money there, but it is not being prioritised where it is needed.

That is part of a wider picture of rising living costs, stagnating wages and rising rents. The fuel crisis has demonstrated the problems that are inherent to fossil fuel dependency. Fossil fuel corporations are raking in multi-million-pound profits while families here struggle to make ends meet. We need to move to a net zero, sustainable economy, with proper investment in renewables, a just transition where no one is left behind and a pathway to addressing inequality and eradicating poverty. We need to ban fracking and immediately stop any new petroleum licences being granted and the exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons in Northern Ireland. We must implement that moratorium, which was agreed by the Assembly, as a matter of urgency.

I also note with regard to amendment No 41, on mandating action to be taken to address poverty in line with climate action, that the answer to a question that I asked the Minister for the Economy recently showed that there is an intention to launch a pilot domestic and small business support scheme for low-carbon heating, as outlined in the recently published energy strategy. When exactly will that be launched? Who is it for? What will those low-carbon heat projects look like?

We need more information, and it needs to be accessible. That is what all our constituents are asking for, and it should be rolled out as a matter of urgency.

Amendment No 41 also requires gender inequality to be actively addressed in plans and policies. Gender has been specifically included as a category on its own, as per stakeholder feedback in the Committee's consultation on the Bill. That reflects the recognition that climate breakdown is experienced differently, with women likely to bear the greater burden of situations of poverty. We met stakeholders to discuss amendments, and women's groups were clear that the Department's carrying out an equality impact assessment on policies was not enough to address the differing gendered impacts of the policies. We have all heard calls for gender budgeting and gender proofing. Indeed, the recent publication and launch of the feminist recovery plan by the Women's Policy Group Northern Ireland highlighted the need to adopt gender-sensitive policy responses to the deeply gendered pandemic crisis. We know that climate breakdown is also deeply gendered.

The Women's Policy Group has called for a feminist green new deal, and we agree. In any planning for the future of Northern Ireland, climate policies need to be considered through that lens. The intention is that the amendment will require plans and policies to be gender-mainstreamed, which means integrating a gender perspective into the preparation, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies, regulatory measures and spending programmes, with a view to promoting equality between women and men and combating discrimination.

A good example of that is public transport. You might ask, "How is taking the bus different for men and women?". It is very different. A pioneering study in Vienna examined how men and women use buses and trams. It found that women are more likely to make multiple trips throughout the day when carrying out unpaid labour, such as caregiving and domestic responsibilities like trips to the shop, dropping children to and from school and carrying out errands for elderly parents. That makes them more vulnerable to poor transport design. There is also the issue of safety. When those issues were considered, Vienna city planners adapted transportation to match women's daily routines, including more frequent trains during the day and night, increased well-lit shelters at bus and tram stops, lifts to elevated underground platforms, more accessible emergency buttons, additional barrier-free zones for prams and walking aids and the provision of additional security guards after dark.

There is no point in developing green infrastructure if it is not tailored to those who need and use it most, so we must take gender differences into account. Mary Robinson summed it up well:

Collecting gendered information about policies is not about making society work just for men or just for women; it is about creating a society that works equally for all. I will not go into detail again on the need for desegregated data collection. In the last few years, I have done so a number of times in the Chamber. Those who are listening know my view on it and how important it is to know what we are dealing with across society.

Amendment No 41 also requires the needs of people living in rural areas and the needs of future generations to be taken into account. I am particularly pleased to support that. That is what climate action is all about. We need to find a way to live that is within the planetary boundaries of what the earth can provide for us. Our culture in the global north of extractivism, exploitation and overconsumption creates an uninhabitable planet for our children and grandchildren, and we hear that loud and clear from our young people. The amendment establishes a future generations principle in law, which means acting in a manner that ensures that the needs of the present are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

Finally, amendment No 41 establishes a just transition fund for agriculture. The fund will provide financial assistance and advice to the agri-sector as it meets its contribution to the overall target. We know that the transition will be challenging across all sectors, but agriculture faces additional barriers to decarbonisation. The very concept of a just transition is that the cost of transitioning from polluting practices must not be borne solely by workers in that industry. The fund will mean that farmers will be able to access grant support and business advice for purchasing new machinery and implementing new nature-friendly farming practices. The shape that the fund takes will be up to the Department to design, but a similar scheme announced by the Scottish Government last November made £51 million available to farmers over three years to carry out on-farm carbon audits and nutrient management plans. That scheme is open to all businesses that are in receipt of the basic payment, and it would make sense for the same requirements to be put in place here. Farmers are part of our climate solution, and we have to provide them with the necessary support.

Amendment No 45 requires policies and proposals under clause 16 to include targets on soil quality and biodiversity to be achieved during the relevant budgetary period. We all know that soil quality and climate change are inextricably linked. Climate change has a significant impact on soil health globally, with extreme weather leading to more droughts and flooding. Modern agricultural practices, such as the excessive use of fertilisers, are degrading the planet's soil at an accelerated rate. Nearly half the world's topsoil has disappeared in the last 150 years, yet soil is key to tackling climate change. It captures and stores vast amounts of carbon, as well as putting food on people's plates, purifying water and protecting against flooding. Soil will be key to Northern Ireland's net zero journey, but we need to know what we are starting with. We urgently need to establish baselines so that we know where we need to get to.

The link between climate change and biodiversity is also long-established. We know that the climate and biodiversity crises are two sides of the same coin. Climate change may be caused by greenhouse gas emissions, but it manifests in declining biodiversity, amongst many other things. Biodiversity must, therefore, be considered as a key performance indicator (KPI) in Northern Ireland. Environmental changes that are driven by climate change are disturbing natural habitats and species in a way that is still becoming clear. In 2021, the UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) said:

It also said that:

The committee continued:

With that in mind, the dire condition of Northern Ireland's biodiversity becomes even more distressing. Out of 240 countries, we rank twelfth worst in the world for biodiversity loss. We have, for example, lost more than 80% of our curlew population since 1987, and 11% of wildlife here is now threatened with extinction. Emissions reductions must not be achieved at the expense of the rest of the environment. Incorporating targets for soil quality and biodiversity into budgetary period policies will ensure that the approach that we take to tackling climate change in Northern Ireland is holistic and takes into account the ecological crisis.

Amendment No 45 also requires targets to be set in those areas that take into account international law, including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC); the impact of such targets on the environment, public health and well-being; Northern Ireland's specific economic and social circumstances; the just transition principles; and the transboundary impact of such targets, understanding as we do that we share a land mass and a land border with another jurisdiction.

Amendment No 46 is a list of the sectors that must ensure that the carbon budget has been met under the clause 16 policies and proposals. The amendment references sectors, not Departments, in order to account for the Bill's failure to mention sectors altogether. During the Committee Stage, stakeholders highlighted the lack of sectoral plans or targets as a key failing of the Bill. It was felt that, while carbon budgets are a useful mechanism to control overall emissions levels, they do not go far enough for organisations such as the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) in setting targets for the different sectors of the economy. NILGA was of the opinion that, by failing to account for different sectors, the Bill passed the responsibility to Departments to take the necessary work forward, so that work is, therefore, much more arm's-length than NILGA would like it to be. By passing responsibility to Departments, the Bill encourages siloed working and thinking when we need cross-departmental and cross-societal working to address emissions. The sectors covered in the amendment are self-explanatory, but, for the record, they are:

We all know why that is needed. The amendment is in the broadest possible terms to cover the sectors that need to be covered. The last area covered will ensure that that is taken into account and planned for should the Executive use the process of tendering out to private contractors or consultants for the provision of infrastructure, the promotion of economic development and so on. That aligns with new measures put into place by the UK Government ahead of COP26, which mean that all companies bidding for major government contracts must commit to achieving net zero emissions by 2050. We know that Governments spend huge amounts of money on procurement each year. That process needs to have the effect of speeding up the greening of the economy.

Amendment No 47 mandates that policies and proposals to meet the carton budget must support nature-based projects. Those are defined in the amendment as:

We believe that that is the most accurate definition of nature-based projects, and it is based on the model used in the Republic of Ireland. The Minister's definition of nature-based projects in amendment No 38 is too wide and would, in effect, allow almost any project to be considered nature-based, including one that, say, provided solely economic benefits. We believe that our definition is much more appropriate. The inclusion of the wording "as far as is practicable" in our amendment is not intended to be a loophole for Departments; rather, it takes account of the fact that some sectors, such as transport, will not be able to make use of wholly nature-based solutions.

Throughout the various stages of this Bill and the Climate Change Bill, we have engaged with the Federation of Small Businesses on how to protect small businesses and microbusinesses. The AERA Committee also heard evidence from stakeholders that the Bill should contain "a mandatory and effective" means of engaging with industry. Stakeholders wished that to be done via a small and micro business impact test (SAMBIT) of any strategies that are taken forward under the legislation. Amendment No 48 mandates that plans and policies under clause 16 should explain how proposals would impact on the workforce and employers, including small businesses, microbusinesses and communities, and that proposals are set out to support the workforce, employers, small businesses and microbusinesses. We have been as descriptive as possible in amendment No 48. There is no explicit reference to SAMBITs, because SAMBITs do not have any legislative basis. However, we think that the amendment covers everything that a SAMBIT would be designed to do in all but name.

Amendment No 49 protects against carbon leakage, which is when production, goods or services move to a different country or jurisdiction because of restrictive climate policies in the first jurisdiction, leading to an overall rise in global emissions. That is a particular concern that was highlighted by stakeholders from the agriculture sector in consultation responses. Though it is clear that post-Brexit trade deals pose the biggest risk of displacing Northern Irish agri-food products, avoiding carbon leakage due to our climate policy must be a priority. Amendment No 49 requires DAERA to take the risk of substantial carbon leakage into account when creating plans and policies to meet the carbon budget. Unfortunately, it is outside the competence of the Assembly to legislate on the issue and the impact of trade. Therefore, protecting against new impacts of, say, the New Zealand and Australian Tory trade deals is not within our power.

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Miss Woods: I am just about to finish.

The impacts of those trade deals will be felt deeply across our agri-sector. Some of the risks to Northern Ireland agriculture could be addressed by differentiating Northern Ireland products on the basis of quality and environmental credentials, and there could be significant opportunities for the agri-sector to access European markets if Northern Ireland can achieve net zero.

That concludes my remarks on the amendments in group 2. I look forward to the rest of the debate.

Mr Poots: First, I highlight my disappointment at the decision taken yesterday to pursue a 2050 net zero target. That will cause significant harm to our agri-food sector and the wider economy. I hope that the parties that supported it will do more than pay lip service to such a target and will support the funding of the action that will be needed to get us on a pathway to anywhere close to that target.

The decision taken yesterday will dilute the importance of some of the other issues that we are discussing today. My aim is to ensure that the Bill provides the right structures and mechanisms to deliver emissions reductions, even if they are unlikely to be at a level that will enable a net zero target to be met.

Yesterday's decision is more likely to cause more emissions on a global scale, because it will reduce efficient farming in Northern Ireland, which is already farming at a lower carbon intensity than most of its competitors, and lead to that carbon being produced in higher-intensity farms in other parts of the world. It will drive jobs from the Northern Ireland economy and families from the farms that have been in their name for generations. Again, the Members who supported that, despite all the lobbying that was carried out by the agriculture community, should hang their head in shame.

I heard what was just said about trade deals elsewhere in an attempt to deflect. We are talking about the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill today. I am happy to address the issue of trade deals, but the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill, as amended, will do harm to primary producers in its own right, and I will table amendments at Further Consideration Stage to try to undo the damage that has been proposed. I hope that Members will support those amendments, having not supported the evidence-based proposals that I put forward yesterday.

Clause 16 is important, because it requires all Northern Ireland Departments to work together to bring forward and agree reports at the start of each five-year carbon budgetary period that set out the policies and proposals for meeting the carbon budget for that period. It is through successfully meeting carbon budgets that we will be able to restrict our overall emissions level and stay on track to meet the targets in the Bill. Clause 16 is therefore the key action clause, and the reports required under it will cover proposals and policies relating to all our key sectors. A number of amendments in group 2 attempt to expand on the requirements of clause 16 and proposed new clause 16A, which I propose in amendment No 38.

I will set out why I tabled amendment No 38 and then provide my view on the amendments in the group that other Members have tabled. In doing so, I will have to touch on the issue of a just transition. I appreciate that the amendments that form group 4 in this Consideration Stage debate cover the just transition principles and a just transition fund. My amendment No 38, however, introduces just transition principles to the Bill, so I have to speak to it now so that Members are fully aware of them. Other amendments in group 2 that propose amendments to my amendment No 38 also cover just transition elements.

A lot of people have loosely used the term "just transition". Some Members who tabled amendments on just transition principles seem to believe that the inclusion of some just transition principles in legislation will solve all of society's problems and enable the achievement of any target. That is a totally simplistic view and a totally unachievable aim. Effectively, a just transition requires us to deliver the transition to a greener, more sustainable economy and environment in a balanced way in which everyone is adequately supported. A just transition is at the heart of the draft green growth strategy that my Department recently published for consultation. Indeed, one of the key actions that is to be taken forward under that strategy is the establishment of a just transition commission in Northern Ireland. Delivering a just transition is also at the heart of the evidence that informed the original targets in my Bill.

Mr McGuigan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Poots: Yes.

Mr McGuigan: I appreciate what the Minister says about the green growth strategy, and I welcome his support for a just transition commission. Given that he is now on record now as supporting a just transition commission, will he put what is in a strategy, in his words, into legislation today?

Mr Poots: The issue is that, if you take £11 billion out of the economy, how do you deliver that just transition? I pose that question to the Member. I hear about the opportunities for green jobs and all that, and there will be, but will those opportunities overcome the removal of the £11 billion? What about the people who are skilled in agri-food and whose skills in crop and animal management have been honed over generations? Will they just divert to other opportunities?

A just transition is very difficult to achieve, and a fundamental aspect of ensuring a just transition is to ensure that the targets that are set are ambitious and challenging but also achievable. The targets in my Bill were originally based on the Climate Change Committee's balanced pathway and thus were set at a level that can be achieved through a just transition. It is important to be clear about this: a just transition cannot be delivered if a completely unrealistic target is set. Therefore, as a result of the decision taken yesterday to support a net zero target, it will be difficult and, indeed, hugely expensive to deliver a just transition. We cannot simply enforce an unrealistic and economically damaging target and think that we can pay everyone to make it all seem OK. That is entirely illogical. First, we do not have the money to do so, and, secondly, a lot of people do not want to be given money; they want to be given choices. You will not buy the farming community, Mr McGuigan. The decision made yesterday to support a net zero target for Northern Ireland makes it difficult to deliver a just transition, but we will all have to play our part in taking forward and funding action that will support the sectors that will be negatively impacted as a result of the flawed position adopted on targets yesterday.

Some stakeholders, MLAs and the AERA Committee indicated that they want the Bill to further supplement the overall support for a just transition by incorporating a just transition principle and some relevant objectives into the Bill. My focus, when developing the Bill, was to ensure that the targets in it can enable the delivery of a just transition. I was also focused on identifying and delivering practical mechanisms and actions through the green growth strategy that will help to ensure a just transition. Having done both, I was more than happy to table an amendment that incorporates just transition objectives into my Bill and ensures that those objectives will be an important factor when developing and implementing actions to deliver emissions reductions.

In addition to just transition, the AERA Committee requested that I consider incorporating other elements around transboundary cooperation, the assessment of the impacts on small businesses and the encouragement of nature-based projects to deliver emissions reductions. Those are all things that my Department already does, and, having listened to those who are in favour of having such things front and centre in the Bill, I tabled an amendment to capture that.

Clause 16 places a duty on my Department to prepare and publish a report that sets out the proposals and policies for meeting each carbon budget. The report must set out proposals and policies covering the areas of responsibility of each Northern Ireland Department to provide my Department with proposals and policies in its areas of responsibility and to assist my Department in preparing the full report. As I said, those are key action reports that will help to deliver against the Bill's targets.

All Northern Ireland Departments already have general processes to follow when developing new policies, such as conducting public consultations and completing the necessary impact assessments. Those are important in the context of ensuring that new policies and programmes deliver outcomes in a positive way. My amendment No 38 would add a new clause, 16A, to the Bill and make it a requirement for all Northern Ireland Departments to have due regard to the additional and complementary aspects that I have mentioned when contributing to the development of the clause 16 reports. Departments will have to have regard for the need to consider the desirability of coordinating proposals with those in the Republic of Ireland, other parts of the UK and beyond and to consult persons considered appropriate in those jurisdictions. There is also a need to have regard to a just transition principle and objectives and the desirability of using and supporting nature-based projects, and there is a need to assess the impact of proposals and policies on small businesses.

As I have indicated, many Departments across the Executive will already be taking a number of those things into consideration when developing policies. However, the amendment will make it a legislative requirement for all Departments to adhere to the provisions set out in clause 16A when developing policies and proposals to meet carbon budgets. In particular, objectives are set out in relation to just transition, including the provision of support for sectors and persons most affected by climate change and the need to support low-carbon investment and infrastructure and environmentally and socially sustainable jobs. Because of the decision made yesterday, we are in a difficult position regarding our ability to deliver on the objectives set out in the amendment, but we have to take all necessary actions to do so. The commitments set out in the green growth strategy, if the Department of Finance steps up to fund them, will be a key driver and a good starting point in that regard. I urge Members to support my amendment, as it will ensure that Departments take forward actions to reduce emissions in a manner that ensures that the impacts of such actions are fully thought through and taken into account, with relevant support being provided to those who need it.

I turn now to the amendments proposed by other Members. Mr Blair, Mr Muir, Ms Armstrong and Mr Dickson have tabled amendments around sectoral plans. Amendment No 18 covers sectoral plans in general terms, while amendment Nos 19, 21 to 26 and 28 cover requirements around sectoral plans for specific sectors. As I highlighted, I am not against sectoral plans in principle, as the draft green growth strategy developed by my Department on behalf of the Executive very much takes a sectoral approach. In addition, the Bill already requires all Departments to take action and to contribute policies and proposals towards meeting the targets and carbon budgets, and those duties will cut across and cover a wide range of sectors. However, as I also highlighted, the sectors covered in the amendments do not align with the current sectoral emissions data collected across the UK or with the sectors identified by the Climate Change Committee for the purposes of its analysis and advice. I highlight it again that, in the recent consultation in respect of the draft green growth strategy, over 90% of respondents indicated that we should follow the Climate Change Committee sectors when developing plans, so why would we diverge from that?

There are also drafting issues and a lot of vagueness in some of the provisions in the amendments, but I appreciate that you will not want me to labour those points, Mr Deputy Speaker. Some of the amendments cut across policies that are still being developed. It might be more appropriate to allow that development to take place in the context of the 2050 target that was agreed yesterday. I also highlight that some of the amendments deal with areas outside the remit of my Department, and it is therefore difficult for me to support or provide informed comment on amendments in respect of energy, infrastructure, industrial processes, transport and active travel. My general position is that I cannot support that range of amendments, given what is already covered in the Bill, the issues with the drafting and the lack of alignment with the sectors used by the Climate Change Committee. Sectoral plans can be more effectively developed as each Department develops its plans and policies for the carbon budget implementation reports and as part of the work on implementing the green growth strategy. That will create a less prescriptive and better-thought-through process than the amendments.

Mr Blair, Mr Muir and Ms Armstrong have also put forward amendment No 27, which would require my Department to produce a land use strategy. In the past number of months, my Department has already brought forward an environment strategy, a peatland strategy and a green growth strategy, all of which cover land use elements. In addition, work streams continue to be taken forward through the sustainable agricultural land management strategy, including a soil nutrient health scheme. There is, therefore, a lot of ongoing work in this area already, and I do not believe that we need to commit to a new and separate land use strategy. Therefore, I do not support amendment No 27.

Amendment No 36, tabled by Mr McGuigan, Dr Archibald and Mr McAleer, is unnecessary and defective. As part of normal processes for taking forward such wide-ranging and important reports, my Department will already be consulting widely on the draft reports. That will include consultation with all relevant sectors. Other Departments will also consult on their own policies and proposals as appropriate.

The term "sector-specific advisory groups" is also not defined anywhere in the Bill or in any of the amendments, so that makes no sense. Furthermore, it is not good practice to limit the extent of any consultation. Therefore, while I do not oppose the principle, there is no need for the amendment, and it is defective, so I do not support it.

Similarly, amendment No 37, tabled by Ms Bailey and Miss Woods, is unnecessary. My Department will be consulting widely on the reports under clause 16. Those will be major cross-cutting reports affecting the public and all our key sectors, so a thorough consultation process will have to be conducted. It will take several months to analyse the responses to the consultation, update the report in the light of the responses and then get all the relevant Executive approvals for the report. The reference to "10 working days" and the terminology used of "ending on a period" is pointless and incoherent. The proposal to lay the report at the same time as the results of the public consultation has not been fully thought through. The results of the public consultation will have to be provided at an earlier point than that to allow our Committees etc to scrutinise how the results are being used to inform updates to the reports. In summary, I do not think that we need to incorporate that pointless and flawed amendment. Therefore, I do not support it.

Amendment Nos 39, 40 and 41 have also been tabled by Ms Bailey and Miss Woods. Their purpose is to incorporate additional just transition objectives into my proposed amendment No 38. Amendment No 39 seeks to incorporate the additional term "climate resilient" in the context of jobs, but the definition of climate resilient is defective. It does not make sense in this context. For example, how can a job have the ability of social, economic and environmental systems to adapt to climate change?

Amendment No 40 seeks to omit representatives of the interests of business and industry from the process of engagement to develop consensus. In the context of a just transition and the achievement of just transition objectives, that plainly makes no sense, as Departments should be engaging widely to develop consensus on appropriate actions to be taken. Why would anyone seek to omit certain groups from the process of engagement? Is that really what MLAs are thinking would achieve good democratic process? I do not think so.

Amendment No 41 seeks to incorporate other objectives into my amendment; however, my amendment already covers poverty, inequality and support for those most affected by climate change. The additional objectives are unnecessary, especially as definitions for terms such as the "future generations principle" are so vague as to be meaningless, and our compliance with it would be impossible to measure. I am not in favour of incorporating those additional aspects as they do not add anything to what has already been brought forward. The amendment also aims to establish a just transition fund for agriculture, despite Ms Bailey already putting forward the same proposal separately through amendment No 44. In addition, amendment No 54 covers the same issue.

Both those amendments are in group 4, so we will hear about them in a later debate. I simply do not see a situation where we should pay farmers not to farm just to aim for an unrealistic target. The stark reality is that 2050 net zero will require that, whilst, in 2050, there will be billions more people in the world to feed. How will that work in the long term? What will those farmers do, and what will the future generations of farm families do? We saw, yesterday, the young people who were at the protest and wore T-shirts that read, "Hands off my future, Clare Bailey". It spoke volumes to see those young people who know that something that has been passed for generations before will be denied to them as a consequence of the actions in this House.

I am in regular contact with people in the agriculture sector, and I can assure Members that they do not want to be paid not to farm. I know that, and the Members who tabled the amendment have heard the same messages. I can also assure Members that, despite anything that is put in legislation, it will be very difficult to obtain the necessary funding to finance such a fund and even more difficult to keep the fund going indefinitely. Given the lack of funding from the Department of Finance to support the green growth strategy thus far, I see no evidence whatsoever either that the funding will be made available or, indeed, that the Assembly, at some future point, will say, "We're going to reduce the number of operations that are required. We're going to reduce the number of support packages for people who need care. We're going to reduce the number of places that are available in schools. We're going to increase class sizes in schools. We're going to reduce the number of police officers". I do not see all that happening in order to do this and to make it happen. Therefore, making vague proposals that you cannot fulfil are entirely meaningless and misleading, and I have a real difficulty with that.

The proper thing to do, in the first place, would have been to agree the right target: the target backed by evidence that can deliver a just transition. We would then have been able to work with the sector, which employs over 100,000 people and which is very important to our economy, in order to help it to do what it can to deliver emissions reductions. Had we done that, we would not need to have a just transition fund for agriculture. However, given what occurred yesterday with that target being supported, I will support an amendment to establish a just transition fund for agriculture. As I do not support the other elements of amendment No 41, I would prefer it to be part of a vote on the specific amendments in group 4 on the just transition fund for agriculture. Perhaps the Speaker can confirm whether we need to support amendment No 41 in order to express support for the establishment of a just transition fund for agriculture, as amendment Nos 44 and 54 will be deemed mutually exclusive to amendment No 41. If so, I will support that amendment. Otherwise, I will support one of the later amendments that is designed to set up such a fund. I would appreciate a response before we take the vote.

Regardless of whether we support an amendment to establish a just transition fund for agriculture, I have to ask from where the funding will come. Will that fund cover the potential billions — not millions — that will be needed to compensate our farmers for the reduction in livestock numbers that will be required to meet the net zero target that other parties have supported, even though that is at the expense of other priorities that those parties may support? Those are the consequences of our actions if we take decisions like the one taken yesterday. If we agree to set up a just transition fund for agriculture, it needs to deliver and to be funded properly in order to do that.

I do not support amendment No 42, tabled by Mr McGuigan, Dr Archibald and Mr McAleer, which attempts to make a very minor amendment to amendment No 38. The amendment that I tabled was agreed with the AERA Committee, and I do not support that pointless minor amendment to it as it does not add anything of substance.

Amendment Nos 45 to 49, tabled by Ms Bailey and Miss Woods, attempt to link to clause 16. Through amendment No 45, it is clear that Members are trying to incorporate into this Executive Bill some of the wider environmental elements from the Climate Change Bill that they sponsor. However, the amendment does not work. There is no way to directly link soil quality and biodiversity targets within specific amounts of emissions of greenhouse gases, such as what a carbon budget would outline. Perhaps the Members could have explained, for example, which soil quality and biodiversity targets we should set in order to emit less than 100 megatons of CO2 equivalent gases over five years. They did not do that because they cannot — no one can — so why put it in there? Given the lack of a coherent link between the proposed target areas and carbon budgets, I do not accept that amendment and question why it was not dismissed, given its scope issues.

Amendment No 46 is technically deficient, and, unfortunately, again —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, it is not in order to question the rulings of Mr Speaker. I ask you to withdraw that remark.

Mr Poots: I am happy to withdraw that remark, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.

Amendment No 46 is technically deficient. Unfortunately, again, it highlights the fact that Ms Bailey and Miss Woods do not understand what carbon budgets are or what their purpose is. It is clear that Ms Bailey's Bill tries to provide for both annual greenhouse gas targets and carbon budgets; you have either one or the other. Let me be clear: carbon budgets are the maximum amount of total net emissions that Northern Ireland can emit over five years. The amendment tries to require policies and proposals to ensure that each sector achieves the relevant carbon budget. It should require that emissions across all the sectors combined do not surpass the overall carbon budget. Furthermore, the list of sectors is deficient, because it indicates that one of the sectors is:

That is not a recognised sector anywhere. The list of sectors is not consistent with the sectors used by the Climate Change Committee for the purposes of its analysis and recommendations, which over 90% of respondents to the green growth strategy consultation indicated that they support. I cannot support that amendment.

Amendment No 47 covers nature-based solutions. I tabled amendment No 38, agreed with the AERA Committee, which covers a requirement to support nature-based projects. The proposed amendment from Ms Bailey and Miss Woods does not improve on my amendment in any way. Similarly, amendment No 48 covers impacts on small business, or, at least, that is what the title says, but, again, I have tabled amendment No 38, agreed with the Committee, of which Ms Bailey is a member, which covers requirements to assess the impacts of proposals and policies on small businesses. Amendment No 48 actually covers all businesses and communities, so it is misleading and much broader in scope than is suggested. I will not accept or support amendment No 47 or amendment No 48.

Amendment No 49 purports to require the risk of carbon leakage to be taken into account when setting policies and proposals under clause 16, despite the fact that the Members who tabled the amendment support a target that the experts indicated is likely to lead to carbon leakage. Ms Bailey has indicated that she is happy to offshore food production and reduce the size of our agriculture sector, yet, with this amendment, she tries to address carbon leakage risks. That, plainly, does not make sense, and neither does most of the amendment. If you look at subsections 16H(2) and 16H(3), you will see that it is not clear from them what is meant by "carbon leakage". The terms "substantial" and "unreasonable" are not defined, so how will we know whether such carbon leakage has occurred?

My position on this is clear: if we set the right targets in the first place, we do not need such provisions. We can prevent carbon leakage by supporting our agriculture industry, instead of the food that we currently produce being produced on the other side of the world and possibly even on land that was once part of the Amazon rainforest. However, because of the misjudged position adopted in the House yesterday, I will support the amendment, and I aim to tidy it up for Further Consideration Stage, so that it makes some sense.

Amendment No 51, tabled by Mr McGlone, deals with transboundary coordination in the context of preparing the clause 16 reports. Through my proposed new clause 16A, amendment No 38, I have covered transboundary engagement, and, indeed, the Member's amendment pulls across the relevant text from clause 16A. The additional elements in the amendment do not add anything, and some are problematic. The references to the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council are unclear and inappropriate. The responsibilities and duties of those bodies under Part V of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are placed on Ministers, mainly the First Minister and deputy First Minister, rather than on Departments.

The references to the Programme for Government and international targets and obligations are misplaced and unnecessary. The proposals and policies referred to are those that will enable us to meet carbon budgets in Northern Ireland, and, if we do that, we will meet our domestic and international commitments. Parts of the clause are consequential on a climate change commissioner and a climate office being established under proposed new clause 28F. I will not support the proposed amendment, as my amendment adequately covers coordination with other jurisdictions and does not have any questionable or pointless elements.

The final two amendments in the group were tabled by Mr McGuigan, Dr Archibald and Mr McAleer. Amendment No 76 attempts to amend clause 29 to place a requirement on Departments to:

The amendment is unnecessary, however, as transboundary coordination is already covered by amendment No 38, which I tabled. There are also potential competence issues with the amendment, because it would, effectively, require Departments to follow what is done in the Republic of Ireland. Clearly, that is not appropriate. I would also like to highlight that the legislation in the Republic of Ireland does not contain any similar requirements. Thus far, the Republic of Ireland has a very poor record in reducing emissions. It has actually increased its emissions since 1990, unlike Northern Ireland, which has reduced its emissions.

The Republic of Ireland does not have a target for net zero by 2050 either, so if we aligned with the Republic of Ireland target, we would perhaps need to remove what was voted for yesterday because it is going for carbon neutrality. That is an interesting nuance, but it is not net zero by 2050, and I want to point that out to Members.

We clearly want plans and policies that work best for us, and we want to align them with the plans and policies of whatever jurisdiction is having the greatest success in tackling climate change. We also want to ensure that Northern Ireland Departments have the ability to make their own decisions about their actions.

Amendment No 80 inserts a new definition for "sector" that has the same issues that are in amendment No 46. The amendment is also, presumably, required only if other amendments on sectors are passed, but it is not clear exactly what amendment it links to. In any event, I do not support amendment Nos 79 and 80.

To sum up, my proposed new clause 16A, which is amendment No 38, will cover coherently and in one place so many of the other amendments that Members tabled. I am a little disappointed that so many similar, albeit incoherent, amendments have been tabled by members of the AERA Committee, which spent several months deliberating on the Bill and which agreed to my amendment during those deliberations. I cannot support the majority of those amendments as they do not add anything to the Bill. They make it less coherent, less operable and more restrictive.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Given that it is now 1.00 pm and the House has been debating for two and a half hours, I propose that we break the sitting into two-and-a-half-hour blocks. Judging by the weight of the debate thus far, I suspect that, once we get past the summing-up, we will spend quite some time voting, so I propose, by leave of the House, to suspend the sitting until 1.40 pm.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Mr John Blair to make a winding-up speech to the debate on the group 2 amendments.

Mr Blair: I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. In my contribution, I outlined — I will repeat it because we need to emphasise it — that Northern Ireland is the only place in the UK, Ireland and Europe not to have its own form of net zero climate law and associated frameworks. We are undoubtedly lagging behind in tackling the climate crisis. We can, however, hit the ground running with the best practice already tried and tested in other regions and countries. We need ambition at a political level because the opportunities are ours for the taking.

In responding to points raised by Members during the debate, I will focus on comments specifically on amendments rather than those on broader issues. The debate started with the AERA Committee Chair, Declan McAleer, who spoke about the just transition issues in the amendments and the Committee's wish that the Department should be obligated in just transition preparations. He also referred to nature-based solutions. On amendments that some of us either tabled or tried to table, his mention of sequestration was addressed by my party. I know that the Chair of the Committee is aware of that.

Committee member William Irwin then spoke. Although not related directly to the amendments, he repeated his opposition to the net zero target set yesterday, and I respect his right to do that.

He spoke to amendment No 28 and about responsibilities that sit with the Department for Infrastructure rather than with DAERA. No one doubts that, and other Members, including my colleague Andrew Muir, have mentioned today the responsibilities that sit with the Department for Infrastructure and other Departments. Mr Irwin also mentioned the Minister's amendment No 38 and seemed to presume that it would not be supported by the House. As far as I am aware, neither I nor my colleagues have any problem with that amendment.

Dolores Kelly spoke on behalf of her colleague Patsy McGlone, another AERA Committee member, and said that she supported amendment Nos 18, 19 and 21 to 28. She also suggested that North/South Ministerial Council mechanisms be used to enable cooperation.

Dr Aiken spoke of his general support for sectoral plans, which appear in a number of the amendments. He also engaged with my colleague Stewart Dickson on extending the responsibilities of the Utility Regulator. Mr Dickson referred to the fact that he had made efforts during the Bill's legislative process to do that.

Philip McGuigan spoke in favour of amendment No 18 but suggested that, at this stage at least, amendment Nos 19 to 28, in the absence of detail, presented some problems. I contend that there may be opportunities, through further discussion at Further Consideration Stage, to deal with the issues. Harry Harvey, another AERA Committee member, also mentioned amendment No 38 and referred to the fact that it may well receive support.

Dr Archibald spoke extensively on Sinn Féin's position and gave her broad support to amendment No 18. Another AERA Committee member, Rosemary Barton, on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, expressed support for amendment Nos 18 to 26 and 28 but not amendment No 27 on a land-use strategy. I will come back to that in a moment when talking about other Members' comments on similar amendments.

Andrew Muir, as a party colleague and a member of the Infrastructure Committee, spoke about the Department for Infrastructure's required actions that relate directly to the amendments. He also spoke in support of amendment No 28.

Stewart Dickson explained in more detail amendment Nos 19 and 22. Rachel Woods then spoke in support of, and provided detail on, amendment Nos 39, 40 and 41, which she and her Green Party colleague tabled. She also spoke to amendment Nos 45 to 49. I said that I would return to the matter of a land-use strategy. I, along with colleagues, would be very supportive of what she said, especially around biodiversity issues. All those things link, whether through policy or the amendments before us today.

The Minister spoke on behalf of himself and the Department. I thank him for his review of the amendments, his reflection on decisions taken already and the comments that he made about sectoral plans, although, I suggest that there will be opportunities, at Further Consideration Stage and through other channels, to look at the issues of alignment of sectoral plans and get further detail on them. Although the Minister is not here, as a member of the AERA Committee, I want to acknowledge the amendments that he and the Department brought forward in response to requests from the Committee.

As we move toward voting on the amendments in group 2, I will say in conclusion that, if we were to fall behind now, we could stay behind forever and risk losing out on economic benefits, new green industries, new jobs, export opportunities and other countless opportunities. I appeal to colleagues across the House to consider the bespoke sectoral plans and to support our industries to decarbonise and also to create an equitable and sustainable economy filled with well-paid, secure green jobs in existing and emerging industries.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I ask for Members' indulgence, as we now have quite a bit to get through.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Amendment No 19 has already been debated.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I put the Question again, I remind Members present that, if possible, it would be preferable to avoid a Division.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Before the Assembly divides, I remind Members that, as per Standing Order 112, the Assembly currently has proxy voting arrangements in place. Members who have authorised another Member to vote on their behalf are not entitled to vote in person and should not enter the Lobbies. I remind all Members of the requirement for social distancing while the Division takes place. I ask you, Members, to ensure that you maintain a gap of at least 2 metres between you and others when moving around in the Chamber or Rotunda and especially in the Lobbies. Please be patient at all times, observe the signage and follow the instructions of the Lobby Clerks.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 113(5)(b), there is an agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division. I remind all Members of the requirement for social distancing while the Division takes place. I ask Members to ensure that they retain a gap of at least 2 metres between them and other people while moving around the Chamber or the Rotunda and especially in the Lobbies.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Amendment No 22 has already been debated.

Mr Speaker: Amendment No 29 is a paving amendment to a number of others.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.