Official Report: Monday 28 February 2022

Mr Speaker: Mrs Michelle O'Neill has been given leave to make a statement on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their places and continue to do so. All Members who are called will have up to three minutes in which to speak on the subject. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted and that I will not take points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business is finished.

Mrs O'Neill: I, like all of you, am deeply saddened and troubled by what has unfolded before the eyes of the world in recent days and by the absolute misery and total devastation that is being directed at the people of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin and his military regime. The military threat to peace, security and the well-being of Ukraine is a global threat to us all. It is a brutal attack on Ukrainian sovereignty, international law and democracy.

Today, I want all parties to join in utterly condemning the actions of Vladimir Putin and his regime against the Government and courageous and dignified people of Ukraine and extend our solidarity to them. Our solidarity with Ukraine must take the form of support for significantly strengthened sanctions against the regime of President Putin. We need sanctions that can end Russian aggression against Ukraine and force a complete withdrawal of Russian military forces. The sanctions announced to date against the Russian Federation and the oligarch elites who are close to President Putin have come from the EU, the US and the British Government. However, they are not deterring the ongoing invasion of Ukraine, which we know is escalating, with Putin making a direct threat by ordering his nuclear forces to move to a higher state of alert.

Removing selected Russian banks from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) messaging system to cut them off from international financial systems and harm their ability to operate globally is a welcome measure. Freezing the assets of Russia's central bank to limit Russia's ability to access its overseas reserves is critical. Limiting the sale of citizenship via golden passports, which allow wealthy Russians to become citizens, and identifying and freezing the assets of sanctioned individuals and companies is imperative.

Australia has imposed sanctions on over 300 members of the Russian Parliament who voted to authorise sending Russian troops into Ukraine.

BP has withdrawn its stake as the biggest foreign investor in Rosneft, at a cost of $25 billion. The EU must act and impose sanctions on such a scale that there can be no doubt that Putin and his oligarch supporters will pay a huge price for choosing a course of military conflict over dialogue and diplomacy. Russian diplomats and apologists for Putin who are based in London and Dublin should be expelled today, without delay.

Turning to the people of Ukraine, we have all witnessed and been very saddened to see the harrowing scenes of families being divided and forced to flee their land and homes, clutching a child in one arm and, perhaps, all their belongings in the other. We must all welcome with open arms those who are fleeing. There must be no visa restrictions on those being forced to leave their homes. The British Government approach must ensure safe and seamless entry on humanitarian grounds with no conditions applied. We all want to see a de-escalation of Russian aggression and conflict, including a ceasefire, and dialogue with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's officials, aimed at restoring peace and respect for international law, must be achieved as they meet at the Belarusian border today and in the days ahead.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: Last Thursday morning, we woke up to the sight of something that many of us have never seen in our lifetime — tanks rolling into the territory of a sovereign European nation, the nation of Ukraine. Innocent Ukrainians, over the past four days, have been cowering in underground stations and bunkers, cowering from the soldiers and the weapons of mass destruction sent by Vladimir Putin and his gangster regime. For far too long, Putin's regime has undermined democracy across the democratic world, and, in doing so, he has intimidated those nations on Russia's periphery. The actions by that ganister regime are totally unacceptable. They are unacceptable not only at a geostrategic level but because they are committing war crimes. They are in breach of international law and are inflicting enormous trauma on the innocent people of Ukraine.

We have all, over the past few days, been watching the courage and resilience of not only the Ukrainian people but their president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. They have inspired the world. After a slow start, Western countries have stepped up the process of applying severe financial and economic sanctions to the Putin regime. My party and I welcome the measures taken yesterday by the European Union. They were overdue. We also need to see a ramping up of the humanitarian response to the crisis. The EU has completely waived its visa requirements for Ukrainians fleeing Putin's terror machine. The UK should do so now; it should have done so already. It is, frankly, immoral that Priti Patel and the Home Office have not done so.

It is worth briefly reflecting on what has happened over the past couple of decades in which Putin and his regime have not just turned Russia into a bloody, gangster regime but have used various means to insinuate control over democratic institutions here in the Western world, including things like their television station, RT. I am sorry to say that some people decided to appear on that television station, including members of parties represented in this Chamber. I am also sorry to say that some of the parties represented in the Chamber failed, in the European Parliament several months ago, to vote for a motion of censure against Vladimir Putin. They should be asked to account for that.

We should all now be focusing on de-escalating this crisis and on ensuring that the people of Ukraine have the solidarity and support that they need to get this murderous gangster off their territory and return Europe to a position of stability. As a proud European, I stand in solidarity today with my fellow Europeans in Ukraine as they deal with the murderous, gangster regime of Vladimir Putin.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Muir: Today, we consider an atrocity that is occurring not far from here. In fact, the flight to Ukraine is a shorter journey than we sometimes take for a holiday. The murder, mayhem and human rights abuses being perpetrated are very close to home. My thoughts are with the people being murdered and living in fear of lives and liberties being lost from the advance of Russian troops at the behest of a most evil man, a thug whose only place should be in front of the International Criminal Court.

What is sadly unfolding is not altogether surprising, because it comes on the back of the invasions of Crimea and Georgia and of widespread human rights abuses across Russia: killing and casting into prison those who courageously dare to oppose, imprisoning dissenters, journalists and anti-corruption activists, and persecuting ethnic and religious minorities and LGBT people. My thoughts are especially with my fellow LGBT brothers and sisters. Lenny Emson, executive director of Kyiv Pride, said:

That comes on the back of the interference in elections, from the Brexit referendum to the US presidential elections, and of politicians in the UK and beyond all too willing to accept funding from Russian oligarchs. All the warning signs were there, but the action has far too often been too little, too late.

Last night, the EU agreed that all member countries would take in Ukrainian refugees for up to three years without asking them to first apply for asylum. Meanwhile, the UK Government continue to fail to provide a similar response. A full and generous humanitarian response is needed. The Tory Minister for Safe and Legal Migration said it all, really. He said that Ukrainians fleeing Russian invasion could apply to pick fruit on UK farms. What an appalling comment. The Russian Government should be treated as an international pariah. If ever there was a need for inter-cooperation and interdependence, it is now. The world can count its lucky blessings that we do not have Donald Trump any more as US president. The duty is now upon us all to act, and act now.

Mr Carroll: The actions of Vladimir Putin — his bombardment and invasion of Ukraine, and the consideration of nuclear weapons — have to be resolutely condemned and opposed. I send my solidarity of the people of Ukraine who have fallen victim to this act of war and aggression, which has caused revulsion across the world. I pay tribute to the bravery of anti-war protesters across the world who are taking a stand to say no to war again, particularly the brave protesters in Russia who are facing jail time and brutal repression for taking a courageous stand against their own Government's descent into war. This not only gives hope to the heart but paves the way for an alternative path. Russians and Ukrainians can all come together in a peaceful way that does not promote war over dialogue and discussion.

For some time now, the UK Government have disgracefully operated a hostile environment policy towards refugees and those fleeing war and occupation. They must urgently end that brutal policy for Ukrainians but also for Syrians, Yemenis, Palestinians and everyone who is fleeing the brutal boot of aerial bombardment. The Tory Government cannot be selective in who they let in or view as worthy refugees. Everybody who needs and wants to be here should be welcomed.

We should not be one-sided in condemning militarism, occupation and aggression. We should be condemning them in whatever guise and wherever they appear. In the region around Russia and Ukraine, Vladimir Putin is not the only nasty force engaged in militarism, civilian killings and occupation. What has been largely lacking in conversations about events in and around Ukraine, and eastern Europe generally, is the aggressive and expansionist role of NATO in Europe and elsewhere across the world. Far from being an innocent party that defends democracy, NATO is the armed wing of western imperialism. Its expansion has been a key factor in heightening tensions, now leading to an all-out war. NATO is a military alliance that is dominated by the US. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, repeated promises were made to Russia that NATO would not expand eastwards, but the US is obviously terrified about its declining economic role and wants to use its military prowess to gain extra leverage for its corporations.

We need to call out the aggressive role of —

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: You cannot.

Mr Speaker: Sorry, Member, he cannot.

Mr Carroll: We need to call out the aggressive role of NATO and its members and those states that are willing to pour fuel on the fire, which will, no doubt, increase the casualties and cause untold devastation. We need to see de-escalation, demilitarisation and an end to the chest-beating drive to war.

In the last number of days, there has obviously been discussion about sanctions —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Carroll: No to war. No to escalation.

Mr Allister: Putin would be proud of you. [Inaudible.]

Mr Speaker: Order, Members.

Mr Buckley: It is clear that Mr Putin has an ally in Mr Carroll in the Chamber.

To begin, I commend the bravery of the ordinary citizens of Ukraine in standing up to tyranny. The light of democracy burns bright in their hearts, minds and souls. I can only begin to comprehend the huge pain and suffering that has been inflicted on many of them. Sadly, many in Northern Ireland can draw many similarities with being under the threat of terrorism on their shores.

Over the weekend, I spoke to my good Ukrainian friend Oskanna. She lives in Kyiv with her husband and children, and she is worried sick about what a day will bring in Ukraine. My heart and total admiration are with the Ukrainian people, who are worried for their safety but determined to fight for their homeland. I think particularly of those from our shores who are doing Christian missionary and humanitarian work in Ukraine at this time and are determined to stay to help to support the Ukrainian people.

The West's response, albeit slow to begin with, has been heartening and should give us all heart. With the exception of some, the international community has been united in its response in isolating Russia and calling it out for what it is. We must stand up to the Russian Federation and to Vladimir Putin, who has all the hallmarks of a 21st-century Adolf Hitler. I do not say that lightly. Time will bear out just how serious a situation it becomes. The West must wake up and realise that it must be united if Putin is to be contained and curtailed.

I believe in and support the work of NATO and its desire to ensure that European countries should be in control of their destiny, rather than having the boot put on them by tyrants such as Vladimir Putin and, indeed, his allies. Compare his actions with those of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. I will close on this: when asked about assistance from the West, Zelenskyy said:

We cannot be complicit. The West must stand united and take on Russia with all its might, economically and through other means.

Mr Butler: The one thing that we will be united on in the House is that we are saddened, worried and concerned about the innocent people in Ukraine who are under immense danger at the hand of tyranny. I do not want to reflect on Mr Putin to give him too much airtime or headspace. We have just gone past the centenary of the end of the First World War. We had the Second World War, and the reality, pain and ripples of that are still being felt throughout the world. The fact that, in 2022, someone is prepared not only to inflict pain on the Ukrainians but to make the threats that he has made over the past 48 hours, with his warnings to the rest of the world, forces each and every one of us to sit up and recognise the danger that still exists.

It is slightly disappointing that some of the commentary here today has been a little bit political and has not focused on the victims who are in fear and pain, this very day; not only those in Ukraine but those across the world who are connected to the families there.

I pay particular tribute to the people from Ukraine who have settled in Northern Ireland and spoke so bravely about their families in Ukraine who are living in fear. Those same families are standing up to a tyrant and giving an example to every one of us.

The people from Ukraine who have settled in other parts of the world but are now travelling back to Ukraine to face up to the tyrant deserve our support. Let us depoliticise what we say in the Chamber and ensure that every message that we send offers hope and support, whatever that will be and by whatever means it happens, to ensure that the people of Ukraine remain free in their sovereign nation.

The difference between Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy is incredible to watch. One goes to the front line and provides leadership for his people and does not sit in his capital directing other people to their slaughter, including Russians and Russian soldiers. Many thousands of Russian soldiers will be killed in this senseless and needless battle. My final tribute will, strangely, be to the brave people in Moscow and across Russia who have taken to the streets to protest against their leader in a country where, over all these years, doing that almost certainly ends in imprisonment or death. We also need to support those people.

Miss Woods: I thank the Member for bringing this important Matter of the Day this afternoon. The recent Russian invasion of Ukraine is a vile act of aggression and an appalling and abhorrent breach of international law that has brought death, destruction, displacement and human rights abuses to innocent civilians. It did not just start last week on 24 February; it has been going on for years.

Most of us will not be able to comprehend the situation in which many in Ukraine find themselves now, but we stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine and call on the UK Government to step up their humanitarian response. Hundreds of thousands of families have already fled the country, and we have all witnessed in the media the scenes across Ukraine over the weekend, with families, children and individuals trying to seek safety, help and support. Many thousands more will attempt to escape the conflict, and, according to the UN Refugee Agency, the number of people fleeing the conflict in Ukraine passed half a million this morning. The Home Office must look at the example being set by other countries and provide safe and secure routes for refugees, and that includes providing safe and secure routes for people to come to Northern Ireland. That goes for anybody needing to seek sanctuary, not just those from Ukraine.

We should not place a bureaucratic burden on desperate people. All paperwork must be streamlined and fast-tracked and should come with no strings attached or further barriers put in people's way. The situation faced by innocent Ukrainians who have been forced to flee their homes requires a far more urgent and compassionate response than what we have seen from Westminster so far.

Out thoughts and prayers are with the people of Ukraine today. We send them all our strength and support at this incredibly difficult time.

Mr Allister: The brutal aggression of the evil Putin is something that, I trust, has shocked and sickened all of us, even those with ideological attachment to support for the Soviet-style system, which today stands exposed in all its viciousness as a movement of anti-humanitarianism. I deplore the fact that some still seek to provide diversion and excuses by attacking NATO, which stands between us all and this evil form of conquering aggression.

In standing with Ukraine, I am proud of the fact that anti-tank weaponry made in Belfast is being supplied to help the Ukrainians in their brave stand. That is anti-tank weaponry that, in the past, some in the House have opposed the manufacturing of, yet today it is helping to protect Ukraine. I greatly welcome that.

There has been some talk of the EU's stand, but no one has yet mentioned the appalling fact that the Republic of Ireland is abstaining from the lethal support that the EU is prepared to give to Ukraine. In pursuit of its so-called neutrality, it is refusing to engage in the supply of vital lethal equipment to the people of Ukraine. Of course, we in Northern Ireland are well used to the impact of the Republic of Ireland's ambiguity when it comes to withstanding terrorism. The Republic of Ireland armed and sustained the IRA and provided it with training bases. It denied extradition and gave those terrorists all the succour and support that they needed. It is maybe no surprise that, today, the Republic of Ireland refuses to join in the Europe-wide provision of lethal support to the people of Ukraine.

My heart goes out to those who are withstanding this vicious attack. I trust that they will stand with all the fervour that they are demonstrating and that, even against the might that they face, right will prevail.

Ms Sugden: I appreciate the opportunity to record my solidarity with Ukraine. As a regional Assembly of the United Kingdom, we are somewhat limited in what we can directly contribute other than leadership, influence and humanitarian support. It feels surreal that, in 2022, Ukraine finds itself under such vicious attack. Babies are being treated in closets instead of hospitals; people are fleeing their homes and businesses; and others are taking a fatal risk because they do not have a choice. The Ukrainian president has confirmed that 16 Ukrainian children have been killed and 45 injured. I fear that that is only the beginning, and I hope that the planned negotiations will, at least, ensure a ceasefire. I am sceptical, however, because the war began long before the recent conflict, and Mr Putin has an aim.

I will not attempt to make sense of Russia's motivation, other than to say that it seems that a man who has more money than is currently valuable to him is choosing power at the expense of lives, businesses and the democratic will of the Ukrainian people. We must unite in resisting his ego and supporting those who suffer because of it. As an Assembly, we need to show our support for international sanctions against Russia. We need to send a clear message that the situation is unacceptable and that there will be consequences. I recognise, however, that there will also be consequences for UK businesses, including those in Northern Ireland. The Department for the Economy and the wider Northern Ireland Executive must review the situation and provide support to those who will be affected by it.

I also hope that the UK will offer a home to those fleeing the conflict. I hope that the Northern Ireland Executive are preparing for that potential outcome or, at least, empowering civil servants to do so as we move towards dissolution. It is heartening to see efforts across Northern Ireland to support the Ukrainian people as they seek refuge from the conflict in nearby countries. People in my constituency are already collecting for humanitarian aid, and I will offer my office as a drop-off point.

I stand with Ukraine. My heart goes out to those who have lost loved ones in recent days, and I only hope that there is no more bloodshed. I also stand with those in Russia who do not want this, because they, too, will be caught up in Putin's reckless chaos.

Ms Dillon: I want to speak about the impact of the situation on the children. We have heard much about the politics of the issue, but children, as always in conflicts across the world, are the ones who are most vulnerable and will suffer the most. We heard UNICEF say this morning that over seven million children will suffer as a result of this aggressive act. I ask everybody who is in a position to do so to support UNICEF and the aid that is trying to give to ensure that those children are protected. Children are the most vulnerable, and they are even more vulnerable when they are on the move. As we heard this morning, over half a million families are on the move. As an Assembly and across the Western World, we must give any support and assistance that we can to ensure the protection of the children who will be made very vulnerable at this time. We have an absolute responsibility to protect children in conflict, and, in this conflict, we owe that to them.

Mr Chambers: The sanctions imposed by countries throughout the world are already starting to bite Russia. The people who will suffer are the ordinary people of Russia, the majority of whom do not support the warmongering of Putin and his team of maniacs.

Many body bags will be starting to arrive back to towns and villages throughout Russia in the coming days. The remains of young men and women who were forced into participating in this illegal invasion will be in those body bags. Behind the brave and legitimate defences that have been put in place by the people of Ukraine, innocent families are having their homes destroyed by the indiscriminate Russian missile attacks. Women and children are among the victims who are being killed and injured. We have heard from Ms Sugden the extent of that.

Tens of thousands of Russians are out protesting at the actions of Putin, and they are doing so under the threat that they will be arrested and punished. Those brave people will be the movement that will eventually consign Putin and his acolytes to the waste bin of history, which is where he belongs. That cannot happen quickly enough. I stand with the people of Ukraine, who are bearing the pain of having their country and their family life destroyed by a tyrant. May the will of good triumph over evil.

Mr Dickson: I rise to speak on the tragic situation in Ukraine. On 16 February, with the prolonged tension with Ukraine continuing, the Russian envoy to the European Union declared that wars "rarely start on a Wednesday". In the early hours of Thursday morning, Putin declared war on Ukraine. In those few moments, explosions were heard throughout the country, and, by afternoon, 160 Ukrainians were injured and 60 were dead. Those were the first and opening moments of Putin's war.

As many of us sit here in the island of Ireland on the edge of Europe, we can only wonder and express our concern about what is going on in a major European country and city. It cannot be overstated that Ukraine is a European nation of 44 million people. Men, women and children are now targets of a full-scale war of aggression. When Putin invaded Crimea, he got away with it unscathed; when he carried out the Salisbury poisonings, it was unremarkable; now, his most recent escalation is going to set and trigger a prolonged conflict.

I represent the Assembly at the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities at the Council of Europe (CLRAE). I have 12 colleagues there who are mayors. One whom I spoke to this morning, Hanna Zamazeeva, is the leader of the Donetsk oblast. That means that she is president of an assembly that represents more people than we do in the Northern Ireland Assembly. When she was elected, she did not believe that she was going to be given a machine gun to defend the people in her village. Twelve hours ago, Russian troops and their tanks rolled into her village and crushed towns and murdered people. That is why we are here today. We are here to stand up for democracy, for what is right, for elected representatives and for democracy in Ukraine.

Ukraine is a democratic state. We are politicians in a democratic state, and we have a duty and responsibility to support Ukraine in every way that we can, including by humanitarian aid, pleading with our Government to do what is right and standing in the Chamber and appealing for peace in Ukraine.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Matter of the Day.

Mr Speaker: Andrew Muir has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes in which to speak.

Mr Muir: Today I am presenting a petition with 546 signatures calling upon the Minister for Infrastructure to withdraw the proposed abandonment order that has been issued for Green Road in Conlig in my constituency. That abandonment order risks the demolition of the historic Belfast and County Down railway bridge and must be opposed. Whilst the railway line was closed in 1950 and various features of the railway, such as the trackbed, have been removed, many aspects of the old line between Newtownards and Donaghadee remain in place, including numerous bridges, such as the one that is now threatened with demolition. I have been working with residents for a number of years on how best we can preserve that old railway bridge. It has a strong connection to the area, with the nearby Stonebridge housing development named after the it. I remember driving over the bridge before the road was moved to bypass it.

Engagement with the council, the Department for Communities and the Department for Infrastructure has revealed limited mechanisms to protect the bridge if an abandonment order is made, other than the council's local development plan, which could be years away from being adopted. Currently, there is no ability to list and protect Stonebridge, so the withdrawal of the abandonment order is our last hope for preventing its demolition.

In only a number of weeks, hundreds of local residents have signed the petition to voice their opposition to the potential destruction of this piece of local history. Plans are under way for the creation of a new greenway from Bangor to Newtownards. The preservation of Stonebridge and its inclusion in those plans will provide a natural marker point for people who walk or cycle that route, thereby preserving our history whilst looking towards a cleaner, greener and more active future.

It is vital that we protect and preserve our pieces of industrial heritage. Far too often, they have been demolished or left to go to rack and ruin. I urge the Minister to act swiftly to withdraw the proposed abandonment order.

Mr Speaker: As the Member will be aware, I would normally invite him to bring his petition to the Table and present it. However, in light of social distancing, I ask the Member to remain in his place and to make arrangements to submit the petition to my office electronically. I thank the Member for bringing the petition to the attention of the Assembly. Once the petition is received, I will forward it to the Minister for Infrastructure and send a copy to the Committee.

Mr Speaker: Members, the next item of business in the Order Paper is the consideration of business not concluded on Thursday 24 February. As all business was concluded when the Assembly adjourned last Thursday, there is nothing to consider under that item. We will move on.

Mr Muir: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister for the Economy that he 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 or 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 per se, and long introductions should not be used. I also remind Members that, in accordance with long-established procedure, points of order are not normally taken during the statement or the question period immediately after it.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will update members on the high street scheme.

I am delighted to open this statement by informing the House that the high street scheme has been a huge success and achieved exactly what it set out to do. It brought shoppers back onto the high street and has helped our local retail, hospitality and service sectors to start their journey of recovery from the devastating impact of the pandemic.

I know that the House, local media and members of the public all have a keen interest in the data that the Department will publish on the high street scheme. My Department has already published three sets of infographics on verified applications. The most recent publication covered the launch of the scheme until its close. My Department will formally publish official statistics on the scheme later next month, along with findings from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency's (NISRA) COVID-19 opinion survey, in which members of the public were asked a range of questions on the high street scheme.

NISRA is completing a detailed analysis of the breakdown of spend across the economy, and there are clear rules on the handling of those statistics that are not in my control. In the interest of open government, we will publish all the information that we are able to. Indeed, it is in our interest to show how successful the scheme has been.

Much of the information will be of significant value to the planned evaluation of the scheme. That evaluation will consider a full range of evaluation metrics, including the scheme's performance against its original objectives. It will also consider an assessment of its economic impact, including through assessments of additionality, of the potential for economic multipliers and of attitudinal changes across society that it may have influenced.

In advance of that, my Department is today publishing management information on the scheme that covers the number of residents who were issued with a card; the number and percentage of cards that were activated; the total spend; the number of transactions and amount spent by local government district; and the number of transactions and amount spent by postcode. Before doing so, I will present to the House some of the key information from that early analysis. It is important to note, however, that the information has not undergone the same rigorous quality-assurance checks that will be undertaken prior to the publication of the official statistics.

I am really pleased to announce that 1,399,051 people were issued with a Spend Local card, of which 1,393,043 cards — 99·6%— were activated. That is a tremendous achievement. The scheme was designed to provide an economic boost to the local economy, and, to that end, £136·6 million has been injected into the local economy, leading to an improved level of consumer confidence and increased levels of public spending. That can be clearly seen from the fact that nearly 1·4 million customers visited our local shops, restaurants, bars, cafes, cinemas and hairdressers across all parts of Northern Ireland during the lifetime of the scheme, with over 3·7 million new transactions being made using the Spend Local card. We know that many of those customers ended up spending much more than £100 on local goods and services, so the actual additional spend could be significantly higher than £136·6 million.

That early analysis shows that the benefits of the scheme were enjoyed in all parts of Northern Ireland: in every one of our local constituencies and in every local government district. Over £27 million was spent in the Belfast City Council area, while over £12 million was spent in the Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council area. Over £10 million was spent in each of the following local council areas: Newry, Mourne and Down; Derry City and Strabane; Antrim and Newtownabbey; Lisburn and Castlereagh; and Ards and North Down. In the Mid and East Antrim Borough Council area, the figure spent was over £9 million. In the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area and the Mid Ulster District Council area, more than £8 million was spent, while the figure for the Fermanagh and Omagh District Council area was just over £7·5 million.

We will publish those figures on the Department's website today, along with a breakdown of spend and transaction by postcode so that Members and the general public can see for themselves the direct boost that the high street scheme has brought to those retail, hospitality and service businesses closest to them.

The scale of the task of delivering the high street scheme was unprecedented and should not be underestimated. We implemented a process that manufactured, dispatched and delivered cards to close to 1·4 million people. Each card was unique to each applicant and included bespoke embossed cards for the visually impaired and blind. We worked tirelessly with local traders and the business community to ensure their understanding of the scheme, to incentivise sales and to encourage spending, and I believe that Members will agree that it was worth it. I am sure that they will have heard the same positive messages from businesses in their constituency that I have heard, but that has also been confirmed by independent analysis.

According to an Ulster Bank survey, retail sales in Northern Ireland rose in November 2021 for the first time in four months, with, as the bank's chief economist, Richard Ramsey, said, the high street scheme:

Research in December 2021 also showed an increase in shoppers on Northern Ireland's high streets. The figures that were published by the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium (NIRC) showed a boost in the number of people going into shops or businesses in October, which continued in November following the introduction of the high street scheme. In November, the number of shoppers in Northern Ireland reached its highest point so far when compared with the pre-pandemic level.

Aodhán Connolly, the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium director, commented that:

The people from whom I was most pleased to hear were the business owners who needed the scheme to help them to cope with the impact of the pandemic. Those individuals — shopkeepers, barbers, newsagents, publicans, cafe owners, the list goes on — brought home to me why the scheme was so important.

Although the vast majority of verified applicants to the scheme received their Spend Local cards before the scheme closed, a small proportion of the verified applicants — fewer than 0·4% — did not receive a card, while some others encountered difficulties when activating and using their card. I apologise to those applicants and want to make it clear that there were a number of contributing factors, such as issues with the postal service and errors in applications, including incorrect addresses being entered, that resulted in cards being sent to the wrong addresses. I offer my sincere thanks and appreciation to all the Members who worked, and continue to work, with my officials to help their constituents. I assure you that my officials used maximum flexibility and worked until the very last second to ensure that as many people as possible received a card and were able to support local businesses.

Recently, in recognition of the fact that some verified applicants did not receive a card and that others had encountered difficulties when activating and using their card, I announced that we would be making remedy payments to eligible applicants. The applicants eligible for a potential remedy payment will be verified applicants who did not receive a Spend Local card, or received their card after the scheme closed; verified applicants who had issues activating or using their card that were outside of their control and have a remaining balance of £10 or more; and eligible applicants who did not receive a Spend Local card as a result of service failure by the Department. It is anticipated that the total cost of delivering remedy payments will be in the region of £1 million to £1·5 million. That will be met from the scheme's underspend.

On 17 February 2022, my Department sent an email to approximately 22,500 people to notify them that they may be eligible to receive a remedy payment. A follow-up email will be issued in mid-March, which will provide details on how to apply and contain a link to apply for a remedy payment. Those eligible for a remedy payment who applied via telephone and did not provide an email address will have a letter issued to them in the coming days to notify them of the next steps in the process.

Once verified and approved for a remedy payment, eligible applicants will receive a remedy payment equal to the value of the balance that remained on their card at the time of the scheme's closure. I ask that everyone shows patience while my officials finalise the setting up of an automated system to administer the remedy payments. It is anticipated that they will be made in late March or early April. I encourage all eligible applicants to use their remedy payment to support local businesses in their area that have been impacted by the pandemic.

However, I want to make it clear that remedy payments do not mean that the scheme is being reopened. Remedy payments will not be made to individuals who did not submit an application or applicants who did not provide sufficient evidence of eligibility and were subsequently rejected, unless strong evidence is presented to demonstrate that a service failure occurred.

There is no doubt that the past two years have been tough for our local businesses, but I am confident about the future of local businesses right across Northern Ireland. The pandemic has only highlighted their resilience and creativity. I thank the tens of thousands of participating retailers, many of which incentivised spend by offering additional savings, and the cardholders who activated their cards and went out to the high street and supported local businesses. You all played your part in injecting £136·6 million into our high street, just when it was needed most, and you should all be proud of that.

I commend the statement to the House.

Dr Archibald (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I thank the Minister for his statement and that update. Minister, you set out the scope of the remedy payments; you said that they will be available to those who did not receive a card due to a service failure by the Department. How are those people identified?

If people feel that they fall into that category and have not yet received an email, can they get in touch with the Department?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. In particular, I encourage Members of the House to get in contact directly with us. After the statement today, I will provide details on the way in which Members can do that, so that they can raise the matter with us if there has been maladministration on the part of the Department. We will, obviously, seek information to ensure that there was an error and that they tried to apply post-verification and were not able to get that in some way. We stand ready to help those who, through no fault of their own, did not get their card and were not able to support local businesses as others did.

Mr Weir: I thank the Minister for his statement. In my constituency, there has been positive feedback from retailers and other businesses; indeed, I should confess that the suit I am wearing today was partly purchased with the £100 from the high street voucher. Obviously, the scheme acted as a multiplier of the money that went into that clothes shop in Newtownards. What is the Minister's assessment of the impact that the high street voucher scheme has had on my constituency of Strangford?

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member very much for his question and for a show-and-tell today in bringing one he made earlier to show how he was able to use his card. It is another example of how people not only used their card but added money to that card.

I am pleased to report that, in his local government district of Ards and North Down, there were 296,202 transactions and a total spend in his council area of £10,261,342. That is an incredible boost to local businesses; in fact, I was in that council area last week and heard directly from businesses about the impact that it had. I heard not only about how it got businesses through a difficult time but about how they continue to get customers who, perhaps, tried out a shop for the first time or for the first time in a while and have come back since. I will be delighted to share the information on the specific postcodes. In BT22, which includes Newtownards, there was £432,000 of spend. In BT23, there was £4,306,000 of spend. There was over £1 million in Ballynahinch, which, I think, is in the Member's constituency. All of that information will be on the Department's website today.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I acknowledge that this was a novel scheme. It took a huge amount of work by your Department to get it delivered, and it definitely will have had a positive impact on and been welcomed by many retailers. However, in analysing its effectiveness, it is important that we unpack a couple of things.

You refer in your statement to research in December 2021 showing an increase in shoppers: of course, most Decembers see an increase in footfall, with respect, and that is why the spend was designed to be avoided in December. Does the data that you have seen so far break down where the spend happened by merchant code? In other words, do you know how much of this was spent in large multiples, supermarkets and chain stores versus small, independent retail? If so, will your Department publish that data at some stage?

Mr Lyons: First, I think that the data to which I referred was for October and November, and the greatest impact was seen in November. That is to be welcomed because we naturally a see a bit of an increase in December. However, it was not necessarily the case that that replaced Christmas spend that would otherwise have happened; in fact, the anecdotal evidence that I have so far is that that was additional spend to what normally would have been spent at Christmas. Importantly, it may have had the ability to bring some of that spend off online and into the high street, creating that multiplier effect.

The Member asked specifically about the merchant code. I had some of that data, but I am bound by the rules on official statistics. That will be released next month. That is what I was referring to in the statement. I want that to be released, and I believe that it will show that the spending was exactly where we wanted it to be. It is not in my power to release that at this moment, because it needs to go through a certain process, but I have no objection to doing so.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Minister. Does the Minister agree that, for best practice evaluation of a scheme like this, it should be benchmarked against high street spend in areas of the United Kingdom where no voucher scheme was in operation?

Mr Lyons: There is the evaluation that will be done in conjunction with the Department of Finance, and I am happy for the comparison to be made, because that is where you will see where the real benefit has come from. We have already seen that in some of the analysis that was carried out in November, which showed that we were far ahead of other parts of the UK vis-à-vis the pre-pandemic situation. I have no doubt that it will show that the scheme was doing what it was intended to do. Although it is an independent evaluation, over which I will not have control, I certainly have no objection to making sure that that comparison is carried out.

Mr Dickson: I declare an interest in that I received and spent the card, and it worked perfectly for me. Unfortunately, it did not work for others. I deliberately chose a high street trader who added 10% to the value of the card. The 10% was not to give to me; it was to give to charity. There is a lot of disappointment at the lack of a mechanism to do that.

Given the distress caused to what, I accept, was a small number of people who could not access their cards, will you assure us that the system is not closed and that there will be an opportunity for people who believe that they should have received their card or that it should have worked to have their queries examined in detail to ensure that, if they are entitled to the money, they will get it?

Mr Lyons: On the first point, about a facility to give the money to charity, the scheme was clearly designed to help businesses, particularly on the high street, that had been so badly affected by the pandemic. Many people, however, used the card to support businesses and then gave whatever they bought to charity, and that is commendable. The Member also mentioned the additional money that was given as a discount in some cases. I thank all the business organisations and others who did so much to incentivise use of the card, which helped to make sure that it was targeted in the right places.

It is an incredible success that, with all the challenges that we faced, we managed to get so many cards to so many people in such a short time. I recognise that, for a small number of people, it did not work out as we had hoped, but I am committed to making sure that those who did not get their card or who, for a reason outside their control, could not activate or spend their card get the money in their accounts so that they can choose, I hope, to use it in the same way in which the rest of us did.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, I was contacted, as other Members will have been, by lots of constituents who had difficulties in applying through the online service the first time around. You mentioned that the remedy payments will be accessed through an online link. I think in particular of elderly people, because that is certainly one of the issues that have been brought to my attention. Given their needs, will a phone line reopen for those who are entitled to remedy payments, so that they can get updates and check when they will receive the payments?

Mr Lyons: Yes. Those who had problems and originally contacted us by telephone will be contacted through the same system. If you did not use the online facility before, you will not need to do that this time. We recognised that there was an issue. We tried our best to provide alternatives, and I was as flexible as I could be in allowing MLAs to apply on behalf of or verify the older people who came into all our constituency offices. That said, our analysis shows that 47·4% of verified applications to the scheme were from those aged 50 and over, which corresponds exactly to the percentage of over-50s in the adult population. To break that down a bit more, about 25% of the adult population is aged from 50 to 64, and 25% of the people who were verified were in that group. Some 22% of the adult population is aged 65-plus, and 21·9% of verified applicants were in that bracket.

As with the rest of the population, the vast majority who applied were verified, got their card and spent it. Where there are issues, I want to do as much as I can to make sure that people get their remedy, if necessary, as I have done throughout the scheme.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, you say in your statement that you have injected £136·6 million into the economy. Had the scheme not been delivered, what would our high street be like today?

Mr Lyons: The high street would be struggling a lot more without what we have been able to inject into the local economy. The Member took me round many businesses in his constituency during the scheme or just before it opened. We heard from them about the impact that they hoped for from the scheme. We would be a lot worse off. We would not be as competitive as we are compared with other regions of the UK. We would not have had the boost that, the retail organisations tell us, we have had. It could well be the case that, but for the scheme, more businesses would no longer be in business and more people would be unemployed. In particular, in the Mid Ulster council area, there would have been 190,975 fewer trips to the shops and £8·1 million less of spend. From that, the Member can probably work out the impact that the scheme has had in his constituency.

Mr Delargy: The Minister will be well aware that, before the scheme went live, the Equality Commission raised concerns about how accessible and inclusive the telephone service was for those who are hard of hearing and deaf and about a lack of consultation with young people. Does the Minister accept that many of the remedies that he proposes would have been identified had an equality impact assessment been done before the scheme went live?

Mr Lyons: If you look at the problems that we are trying to resolve because of the challenges that people had and at the reasons why we are putting in place a remedy payment, you see that they are not a result of the issues that the Member raises but of others that meant that people could not get their card. I have outlined some of those already, such as postal problems, people putting in the wrong address and problems with the cards or getting them activated.

We did everything that we could during the application process to make sure that those who were affected by the issues that the Member raises were addressed. I think of older people in particular. We made sure that we had a phone line, and we put in place measures to help those who are deaf or hard of hearing. We did what we could during that period.

There are lessons to be learnt, and I am sure that, if we were doing the scheme again, we would do some things differently. We put the scheme together in a short time. We wanted to make sure that it was in before the end of the year and certainly before the end of the financial year. We addressed as many of those issues as we could, and, at the end of the day, we got over 1·4 million cards out and over £136 million worth of spend. Where there are issues and problems, I take them on board and look forward to the results of the independent evaluation that will be carried out.

Mr Dunne: I welcome the statement. The scheme has had a positive impact across my North Down constituency. One of its key aims was to change longer-term shopping behaviour and to encourage people back into our shops. Is the Minister confident that it has achieved that aim?

Mr Lyons: I am. We have only anecdotal evidence so far, including from a visit to the Member's constituency last week. I was in Donaghadee with Mr Dunne, speaking to shop owners. They told us that it had given a short-term boost and that customers were returning. It is an opportunity for businesses to connect or, in some cases, to reconnect with customers and to show what they have on offer. Clearly, there will need to be an evaluation of all that. What I hear so far is that it has brought people back on to the high street.

Online shopping was and will continue to be very popular. However, the high street scheme gave shop owners the opportunity to show the customer service that they can provide, the quality of the product that they have and the competitive prices that they are able to offer. The benefits of that will last for much longer than October, November and December 2021.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Minister for his statement. I commend the team at the Department for its quick responses to a number of the queries that were raised by my office. They were most helpful in circumstances where they were able to help, and that is much appreciated.

When we look at the figures, we see that £12 million was spent in Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council. There are figures in between, going down to £7·5 million in my constituency in the Omagh and Fermanagh council area. Why is the figure for the spend there so low, Minister? Is it that people did not spend it at all, or was it spent elsewhere? If that is the case, what is the level of unspent funds in that area?

Mr Lyons: First, I add my thanks to my departmental officials. There was a huge task in front of them, and it was done in a short time. I do not think that they would want to do that again any time soon. It was a unique scheme for unique times, and it had the impact that we all wanted it to have.

The Member is absolutely right about the specific spend: £27 million was spent in Belfast, and £7·5 million was spent in Fermanagh and Omagh. I am sure that there are many reasons for that. More than anything else, the reason was probably population. It was clear that people were going to spend their cards locally, and that figure probably follows the population statistics pretty closely and probably follows the ranking of those statistics quite closely. I have not seen figures for underspend on cards or figures showing whether less was spent in a particular geographical locations than in others. That was very low across the board, and that is because people had the opportunity to spend local, regardless of whether they live in a city or a rural area.

During my time in the job, I have been in most towns across Northern Ireland. They all have a fantastic offering. In fact, I have heard of businesses in the Member's constituency that did exceptionally well as a result of the scheme. The differential in the spend is more likely to be down to population differences and people spending their card locally than to people in one area or another spending less on their cards.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for his statement. It has been reported that around 300 people who received the high street scheme card did not spend all the money on it. I am concerned that some of those people are vulnerable or in care and that, for whatever reason, they have not been able to spend all the money on their cards. Has the Department carried out any analysis of that? Will people in those situations be entitled to the financial remedies?

Mr Lyons: If the cards were not spent because people were not able to activate their card, did not get it in time or tried to spend it and it did not work, the people affected will be eligible for a remedy payment.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister and his Department for the work that was carried out on the scheme, which was a huge scheme for Northern Ireland. Looking at the figures for the area that I represent, I think that £7·5 million is a huge amount of money for local businesses.

Can the Minister detail how the success of the high street scheme here compares with elsewhere? I think that it was also rolled out in Jersey.

Mr Lyons: The Member has rightly identified that few other places have tried something like this. Jersey is one of the notable exceptions. Although the scheme was successful in Jersey, what we did in Northern Ireland was even more incredible. We did not have the same data sets as Jersey did. It was easy for Jersey to send a card out to everybody automatically, but we had to go through an additional process. A much smaller number of people were getting a card, so the spend was smaller. When you take all that into consideration, it shows how successful the scheme has been. It has helped the whole economy. We heard the figures for Belfast right through to other areas. It had an incredible impact across the board. Thousands of transactions took place in the Member's constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Over £7·5 million was spent in that council area alone. That has an incredible economic impact.

I thank everybody who jumped on and applied to the scheme. Many people put an awful lot of thought into where they would spend their card so that it would have the greatest impact. In comparison with Jersey, the impact here will, of course, be far greater. Of course, such a scheme did not happen in any other UK region. From speaking to my equivalent Ministers in Scotland and Wales, I know that they are jealous of what we have been able to do, not just the fact that we took on and delivered such an innovative scheme but, importantly, the impact that it has had.

Ms Armstrong: I thank the Minister. You said, Minister, that many people thought clearly about how they would spend their card. In my constituency of Strangford, many spent their card on electricity and gas or oil for home heating. Will that spend on electricity and home heating oil or gas be included in the granularity of the detail that you provide about where the spend was made?

Mr Lyons: Yes. I expect that to be part of the statistics that will be released through NISRA.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his statement to the House. I commend him and his officials for a highly successful scheme to bolster the local economy. Can the Minister outline the total spend in the South Antrim constituency? Is he able to provide the figures for monthly spend in that breakdown?

Mr Lyons: I have the data here for council areas so far. I think that the Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council area largely matches the South Antrim constituency. Obviously, parts of Newtownabbey are in East Antrim and North Belfast. There was a total spend of £10,374,516 across the Antrim and Newtownabbey council area. The postcode data that I will release today will also show the spend in South Antrim. I know, for example, that BT39 is partly in the Member's constituency. The spend there was £1 million. In Antrim, £2·3 million was spent. More was spent in Newtownabbey. In BT36 and BT37, the spend was £4 million and £3 million. The Member can get that breakdown from the postcode data that is released, but the figure of £10 million across Antrim and Newtownabbey gives her a good estimation to begin with.

The Member asked about the breakdown of that spend per month, and I can confirm to her and the House that, in October, there was a total spend of £24,634,255. In November, there was a total spend of £81,200,000. In December, there was a spend of £31,000,752. In January, there was a spend of £76,535, which was, o, made by the few people who were able to spend their cards at that stage because they had not received them prior to that. The vast majority of spend was in October and November.

Mr Catney: I thank the Minister. I am looking at the cost and setting up of that scheme and thinking into the future. Have you or the Department been thinking about how part of that might be utilised to look at a scheme for Ulster licensed vintners or trade organisations? Such a scheme might, given that the costs of setting up the high street scheme have been met, come at a discount. Could such a scheme, even if it is only a discount scheme, be rolled out, continued or expanded?

Mr Lyons: I think that the Member is referring to any underspend in the scheme. I believe that, once we close the scheme and meet the cost of the remedy payments, there will not be much budget left to do anything further such as what the Member asks for. It was a unique scheme for one period. Of course, I continue to engage with business organisations and lobby groups. We did something that was new and innovative here. I am more than happy to look at how we continue to work together to drive people back to our high streets and to the hospitality sector. A concern of mine is that, during the pandemic, many comments by organisations, politicians and others were a dampener on consumer confidence. I take seriously the job that we have to increase that consumer confidence today.

Mrs Barton: Minister, you will, no doubt, remember that, when the scheme initially closed, you received a rather long list from me of the constituents who were still waiting to receive cards, could not get cards or were turned down for cards. Do you have an up-to-date assessment of the details of those in the Fermanagh and Omagh District Council area and the Mid Ulster District Council area who applied for cards but have still not been successful in receiving them?

Mr Lyons: The first thing that we did was send an email to all those who, we understood, had problems with their cards; for example, those who did not activate their cards or those who activated their cards but had a big spend left on them. Those people were identified as not being able to properly utilise the card in the way that we wanted, and they have been emailed.

There will be others who we perhaps have not picked up on yet who are eligible for a remedy payment because of maladministration by the Department. We will continue to pick those people up, and we will ask Members to get in contact with us about them. I will send out information to Members shortly about how we can make sure that everybody who is entitled to a remedy payment will get one.

Miss Woods: I thank the Minister for coming to the Assembly today, and I thank his departmental officials who have had to administer and deal with the scheme. The Minister outlined in his statement reasons why people can get the remedy payment, one being "service failure by the Department", which is slightly ambiguous. Will the Minister explain what criteria are being used to determine what "service failure" is and how that is assessed?

Mr Lyons: The first and key part is that it will be for those who were verified. People need to have been verified. We gave a lot of opportunity for people who had applied to get in touch and give us those details, and there was a cut-off point for that. The remedy payment is for those who, after that time and through no fault of their own, were unable to get their card or to spend their card. I am not aware of every situation that could fall into that category, so we are keeping it broad. However, if someone's card was verified and, through no fault of their own, they did not get their card, I want to make sure that we do everything that we can to rectify that. That information will be in the letter that I hope to send to Members soon.

Mr Allister: Last week, I wrote to the Minister with the names of approximately 20 constituents who had received neither the card nor an email about the remedy scheme. Writing to the Minister is fine, and I do not object to that, but is there not a less cumbersome mechanism available to MLAs' offices, such as there was when the scheme was in full flow, so that there can be more direct, speedy contact to sort out the issues?

Mr Lyons: First of all, I am sorry to hear that some of the Member's constituents were not picked up in that category and that the email was not sent to them. I hope that the email that I send out will be a direct way to get straight to the people in my Department who are dealing with the issue so that they can check their records directly to see the information that they have on file, and the Member can provide additional information, if he wants to, as well.

My goal in all this is to make sure that everybody who was eligible and everybody who was verified gets the remedy payment. It is in my interest to make sure that they get it as well. I will do everything that I can to assist the Member with that.

Ms Sugden: On the scheme as a business stimulus scheme, I say, "Well done". I received a lot of good feedback from businesses in my constituency. However, as regards access, the Member knows that I have had issues with access to the scheme, particularly for older people. He referred to people who are aged 50-plus, but that is getting a wee bit young. I would be keen to see figures for people who are aged 60 to 65-plus to see where the potential access issues were.

I also note that his statement said that the council areas with the least spend were typically rural and tended to have an older population. Does the Minister see any correlation between the fact that those who were unable to access the scheme were from those areas and were perhaps older?

Mr Lyons: No. There is probably a correlation between population and spend, and we will be able to work that out and see the per capita spend.

I apologise to anyone in the House who was offended by the fact that I mentioned the over-50 age bracket. Apologies to Mr Clarke and others behind me who may have been frustrated by that.

I went on to say that 22·3% of the adult population are aged 65-plus and that 21·9% of verified applicants were within that bracket. So, it is very close: 22·3% versus 21·9%. Most of those who applied got their card; most of those who got their card spent their card. The data that I have received does not show any disparity in the age groups. Perhaps older people are a little bit more cautious when they are filling out forms and got the addresses and dates of birth correct, whereas we had a few problems with other age groups that did not get that information correct. We have to look at not just the top-line figures but at the population, where people are and where they spent their card.

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

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 to the Assembly on the development of an action plan to protect and restore blue-carbon habitats.

The statement lays out the need for a blue-carbon action plan. I will highlight the work that has been completed, the work that is under way, the work that is required and the way ahead to deliver on an action plan. The draft green growth strategy sets out the scale of our ambition to tackle climate change and the importance of the green growth agenda. One of the high-level principles of green growth is respecting our planet by restoring our natural capital. The green growth strategy will be delivered through a number of programmes and action plans. When considering how to manage our land, action will be taken through programmes such as Forests for Our Future and the peatland strategy. Today, I will turn our attention to the marine and coastal environment.

The Northern Ireland marine area is 6,855 km² and represents approximately one third of our natural environment. The coast, and the seas around it, include highly productive and biologically diverse ecosystems. Our marine natural capital, and the ecosystem services that it provides, support tourism, recreation, aquaculture and fisheries. The blue economy is an important component of our Northern Ireland economy. Within our marine and coastal environment, we have special habitats that are important for carbon capture and storage; these are known as blue-carbon habitats. Examples of blue-carbon habitats found in our waters include salt marshes, seagrass beds, shellfish beds, kelp, maerl and subtidal sediments.

The importance of blue-carbon habitats and their contribution to climate change adaptation and mitigation is now globally recognised. Our blue-carbon habitats therefore need to be protected, as, when they are degraded or damaged, their carbon-sink capacity is lost, and stored carbon is released. By acting now and developing a blue-carbon action plan, we can take steps to help protect and restore blue-carbon habitats in Northern Ireland's marine and coastal environment. As well as providing essential benefits for climate change adaptation and mitigation, blue-carbon habitats provide other high-value ecosystem services. Those include providing protection against coastal erosion and flooding, habitats to support wider biodiversity and nursery grounds for commercially important fish species, as well as societal well-being benefits.

In an international context, the development of a blue-carbon action plan will contribute to achieving the targets for natural carbon stores in the recently agreed OSPAR north-east Atlantic environment strategy (NEAES). Further global targets could also emerge after the updated Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) targets are agreed and published later this year.

My officials have been working with other UK Administrations and through the British-Irish Council (BIC) to share learning on blue-carbon habitats. That knowledge transfer is proving very beneficial. In the UK, the value of climate-resilient ecosystems for healthy fish stocks and the value of blue-carbon habitats have been acknowledged in the draft joint fisheries statement (JFS). The consultation on the UK joint fisheries statement is currently taking place and is open until 12 April. Full details can be found on the DEFRA website.

In Northern Ireland, work has already commenced on creating, protecting and restoring blue-carbon habitats. In 2021, my Department provided funding of £27,000 to Ulster Wildlife and its partners to undertake a desk-based feasibility study for blue-carbon-habitat restoration in Northern Ireland. The study looked at historical records and identified locations of coastal blue-carbon habitats, including seagrass meadows, kelp forests, salt marsh and shellfish beds. The study suggests that 56% of our blue-carbon habitats are located within the existing marine protected area (MPA) network. That means that there is an existing way in which to protect those carbon sinks, which is through the implementation and enforcement of effective MPA management plans. Indeed, the legislation that is being introduced to manage fishing activities in the inshore marine protected area network will help provide protection for important blue-carbon habitats, such as seagrass beds in the Waterfoot marine conservation zone (MCZ) and the Skerries and Causeway special area of conversation (SAC), and the maerl habitat in the Red Bay and the Maidens SACs.

The feasibility study also identified areas that could be suitable for restoration or habitat creation. Blue-carbon habitats sequester more carbon per unit than forests. Examples of blue-carbon values from the report are that the estimated current Northern Ireland extent of salt marsh is 31·1km², while, for seagrass, it is 17·2km², and that the estimated carbon sequestration rate for Northern Ireland salt marsh is 8,273 tons of carbon a year, while, for Zostera marina seagrass, it is 3,571 tons of carbon a year.

Ulster Wildlife and its partners are continuing to refine the initial feasibility study and will soon make recommendations for restoration at specific local sites, including the potential for a native oyster restoration project in Strangford lough. Steps have already been taken to create and restore blue-carbon habitats. A native oyster nursery is being established in Bangor marina by Ulster Wildlife, and Newry, Mourne and Down District Council is trialling the use of eco moorings in Strangford lough to provide protection for seagrass beds from yacht moorings.

I recently had the opportunity to visit Castle Espie and see the work of the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT) that has resulted in the creation of new salt marsh habitat. The site has been carefully and patiently managed for the past 12 years, and the outcome has not only enhanced carbon storage but produced wider nature and societal benefits, such as providing coastal defence, foraging and breeding grounds for wintering birds, and an important tourist facility that overlooks Strangford lough.

Those projects lay the foundation for longer-term sequestration. The carbon sequestration capacity of a salt marsh is age-dependent, with created or restored marshes taking approximately 100 years to achieve the rates of carbon accumulation that are measured in natural marshes. Coastal vegetated habitats, including salt marshes and seagrass, with sedimentary conditions that favour organic carbon storage, may enhance the release of other potent greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide. Therefore, more research on the status of Northern Irish habitats is essential as the priority work develops. My Department has identified that as a research need and is seeking to commission a research project later this year.

In my Department, there are no specific blue-carbon monitoring programmes. However, a number of existing monitoring programmes that are being implemented to meet requirements of the water framework directive and habitats regulations, such as carbon and nitrogen sediment monitoring, salt-marsh monitoring and MPA condition monitoring surveys, have helped to provide useful evidence on Northern Ireland's blue-carbon habitats. My Department has already taken important steps to address the evidence gaps and initiated a number of relevant projects. Further projects are in the preparation stage.

Over £400,000 has been invested in a 3D coastal survey of the Northern Ireland coastline. That encompasses a topographic lidar of land within 200 metres of the coast and intertidal area and a bathymetric lidar of the coastal subtidal area. The baseline survey will be used to map the extent of blue-carbon habitats, such as salt marshes, intertidal seagrass and shellfish beds. The data from that will be beneficial for identifying the most suitable locations for investment to create or restore blue-carbon habitats.

A number of studies are being undertaken by the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI). One of those studies will help to identify the impact of future climate change scenarios on the coastal habitats of Northern Ireland. Another is undertaking research to quantify the stocks and flows of blue carbon in Northern Ireland, including offshore sediment, and will provide evidence and a better understanding of its role as a carbon sink.

That is a rapidly developing policy area, and it is important that we collaborate effectively with other countries. You may be aware of the creation of a UK blue-carbon evidence partnership, which was announced at COP26. My officials will work with their counterparts in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and other UK Administrations, to address key research questions related to blue-carbon policy.

Blue-carbon habitats are not included in the UK greenhouse gas emissions inventory. Under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) wetlands supplement, the only UK coastal wetland habitats that are suitable for inclusion are tidal marshes and seagrass meadows. Work is being undertaken to account for those habitats, but evidence gaps are hindering their inclusion in the UK land use, land-use change and forestry inventory calculations. It will be important for the UK blue-carbon evidence partnership to work together to address those issues and enhance the evidence base surrounding the other diverse blue-carbon habitats that are found across the UK, particularly those beyond the IPCC's wetlands supplement.

There are significant challenges in responding to climate change and ensuring sustainable use of the marine environment. The development of innovative solutions to those challenges and the unlocking of opportunities will only be possible through collaboration and partnership. That must include my Department, other Departments, research institutes, the fishing industry, the renewable energy sector, environmental NGOs and other interested stakeholders.

I was very pleased to learn about the collaboration between Ulster Wildlife and the Northern Ireland Fishermen's Federation (NIFF), and they have already started to consider those issues. That open dialogue and collaboration demonstrates the spirit of partnership and respect that is needed to find innovative solutions that are consistent with the vision of the green growth strategy. I am very much looking forward to learning more about the outcome of their feasibility study for a multidisciplinary, collaborative marine hub to bring together Northern Ireland's marine stakeholders. The Northern Ireland Fishermen's Federation has demonstrated its commitment to that area by employing a sustainability officer. My Department has been able to support those projects through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund.

Recognising the importance of protecting and enhancing our blue-carbon habitats, the development of a blue-carbon action plan for Northern Ireland will be a target in the environment strategy.

In response to the increasing recognition of the role that marine protected areas can play in supporting adaptation and resilience to climate change, I also announce a review of the marine protected area strategy for Northern Ireland and the development of a new strategy that will enable us to respond to the challenges that we face in dealing with biodiversity loss and climate change.

It will be critical to take a co-design approach to develop the blue-carbon action plan and the new marine protected areas strategy. To facilitate that, my Department will establish focus groups comprised of representatives from the fishing industry, the renewable energy sector and environmental NGOs. It is hoped that input from stakeholder focus groups will help my Department to take a balanced and sustainable approach in developing future biodiversity and climate change policies for the marine environment.

My high-level vision for the Northern Ireland blue-carbon action plan is to protect our blue-carbon habitats and, where possible, take steps towards their restoration. An important component of the blue-carbon action plan will be the creation of an accurate baseline inventory of all blue-carbon habitats in Northern Ireland. Further studies will be required to quantify the total carbon storage in our blue-carbon habitats and to better understand their carbon sequestration rates and how the condition of the habitats affects those rates. There will be opportunities to build on those projects. There is a need to progress from feasibility studies to pilot and demonstration projects and, ultimately, to the full implementation of larger-scale blue-carbon restoration programmes.

My Department has prepared a significant bid as part of the green growth capital investment programme. That includes proposed funding for the blue economy that will support the transition to a low-carbon economy and the protection and enhancement of blue-carbon habitats and the wider marine environment.

I would like the blue-carbon action plan and the new marine protected areas strategy to be developed and put into operation by 2024. In the interim, it is important that the current momentum continues and that collaboration and partnership continues to grow so that we can find innovative solutions that are consistent with the vision of the green growth strategy.

The purpose of the statement is to highlight the importance of blue-carbon habitats and how those habitats can contribute to climate change adaptation and mitigation. I have provided a summary of some of the work that has been undertaken already and of the work that is required. We must now move forward together to develop a blue-carbon action plan to protect and restore those important natural capital assets.

Mr McAleer (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, you will be aware that our marine environment is not bound by borders and that we share the same territory around all of the island of Ireland.

Paragraph 29 of your statement refers to:

and paragraph 34 refers to "collaboration and partnership". Will the Minister explain to us what level of cooperation his Department has had with its counterpart in the South of Ireland to realise the actions in the action plan?

Mr Poots: Of course, we have North/South bodies that will help us to deal with those issues, particularly the Loughs Agency. It will be for the Loughs Agency to bring forward proposals for approval on those issues.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, what is your view of the use of seaweed, for example, to tackle livestock emissions?

Mr Poots: Global research has shown that seaweeds can significantly reduce methane emissions when used as a supplement in animal feeds. AFBI and Queen's University are working with a number of EU partners to investigate the use of local seaweeds as feed additives for cattle and sheep under Northern Ireland farming conditions.

However, harvesting wild seaweeds for use in animal feed supplements would have a negative impact on blue-carbon habitats and the ecosystem services that they provide, including absorbing wave energy, providing natural protection against coastal erosion and providing a nursery habitat for commercial fish species. Therefore, it would be preferable to use aquaculture rather than wild harvesting, and opportunities for seaweed aquaculture will be explored further as part of the green growth strategy. In order to make progress, my Department is seeking to commission a feasibility study that will explore potential sites that can provide a sustainable source of seaweed for use as supplements in animal feeds.

Mrs Barton: Minister, thank you for your statement. You acknowledged in the statement that:

Can you comment further on that? It is worrying if other potent greenhouse gases, such as methane, will result from that.

Mr Poots: That is why we are investigating further and carrying out further studies, and that is why it will probably take two years to be in a position where we have the scientific basis to appropriately move forward on both blue carbon and marine protected areas and to be able do so with absolute confidence that what we are doing will be beneficial.

Mr McGlone: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. Minister, through the challenge fund, your Department funded a feasibility study on blue-carbon restoration, and that report, which came out, I think, in May 2021, made a number of recommendations for action. Will those be lifted by the Department, or will we see more working groups and further study around that?

Mr Poots: It is about the right actions, and Mrs Barton has just raised an issue that demonstrates very clearly to us the importance of getting it right. Therefore, we will continue to carry out scientific investigation and do a course of work to ensure that we get it right. We appreciate the work that has been done thus far, some of which is less clear about next steps than others, but we need to engage in next steps, and that will be primarily on developing the scientific basis to take us to the next platform on using blue carbon for the benefit of the climate.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for the statement. I was pleased to hear references in the statement to salt marshes, as protection of those marine ecosystems is vital for the future. In addition to that, what steps is the Minister taking to increase the restoration of salt marshes and wetlands across the country, and what, if any, designated protection is being considered for those habitats and for the species within them, if that is necessary?

Mr Poots: Salt marshes are very important for us, and we would certainly like to see more of them. That is a significant capacity issue, and we have developed additional salt marshes in Strangford lough. We will continue to engage in that course of work to see where it is appropriate and beneficial to develop those salt marshes, but they have certainly been identified as a key store of carbon. It is important for us to consider the opportunities that exist.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Minister for the statement and the details. Minister, on an important action plan like this, stakeholder engagement and consultation is vital. I say that as a member of the AERA Committee, and I do not think that there has been any engagement with that Committee so far on the development of this action plan. What stakeholders have been spoken to in identifying priorities, and will continued engagement take place, including with the fishing sector, on the details of the action plan?

Mr Poots: I have made a statement in the House today, and, of course, my officials will be happy to meet the Committee and discuss the issue. Hopefully you have time in your programme to allow for that in the few weeks that remain. On the question of consulting people, we have been working with environmental NGOs in particular and will continue to do that. Going forward, we will work with the environmental NGOs, the representatives of the fishing organisations and the representatives of the renewable energy industry, because all those people will be key to delivery going forward.

Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for bringing the statement to the House today. Minister, I welcome this approach. However, will you agree with me that there are still a lot of unknowns?

It reinforces the need for clearer research to mitigate any unintended consequences of any policy changes. Does the Minister agree that we need to invest much more in pilot projects with robust scientific monitoring?

Mr Poots: I do. It is critical that, if we are to find a way forward on this, we do the pilot projects and see the beneficial aspects coming through and any potential problems that there might be. We need it to be demonstrated clearly to us that, if we invest in that, we are investing in the right thing, which will deliver the benefits that we assume that we will get. We need to be very clear that we move beyond assumptions and do something that is based on qualitative research and science.

Ms Sheerin: The Minister cited a study that states that 56% of our blue-carbon habitats are located within the existing marine protected network. How effective has that network already been in protecting those habitats?

Mr Poots: Considerably stricter conditions already operate in those marine protected areas than in areas that are not protected. Therefore, it is very important to progress the blue-carbon plan and to revisit our marine protection areas and the respective plans. The marine protected areas will give us the potential for considerable further development of the blue-carbon sequestration that will take place. It is important to ensure that we can do that in a way that allows communities to know what we are doing in their best interests, particularly the coastal communities in the likes of Red Bay and the Skerries and so forth, and so that we can work with them in order to ensure that we have buy-in and support from them for the work that is going on.

Mr T Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his statement. There is a need to involve the fishing community in any proposal going forward. The work that the sector is doing with the environmental NGO sector is to be welcomed. Does he foresee both sectors working together in the longer term?

Mr Poots: Thankfully, we have a forward-looking fishing industry, which is already working in collaboration with one of the environmental NGOs on what is potentially available at sea. That is to be welcomed, and I commend our fishing organisations, and NIFF in particular, which have not had to be forced into doing something and are voluntarily working with the environmental organisations to get the best outcomes for our important coastal areas.

Ms Á Murphy: In his statement, the Minister acknowledged that there are no specific blue-carbon monitoring programmes at the moment but stated that future projects are at preparation stage. Will he provide us with more detail on the blue-carbon monitoring projects that we can expect to see?

Mr Poots: We can do other things as part of the environment strategy. When it comes to marine planning for Northern Ireland and whether it will provide protection for blue-carbon habitats, there is a second iteration of the draft marine plan, which is up for consideration as a final and adopted marine plan by the end of 2022. The draft policies are being updated in order to address the issues that have been raised during the public consultation and will include policies for the protection of blue-carbon habitats.

As well as that, work is ongoing on the green growth strategy, which was presented to the Executive, to continue taking into consideration the feedback and comments from the consultation process. In the green growth strategy, however, it will be important that we recognise that it is not just about land-based operation but about sea-based operation. Therefore, our green growth team will certainly be looking at engaging in the development of blue carbon.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his statement. Does he foresee blue carbon playing an important part in carbon capture to help to tackle climate change?

Mr Poots: Obviously, reducing the amount of carbon that we produce is important, and that is one element of it. The other element is carbon sequestration. We have a significant understanding of what goes on on land, for example. The process of photosynthesis demonstrates to us very clearly what forestry and grass production can do in the sequestration of carbon, and we all know what the peatlands do in storing carbon. We have a lot of water around Northern Ireland, so we need to ensure that we can maximise what we are doing in Northern Ireland's waters to ensure that we can deliver carbon sequestration in those waters and make a significant contribution from that source going forward.

Ms Bailey: I thank the Minister for his statement. However, I point out that there is a widespread lack of faith that the delivery of these actions will be carried out in a timely manner. Following on from the previous question, some blue-carbon habitats are protected by current legislation, based on the habitats' contributions to our biodiversity, but there are opportunities for blue-carbon habitats and stores to be protected, given their role in climate change mitigation and adaptation. Therefore, will blue-carbon habitats be afforded legal protection based on their carbon sequestration and storage processes?

Mr Poots: Of course, MPAs have legal protection, so the areas within those already have that legal protection. Going beyond that, a course of work needs to be done to identify the best way forward. If that includes legal protection, we are open to looking at that. It is entirely up to the Member, but I would prefer it if she was not so cynical about everything that the Department does. It is a Department that cares for the environment, and it is a Department that wants to take the right steps to ensure that we can manage the difficult circumstance of protecting our environment while allowing people to live in it, enjoy it and earn a living in it. Matching all those things is important, but protecting the environment is a top priority for the Department.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That concludes questions to the Minister on his statement. The next item of business in the Order Paper is Question Time. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Questions 6 and 7 have been withdrawn.

Ms Mallon (The Minister for Infrastructure): I fully recognise how important planning is in protecting our environment, shaping local communities and, of course, supporting and developing our economy, now more than ever, as we move into recovery from the pandemic. I am also very aware of the need for significant improvement in the performance of our two-tier planning system, particularly when it comes to statutory consultees.

My Department has been working on a number of fronts to improve the system, including on the establishment of a cross-departmental planning forum, in order to take forward recommendations from a report into the role of statutory consultees in the planning process. A key focus of the planning forum's work is to improve the response times to meet the 21-day statutory consultation target, particularly for major planning applications. I recognise that the level of statutory consultee responses that are needed to respond to consultations on a timely basis is critical and particularly relevant, given the increasing number and complexity of planning application consultations. I recently raised the resourcing issue around planning consultations with the Finance Minister, and my permanent secretary has written to other relevant permanent secretaries seeking their assistance in order to ensure that adequate funding is available for their consultation response teams.

I have also specifically asked to be briefed on a monthly basis by those planning statutory consultees in my Department so that issues impacting on their performance can be addressed appropriately and in a timely manner. A number of measures have been taken in order to ensure that that important work is placed on a sustainable and improved footing, including an inescapable resource bid in the 2022-25 Budget exercise to meet the funding requirement for the additional staff that are needed in the Department.

The Department has also undertaken a review of the implementation of the Planning Act 2011, and that has identified 16 areas where we could further improve the performance of the system for all stakeholders, including in the Department for Infrastructure, councils, statutory consultees, developers and the wider public. Work on that will continue to be progressed in the coming months.

Ms Sugden: I thank the Minister for her response. The Minister and I met recently to discuss that issue. During that meeting, I expressed my frustration on behalf of not only local applicants but significant investors in Northern Ireland, who tell me that they are taking their multimillion-pound investments elsewhere. I appreciate that the Minister has talked about this being a cross-departmental piece of work, which I entirely agree with, but will she give us more detail of what it will entail and how we can genuinely put forward aims and objectives so that we can fix the issue once and for all?

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for her question. As I said, statutory consultee response times are important, and we need to see improvement on them. The cross-departmental planning forum that my Department established is focused on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning system by agreeing, prioritising and implementing the recommendations and actions that emerged from the report into the role of statutory consultees in the planning process. A work programme that involves 30 key actions has been developed, and, in total, 19 actions have been completed, with the remainder expected to be completed in 2022. I assure the Member that I recognise the importance of the issue. I have a firm focus on it, and I requested monthly updates in order to make sure that we continue to make progress on that important area.

Mr Buckley: Minister, I am sure that you realise that there is chronic concern in the industry regarding the performance of planning, particularly when to date not one local development plan has been completed by local councils or has maybe even got to stage 1. I asked the chief planner at Committee two weeks ago to tell me the number of regionally significant applications that had been submitted in the past 12 months. He was unable to answer. Can the Minister perhaps answer that question?

Ms Mallon: Unfortunately, I do not have that information to hand, but I am happy to provide the Member with it in writing following Question Time.

Mr Boylan: The Minister will be familiar with the proposals by the AERA Minister to change the rules on the single farm payment by increasing the threshold for making claims from 3 hectares to 10 hectares. That will impact on small farmers and those people who wish to reside in the countryside in the future. What assessment has the Minister done to ensure that we will have sustainable farms in the countryside in the future?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): The Minister can answer the question if she so wishes, but it would, perhaps, be better addressed to another Minister, given that that is just a proposal.

Ms Mallon: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is an important issue. I assure the Member that, although it does not fall within my portfolio — it is led by the AERA Minister — my officials are engaging with their colleagues in DAERA because we recognise the importance of the issue. That engagement will continue, and I am happy to keep the Member updated.

Mr Chambers: Does the Minister accept that many of the delays in the planning system are caused by organisations that are under her responsibility, such as Rivers, Roads and, on many occasions, Northern Ireland Water? Does she have any detailed plans to improve that situation, especially given the impact on private-sector investment, as is being witnessed in Bangor?

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for his question. It is an important issue. We have been trying to increase capacity in Roads and Rivers by reallocating staff. As I said, I have also requested monthly updates to ensure that we continue to make progress in the statutory consultees that fall within my Department, such as Roads and Rivers. I also submitted an inescapable bid to the Finance Minister for the three-year Budget. I identified it as inescapable because we need to increase capacity in statutory consultees, not just those in my Department; I am also mindful of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. My permanent secretary has been engaging with her counterparts to ensure that we get sufficient resources. We absolutely need to address it. In saying that, we are seeing a record high number of applications that are very complex. There is, of course, a need to continue to improve, given the importance of the issue to our economy and environment.

Mr Muir: Last year, your Department put a hold on Ards and North Down Borough Council's giving approval for the Queen's Parade development in Bangor. We are still waiting, 13 months later. When will you, as Minister, intervene, give the green light for that to go ahead and lift the holding direction that has been imposed on Ards and North Down Borough Council?

Ms Mallon: The Member and I have met to discuss that issue. He will be aware of the work that has been ongoing between my Department, the council and other key stakeholders to try to make progress. The holding direction was issued by my Department in February last year, and it is in place. The assessment of the notification is being finalised. It is my intention to respond to the council as soon as possible with a decision as to whether the application should be referred to my Department for determination. I assure you that I am mindful of the importance of reaching a decision on the matter and avoiding any unnecessary delays.

Ms Hunter: This is an important matter. What impact will the latest collapse of the Executive have on planning decisions?

Ms Mallon: Notwithstanding the collapse of the Executive, my officials continue to progress to a decision point all the planning applications that are before the Department for its consideration. Indeed, I have continued to take planning decisions, such as the decision to approve the reserved matters details for the maritime museum at Ebrington Square in Derry. I will certainly continue to take decisions where I can and where I am satisfied that referral would not be required.

Miss Woods: The Minister will be aware that a major problem with the planning system is the lack of openness, transparency and public participation. Does she agree that we must have equal rights of appeal for communities in Northern Ireland?

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for her question. She has raised that issue on a number of occasions. The legislative and structural changes to the planning system that came into effect with the new two-tier system in 2015 are designed to deliver an inclusive, front-loaded system, with stronger third-party engagement and local democratic accountability.

There are concerns that the introduction of a third-party right of appeal at the end of the development management process could undermine an applicant's commitment to community engagement at the start. That risks reducing certainty, and it could impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of the planning system at a time when it needs to be responsive to sustainable economic recovery.

I have asked my officials to keep the matter under review. That will include the consideration of recommendations that emerge from the work of the planning engagement partnership that my Department is undertaking, given the importance of having communities involved and at the heart of planning decisions.

Mr Allister: We can all make, and do make, valid criticisms of the planning process, but is it not also fair to say that it is not always the planning departments that are at fault? Take the example of the York Street interchange. It was in 2016 that the Department issued a notice to proceed. I know that there have been legal challenges since, but is it not the case that it is the Department that is dragging its feet and perhaps even playing constituency politics with the interchange?

Ms Mallon: I absolutely refute the suggestion that I play constituency politics with issues that fall within my role as Minister. As the Member rightly identifies, the York Street interchange has been subject to legal challenge. We also had a three-year hiatus, during which no Minister was in place. When I took up the post, I was very clear straightaway that I recognised the project's strategic importance but that we absolutely needed to make sure that we got it right. We need to get it right for all those who will use it and for the community that lives in and around it. That is why I carried out an independent assessment. That report is complete, and we are engaging with all our key stakeholders so that I am in a position to be able to announce next steps.

Ms Mallon: I was pleased to see my proposal for the establishment of an infrastructure commission here included as a key action in the Executive's COVID-19 recovery plan. An infrastructure commission would deliver a step change in how we plan and deliver infrastructure here, by providing a long-term shared vision and agreed approach to infrastructure planning and delivery and an informed basis on which future infrastructure needs can be identified. A cross-departmental group, led by TEO, has been established to progress the matter, and it has held several meetings to date. I continue to offer my support and that of my officials to the group and hope that rapid progress can be made to deliver on that key commitment, given that it is, I believe, the game changer that our economy, environment and community need.

Mrs D Kelly: I know of the Minister's very strong commitment to having the infrastructure commission in place and having powers available to it. Unfortunately, with the latest collapse of the Executive, there will undoubtedly be repercussions for it. What assessment has the Minister made of those? More importantly, what assessment has she made of the lost opportunities and potential for the economy here to grow?

Ms Mallon: The absence of a functioning Executive will undoubtedly slow, or even halt, progress, and that is an unacceptable position to be in, given the importance of the work and what it will deliver for Northern Ireland. I reaffirm my desire to support the TEO group, however, and I really do hope that tangible progress can be made. I know that Members in the Chamber and businesses and other organisations across the North want to see the work progress. We can see the benefits that infrastructure delivers across these islands and across the world, and we should want nothing less for our economy and for our community and our environment.

Ms Kimmins: Minister, can you elaborate a bit more on the work that is being carried out to determine the best model for the infrastructure commission, including its cost and the appointment process?

Ms Mallon: That piece of work is being progressed by the Executive Office. An interdepartmental working group has been established, and its job is to assess options for how an infrastructure commission might be structured, funded and governed and to determine the best approach to ensure that it achieves its objectives and delivers value for money. The group will consider the options and then bring forward advice on the matter. I had really hoped that we would have had an Executive that could meet to consider the options and take an agreed position so that we could move from assessing the role of an infrastructure commission to delivering it and setting it up.

Mr Buckley: I welcomed the infrastructure commission when it was first announced by the Minister, but, given that there are four regionally significant applications in the system, three of which we know have been in for 100-plus weeks, with some having been in for over 350 weeks, does the Minister accept that the planning community and, indeed, investors have lost confidence in the planning system in Northern Ireland and that, as such, the lost opportunity was indeed how far-reaching the review of the Planning Act went?

Ms Mallon: The Member has asked a question that is very similar to the supplementary question that he asked on question 1. I have made no secret of the fact that the planning system needs to have significant improvements made to it. I have not shied away from saying that. We have brought forward the cross-departmental working group, which is looking at consultee response times. Moreover, we have published the findings of the review of the 2011 Act, which has 16 recommendations. One is on validation checks, which is something for which the business community has been asking.

Another recommendation looks at penalties for late consultee responses. We continue to strive for improvement. I recognise the need to do that, and, while I am the Minister, I will continue to press for that agenda, but, along with a fit-for-purpose planning system, investors need certainty. Being without a Government at such a turbulent time does not create a context of confidence for investors, and that is deeply regrettable [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): There should be no comments from the Floor, please.

Ms Armstrong: Given that no Executive can meet now and, if the rumours are true, no Executive will be able to meet for some time after the election, is the Minister considering setting up an infrastructure advisory panel as an interim option to achieve some of the objectives that would have been delivered by an infrastructure commission?

Ms Mallon: The Member will recall that that work was initiated by my establishment of a ministerial advisory panel to examine the role of and advantages that would be delivered by an infrastructure commission in Northern Ireland. There was overwhelming support for that among the business and environmental sectors. The optimum approach is to have an infrastructure commission that is able to advise the Executive on infrastructure in its widest sense. Of course, if that does not prove possible, I will have to consider the option of an infrastructure commission that just falls within the remit of my Department. That would be a suboptimal outcome.

Ms Mallon: Following the legal challenge to the asphalt resurfacing contracts competition, my Department has been working at pace to implement a new interim-term contract strategy to ensure that much-needed resurfacing work is carried out in the areas affected by delays. The new strategy consists of four phases with six new term contracts in each.

Procurement of the first phase is well progressed. That phase includes contracts for Newry and Mourne, Down, Strabane, Magherafelt, Dungannon and Omagh. Tenders are being assessed, with the award of contracts anticipated in the coming weeks. Work on the second phase, which includes contracts for Cookstown, Derry, north Belfast, Ballymena, Armagh and Larne and Carrickfergus, is under way, with contracts expected to be awarded in May. The third and fourth phases are scheduled to begin procurement this summer.

A £1·3 million contract to resurface part of the Skeoge Road in Derry was recently awarded, and the award of the contract to resurface part of the A29 dual carriageway at Cookstown is expected shortly. One-off resurfacing contracts for the Coleraine Ring Road and the Castledawson area are out to tender, and a number of others are in the pipeline for implementation in the coming months.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Minister for her answer. Our rural roads are in a shocking state, and the weather that we have had over the past number of weeks has shown that up, particularly in my area of south Derry in Mid Ulster. The state of our roads is one of the issues that are constantly raised with me, along with the safety concerns that emanate from the fact that so many of the pavements in our rural areas do not have street lighting, which is something that I have raised with you before. What are you doing to ensure the safety of those pavements and to expedite the tendering process to ensure that the contracts are awarded before the end of the mandate so that the resurfacing work can happen as soon as possible?

Ms Mallon: I recognise that that is an issue, which is why I have increased funding to the rural roads initiative by 50%. Some £17 million is in that fund, which is the highest allocation for a specific rural roads initiative to date. On safety, I reassure you that routine safety inspections and subsequent safety-related repairs are still being completed across the network. They are not impacted on by the legal challenge. I reassure you that officials have been working at pace to develop interim procurement strategies so that we can get the resurfacing works on the ground at the earliest opportunity.

Mr K Buchanan: I note the work that section engineer Neil Bratton does in Mid Ulster. His is a wise head on broad shoulders, and he takes a lot of the politics and the nonsense out of the whole Department, which is good. Are there contractors with the availability to deliver the current rural roads work between now and the end of the financial year affected?

Ms Mallon: I reassure the Member that the interim procurement strategy was developed with the engagement of the construction sector; in fact, the construction sector asked for an extension so that it could provide all the information that was required to tender for the contract.

I reassure the Member that we continue to have close engagement with the construction industry because it is vital in making sure that we see that delivery on the ground.

Mr McNulty: Thank you, Minister, for your answers thus far. The roads in Newry and Armagh are deteriorating. I know that the Northstone case has been a factor in the delays in resurfacing works. Can you give me an update on the investigations following the Northstone case? When can we expect to see further resurfacing works completed in Newry and Armagh?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): The original question was about Mid Ulster, so answering that is at the Minister's discretion.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Ms Mallon: The issue does have relevance. [Interruption.]

Members know that I came to the House to say that I was concerned about the Northstone judgement and, as a result, have initiated an independent investigation. Sarah Hannaford QC is conducting that investigation. I expect to receive a report in the coming weeks, and I have committed to coming to the Assembly to provide Members with an update. That will take place before the end of the current mandate.

Mr Muir: The evidence presented through a recent Assembly Question is that there is a decreasing amount of monitoring-round bid from the Department for roads maintenance. Why is that, given that MLAs report to you so many cases of the need for maintenance across Northern Ireland's roads? Why is the Department not bidding for the funding available?

Ms Mallon: I remind the Member, as I have done in correspondence with him, that this year saw the highest ever capital spend by my Department, compared to any other Department, up to this point. Therefore, we started from a position where we were spending record sums of money.

The Member also knows that, throughout the year, I made a number of bids which were, unfortunately, unsuccessful. However, we find ourselves close to the end of the financial year, and my Department has to operate within the guidelines set out in 'Managing Public Money NI', so we need to make sure we can get the money spent. We will always make efforts to ensure that we maximise capital spend because we recognise the importance of the critical services that we provide to communities.

Ms Mallon: In December 2021, I published the 'Northern Ireland Flood Risk Management Plan 2021-2027', which identifies 12 areas of potential significant flood risk throughout the North. Belfast is the largest of these areas, both in geographical extent and the potential value of economic damage that could be caused by flooding.

My Department has already been involved in taking forward measures to address flooding in East Belfast. Those include the Connswater Community Greenway flood alleviation scheme, which provides flood protection for approximately 1,300 properties, and the Glenbrook flood alleviation scheme, which is nearing completion. In addition, specific areas of flood risk in the east Belfast area have also been identified in my Department’s 'Living With Water in Belfast Plan', which I published in November 2021.

As part of that, my Department, along with Northern Ireland Water, is progressing a suite of modelling studies to fully understand flood risk in East Belfast. That includes models that will identify current and future sewage and wastewater capacity issues. These sewer models will also be integrated with models for the Connswater, Knock and Loop rivers to provide an improved understanding of the flood risk between all drainage systems and support the development of solutions that can address flood risk from multiple sources.

Mr Newton: I thank the Minister for her answer to that detailed question. Many of my constituents face challenges from the insurance industry when they renew their house insurance. You have noted the geography of East Belfast and that, perhaps more than any other part of Belfast, it is subject to five types of flooding: there is the tidal, which you have not acknowledged, torrential rainfall, such as when in 2007 hundreds of homes were flooded. In many places the joint rain and sewage —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Will the Member ask his question please?

Mr Newton: — infrastructure is under pressure, and indeed the —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Question, please, Mr Newton.

Mr Newton: — Sydenham waste water pumping station, —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Mr Newton, ask a question please.

Mr Newton: — which really urgently needs to be replaced. I ask the Minister whether she will publish a joined-up strategy for the residents of East Belfast, in order that they can challenge the insurance companies when they are put at risk of increased premiums for house insurance?

Ms Mallon: I am happy for the Member to write to me and set out the details and to see what we can do in support of the residents. However, we must be mindful that insurance for homes falls outside the responsibility of my Department. There is a Flood Re scheme, which I am sure the Member is aware of and which his constituents can avail themselves of. I assure him that, as I outlined in the previous response, work is ongoing.

I accept that there have been delays to the construction of the Sydenham waste water pumping station, but it is part of the PC21 business plan. I know that it is an important project for which the Member has advocated for some time. Assuming that the budget is available, timelines indicate that construction is planned to start in spring 2024, with final completion scheduled for 2026-27.

Mr Lyttle: I thank the Infrastructure Minister for her update on flood works in East Belfast. The Connswater Community Greenway flood alleviation scheme is a feat of engineering. I am particularly interested in whether there is any further update on the movement of the Sydenham pumping station to the new site at King George V playing fields and, indeed, about whether the budget for completion of those works is in place.

Ms Mallon: As I said to Mr Newton, I was advised by Northern Ireland Water that the design of the Sydenham waste water pumping station was delayed due to the need to complete the ongoing catchment modelling. The issues in that area of East Belfast cannot be resolved simply by building bigger pipes and a bigger pumping station; we need to manage the flow of water in the area more sustainably and naturally by trying to stop clean water getting into the sewage network. That is why we have to take forward the work from the Living with Water programme to develop blue-green solutions alongside hard-engineered infrastructure. As I confirmed, the project is included in Northern Ireland Water's Living with Water programme budget requirement and is part of the PC21 business plan, with a current estimated cost of £28 million. Assuming that the budget is available, the timeline is that construction could start in spring 2024, with final completion scheduled for 2026-27.

Ms Dolan: Minister, I have listened with interest to comments about the work that is going into flood alleviation in parts of Belfast. The community in Boho in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone is at its wits' end from dealing with the damage from dangerous and seemingly endless flooding issues that blight the area. Will you commit to visiting Boho to meet residents and to listen to their concerns in order to better understand their difficulties and start putting solutions in place?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Minister, that is, as earlier, slightly outside the area. It is at your discretion to answer.

Ms Mallon: It is an important issue that affects residents, so it is right that I address it.

The Member knows that flooding in the Boho area of County Fermanagh usually occurs when water levels in the Sillees river rise after prolonged and heavy rainfall. In the past, my officials considered a flood alleviation scheme for that area that would involve diverting and improving the gradient of this flat, slow-flowing river. Unfortunately, the economic and environmental costs of that proposal far outweigh any benefits that would be gained through flood alleviation. The cost of any project to alleviate flooding would involve major works costing several million pounds, which would far exceed the benefits.

The proposals were presented to the drainage council in 2017 and, unfortunately, no viable flood alleviation scheme was identified. I recognise that that is frustrating and disappointing for residents. I have asked my officials to make sure that they do all that they can to reduce the potential for and impacts of flooding in the area. Officials will consider what further support can be provided to the local community, and I am happy for the Member to be kept updated on that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): I remind Members that questions tend to be directed and focused on, in this case, East Belfast. It is at the Minister's discretion whether she answers.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, the issue of tidal flood alleviation is clearly hugely important, given that climate change will mean rising sea levels. Can the Minister underline the importance and significance of the Belfast tidal flood alleviation scheme?

Ms Mallon: Yes. The Belfast tidal flood alleviation scheme is a £17 million project to protect 1,500 homes and businesses in the area from the devastation of flooding. It is a critical piece of infrastructure. I fully understand the concerns that have been expressed locally about the removal of trees. I want to reassure the Member that only trees and shrubs whose removal is essential for the construction of this critical piece of infrastructure are being removed. We gave serious consideration to a potential different route, but this is the route for works that reduces the impact on the local environment.

We also engaged an independent tree expert, who examined this issue on both occasions, and we have given a commitment to replant the trees and shrubs that have to be removed at a ratio of 4:1. I recognise the concerns locally but must emphasise that it is a critical piece of flood alleviation infrastructure to protect 1,500 homes and businesses.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): A very brief question from Roy Beggs.

Mr Beggs: The risk of tidal surge has been mentioned, but there is also the issue of flash flooding. The Minister has a plan for the long term. What short-term action can be taken to mitigate flash flooding so that surges of water do not result in homes being flooded?

Ms Mallon: A lot of that is contained in the Living with Water programme. A number of the flood alleviation schemes that we are working on are also trying to address that issue. The Member may know that, through my blue-green infrastructure fund, we are funding a number of pilot projects to find natural drainage solutions. I am mindful of the scheme at Belfast Castle, for example, where ponds have been created to capture the running water that comes down off Cavehill and to stop it flowing on and overwhelming the sewers, and the consequences that flow from that. We are trying to come at this from the perspective of waste water, Living with Water in terms of natural drainage and the capacity to use the environment for that, and the blue-green fund.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): That ends the period for listed questions. We will now move to 15 minutes of topical questions. As question 1 has been withdrawn, I call Claire Sugden. Claire, you are having a lucky day with those question 1s [Laughter.]

Ms Sugden: It makes a change, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Ms Mallon: The Member highlights the challenges that are presented by unadopted roads. A study that was done several years ago identified that, at prices as they were then, it would require £300 million to bring streets up to adopted standards. The Member will also know of the financial challenges that face the Department and wider Executive.

In principle, areas can be brought up to adoptable standard. The Member has written to me on that previously. She will be aware of the criteria that are involved with regard to frontage and levels of support for that. Where we can, we try to bring things up to adoptable standard. However, the issue of unadopted roads and how that has built up over many years is certainly a challenge, not least for people who live in areas where they have to live with that difficulty.

Ms Sugden: My constituents and constituency colleagues will be familiar with a road in East Londonderry that causes considerable anxiety for constituents when they drive down it. For — gosh — nearly five years, I have been working with stakeholders on that road to try to bring it up to an adoptable standard, but the level of disrepair has become so severe that it is causing other issues, namely with the footpaths and street signs. Does the Department have any discretion in extenuating circumstances, such as when roads are dangerous, to potentially take that work on and adopt the road itself?

Ms Mallon: The Department's response is that we have to adopt a consistent and fair approach across Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Member has been engaging closely with my officials over quite some time. If she wants to write to me specifically, I am happy to take a look at it. In order to manage expectations, however, I caveat that by saying that there are set criteria that we must apply fairly, consistently and objectively across Northern Ireland.

Ms Mallon: The Department and the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) have examined that issue. The reason for the current location of theory test centres is to ensure that they are within a set distance no matter where you live in the North. The second consideration is to balance the need for the provision of extra centres and the additional costs that would be incurred by people who want to sit their theory tests. I am mindful that, at this time, people are struggling to make ends meet, be that because of food bills, energy bills or fuel bills, so I am conscious of taking any decision that would put a further financial burden on them, particularly on young people, who are the cohort whom we find are going forward for their theory tests in the largest number.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for her answer. The Minister will know that Fermanagh is the only county in the North that does not have a theory test centre. I would like to see the Department moving towards righting that wrong.

There is also huge frustration at the current long waits for driving tests. While I understand that the DVA plans to hire 16 additional driving examiners, will the Minister provide assurances that some of those examiners will make their way to Fermanagh and other centres so that the backlog is tackled equally across the North?

Ms Mallon: I will address the first issue. In just over nine months since driving tests resumed, from April 2021 to 31 January 2022, the DVA conducted 52,805 driving tests. That is more than 91% of the number of tests conducted in 2018-19, which was the last full year when driving tests were not affected by COVID-19 restrictions. We have been able to achieve that record high level of driving tests because of the additional resources and capacity that we are putting in place.

I have forgotten the Member's second question, so maybe he could quickly remind me.

Mr Gildernew: Will the 16 new DVA examiners be allocated in a fair way?

Ms Mallon: The additional examiners who are being recruited will be allocated on the basis of need and demand for the service. I reassure the Member of that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): I call Robin Newton.

Mr Newton: Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, you have caught me unawares. I was not even aware that I had a second question down. My apologies. How embarrassing.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): You are all right, Robin.

Ms Mallon: The Member will be aware that we have published the report on the call for evidence for a move to two-year testing for certain categories of vehicle. There was significant majority support among the public for a move to biennial testing, so I have asked my officials to engage with all the key stakeholders to explore the steps that are needed to make progress on the matter. It would require a change in primary legislation. That could be taken forward in the next mandate.

Mr McNulty: That is really positive. Today, you made another positive announcement about freezing fare hikes on public transport. People will be delighted about that with the spiralling cost of living and the impact on them. Does the fall of the Executive prevent other parties from putting people first in the way that you have? Why are other parties and their Ministers not stepping up to the plate and putting people first and not party, as they have done for the last 15 years?

Ms Mallon: I took the decision to freeze the fares across our public transport network because the truth is that families are really struggling to make ends meet. People face higher food bills and higher energy bills. They struggle to heat and light their homes. I was determined that public transport would not add to that financial burden and the spiralling cost of living. I hope that the decision goes some way to ease pressures on families because there is a responsibility on all of us to do what we can in that area.

I am also hopeful that it will have the additional benefit of attracting more people on to public transport because I am mindful of the increase in petrol and diesel prices. More people choosing to use public transport is not only good for improving our air quality but good for our environment and for people's pockets.

Ms Mallon: The Member will know that the Taxis Act 2008 was introduced and agreed by the Assembly. Since becoming Minister, I have received requests from people in the wedding car industry and the funeral industry, as well as taxi drivers and taxi operators. It is clear that there should be a comprehensive review of the Taxis Act to give consideration to all those requests for changes.

With fewer than 80 days remaining in the mandate, it is not possible to take forward that comprehensive work as it will involve extensive public consultation and may require changes in legislation. I have been clear that it needs to be taken forward in the new mandate. It is long overdue.

Mr Clarke: I appreciate the Minister's acknowledgement that the review is overdue. However, it has long been called for. Why has it taken her Department so long to get to this stage, pushing it into the next mandate as opposed to bringing it forward in this mandate? Funeral and wedding car drivers are required to have a taxi licence. Those people already have driving licences, and there is no reason why it should take as long as it has.

Ms Mallon: I met industry representatives, and I gave careful consideration to their requests for change. I sought legal advice on that as well. As I said, I have also received multiple requests for changes to the Taxis Act. The best and most comprehensive way of dealing with that is a thorough and robust review of the Taxis Act. That is why I said that, whoever the Minister may be, whether it is me or any other Member of the House, it is important work that should be taken forward in the new mandate.

Ms Mallon: My officials have been working hard on that and have issued a consultation exercise. The challenge is that the road safety strategy could be considered to be cross-cutting. In the absence of the Executive being able to meet and agree, there could be a delay in that important work. That serves nobody's interests. I assure the Member that I will continue to take action to improve road safety, be it the 20 mph zones outside schools, penalties for the use of mobile phones while driving or the changes to drink-driving legislation. I will continue to do that, but it is deeply regrettable that, without an Executive, we may not be able to produce and complete a road safety strategy.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Minister for her response. Obviously, I share that concern. In any new strategy, it is important that we have robust targets. I note that, in the draft strategy to 2030, the target reduction in the number of people killed in collisions has decreased to 50% from the 60% target in the strategy to 2020. What is the Minister's view on that? Is she considering strengthening that target following the consultation?

Ms Mallon: We are giving careful consideration to all the responses to that consultation exercise. The Member is right: that target was highlighted in the consultation response. Varied views were provided , so we are giving careful consideration to it. I assure the Member that I want to make sure that the strategy has ambitious targets that we can work to deliver. Our careful consideration of that is ongoing.

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for her question. The Member will know that I have conducted an independent assurance test review to ensure that the York Street interchange is fit for purpose and sits with Executive strategies and 'A Bolder Vision for Belfast'. We must make sure that it takes cognisance of the climate emergency. I am also clear that, as well as working for those who will use it, the scheme needs to work for the people who live in and around it.

Consultants were engaged to look at place shaping and how we can improve that. They have provided a report, and we are engaging with local stakeholders to get their views. I very much want the work to be done in partnership. Recently, I was able to present some of the initial findings to the Healthy North Belfast meeting. As soon as that engagement is complete, I will, hopefully, be in a position to publish a report, and we can then move quickly to the next steps.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Minister for that quick update. I am pleased that she is now at a final stage. Hopefully, she will publish a report before her time in office is over. Can the Minister confirm that that will be the case?

Ms Mallon: I am keen to publish the report as soon as possible. It is also important, though, that we have engagement with local stakeholders and the local community. That work is ongoing. As soon as that is complete, I will move to publish the report and clearly identify the next steps for this hugely strategic and important project.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Time is up. Members, please take your ease before we move on to the next item.

Mr Speaker: Questions 6 and 8 have been withdrawn.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 1 and 3 together.

A number of strands of work are being taken forward on a collaborative basis across Departments to address antisocial behaviour (ASB) and its impact on individuals and communities. At an operational level, policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs), which are funded by my Department, work in partnership with designated partners, statutory bodies and the voluntary and community sector to develop solutions to address community safety issues and antisocial behaviour. New action plans and project initiatives for 2022-23 are being finalised.

The Department continues to work strategically with relevant partners to address ASB, including through forums such as the strategic partnership group and the inter-agency group, which works to implement community safety initiatives in the lower Ormeau and university area. My Department has also established the Community Safety Board, a multi-agency strategic partnership forum set up to link the strategic and operational response to community safety issues, including ASB. During 2021, the Community Safety Board stood up a number of community safety response groups to facilitate a coordinated and targeted multi-agency response to local community safety concerns, including antisocial behaviour.

Complementing the ongoing collaborative work across Departments to address ASB, my Department is leading on a multi-agency review of ASB legislation via the ASB legislation review delivery group. The objective of the review is to ensure that the relevant authorities across housing, justice and local council have effective and proportionate enforcement powers in place to deal with ASB. The delivery group is considering nine legislative powers, four of which were added to the review following public consultation and engagement. Work to date has involved detailed assessment of new legislative measures applied in other jurisdictions in response to ASB and their success and careful consideration of whether equivalent powers are required in Northern Ireland and the potential implications. To date, considerations have been completed on four powers: absolute grounds for possession; civil injunctions; provisions for noise nuisance; and criminal behaviour orders. The group will finalise its consideration of a fifth power in the coming weeks, and the remaining powers are being actively considered. Where legislative change is proposed, each departmental lead will be responsible for taking forward any subsequent legislative process within the time frame set by their Department's legislative work programme.

Mr Speaker: We are well over time.

Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagra. I thank the Minister for her answer. For some communities and individuals, antisocial behaviour is more than an inconvenience; it is a living nightmare. The Minister is well aware of documented cases where people have taken their own life. Does she agree that work needs to be expedited to tackle the problem and to divert young people from the behaviour, which is so distressing?

Mrs Long: Youth diversion is something that, for example, the Youth Justice Agency with its early intervention programmes and the Department of Education's youth service try to engage in. The Member will be conscious that, in order for us to do that well and to address issues coherently, we need the legislative tools to ensure that, for example, we have the powers of seizure for on-street drinking that we need — we know that there were flaws in previous attempts to achieve that — and that we can work closely with communities to ensure that their priorities are taken into account. Contacting the PCSPs at this time, as they finalise their programmes, is an important part of ensuring that that diversionary work continues.

Ms Sugden: In Limavady, in my constituency, we are experiencing a difficult antisocial behaviour issue. Colleagues from across the constituency have asked for it to stop. Operationally, it is a responsibility of the PSNI, but the PSNI tells me that the legislation does not support it to take it through the full criminal justice system. Antisocial behaviour is a pattern of behaviour. Are there any plans to capture in legislation that pattern of behaviour so that we can bring people to justice, and, hopefully, deter anyone else from carrying it out?

Mrs Long: On legislative opportunities, I have set out the nine legislative powers that are being dealt with. Those were added to during the consultation phase, so Members have had an opportunity to highlight areas where, they feel, there is an issue. Antisocial behaviour can, in some cases, amount to harassment. It may be worth the Member discussing with the local police whether harassment laws can be used where a person is being targeted by antisocial behaviour and whether, through those, there are opportunities to pursue prosecutions in a more structured way.

We are looking at criminal behaviour orders and noise nuisance as part of the work that we are doing on antisocial behaviour, but other legal measures may be available. If the Member would like to discuss that with my officials and seek guidance, we would be happy to assist.

Ms Bradshaw: The Minister will be aware that, every year, there are issues in the Holylands area of South Belfast. Residents there are already becoming nervous about what is to come this year. Will you offer them reassurance that work is under way to put in place a multidisciplinary cross-departmental approach to address that?

Mrs Long: The recent scenes of disorder and criminality in the Holylands and wider area were completely unacceptable. That has been recognised by everyone who is involved in trying to overcome those issues. Some issues are a matter of antisocial behaviour, but others have a structural basis. That is why we are working with the strategic partnership group to address the underlying causes in the area. For example, the overpopulation of HMOs has created issues, and the seizure of alcohol has proved to be difficult. We hope, in the near future, to appoint an intervention manager for the Holylands — joint departmental funding has been associated with that — to work closely with the local community in a cross-community, cross-departmental and inclusive way to develop plans for the area.

Actions at a strategic level, through policy development and implementation, will bring the most lasting resolution. However, that is not to say that we are standing back on the plans that are being made for the immediate future. Our operational partners are heavily engaged in work to ensure that we can get through St Patrick's Day and that people can enjoy it rather than dread it and have to suffer through it like it is a nightmare.

Mr Robinson: Could policing be looked at in the Causeway Coast and Glens area, where there is a shortage of officers on the ground to tackle antisocial activity, particularly in Limavady town in the evenings? We have had windows broken, street lights damaged and homes attacked. The situation is getting out of control.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for his concern. I understand from his comments and those of Ms Sugden that there are serious issues in that locality. I cannot make commitments on behalf of the PSNI; operationally, it is independent of my office. However, I would be more than happy to meet representatives from the area, if it would be helpful, to look at what additional powers or opportunities there might be to bring to justice those involved in that kind of activity.

It is not a minor issue. It is not just on the occasions when people suffer from antisocial behaviour that they are stressed and anxious; it is also on the nights in between when they fear that it will start again. It destroys people's lives; it destroys their quality of life; and it affects their mental health. It can also cost them a lot of money in damage to their property, particularly when that damage is low-level but persistent. I have huge sympathy for the residents who have to live with the consequences of the behaviour of others, and I am more than happy to engage as far as I can with Members to see whether there is any more that can be done. I also encourage the Member to speak to the local PCSP to see whether it is possible to target resources at those specific areas.

Mrs Long: I have regular meetings with the Chief Constable. We discuss a range of policing issues, including the impact that budgetary pressures will have on police officer numbers. I last met the Chief Constable on 17 February, when we discussed the draft Budget 2022-25.

From the outset, I have been clear that I cannot support the draft Budget, given the significant damage that it will cause to the justice sector. The draft Budget provides a specific allocation for PSNI staffing that will not enable the retention of current numbers, let alone meet the New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) commitments. In my letter to Executive colleagues on 20 January, I advised that the Chief Constable had decided, on a precautionary basis, to defer the March 2022 recruitment intake. That decision is based on the assessment made of the impact of the draft Budget on the PSNI.

The recruitment of police officers is ultimately an operational matter for the Chief Constable, who is accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I am committed to respecting his operational independence and the role of the Policing Board. I understand from my meeting with the Chief Constable that he is having ongoing discussions with the board about the detail of how the PSNI proposes to address the impacts of the Budget. In the meantime, I await further clarification of the draft Budget 2022-25 from the Finance Minister.

Mr T Buchanan: I note the Minister's concern about the draft Budget. Will she inform the House what discussions she has had with the Finance Minister, as he has a responsibility under NDNA to provide adequate funding for the required increase in officer numbers? How positive have those talks been?

Mrs Long: As the Member will know, the Executive have not yet agreed the draft Budget. It was simply agreed that we could consult on it. A consultation document was issued on 13 December 2021. I discussed the draft Budget in the weeks running up to that point, when we brought forward our departmental concerns, and I have continued to engage constructively with the Finance Minister since then.

There is a problem with the Budget to do with the amount of money available. I understand that there are competing pressures and that no Department will get everything that it wants. We in the Department of Justice, however, have made it clear that, while we are willing to be pragmatic about the spread of the finances, we cannot, as it would not be reasonable for us to do so, make decisions now for three years that would lead to lasting damage to the justice system that would ultimately undermine confidence in policing and justice and lead to extremely long waits in the courts and extremely long waits for those who work in the justice system to be paid. It would also lead to an increase in antisocial behaviour and in the non-responsiveness of police officers because of a lack of numbers. Ultimately, those things define confidence in the Police Service. It is therefore important that not only the Police Service but the entire justice system be adequately funded.

Ms Ennis: Minister, the Finance Minister has confirmed that £300 million on top of the amounts published in the draft Budget would be made available to Departments next year if the Executive were functioning. Will the Minister confirm whether she would bid for additional funding for the PSNI in the event that the DUP resumed its Executive responsibilities?

Mrs Long: I would, indeed, hope to make a bid, but I have to caution that that would be only for next year; it would not be baseline funding. When it comes to the employment of staff and other things, funding has to be baselined in order for it to be meaningful. While it might provide us with some comfort in the immediate term for next year, it would not deal with the overarching problem that we have with the three-year funding.

It is important that we get some certainty about the Budget. Whatever our departmental complaints about the draft Budget, the worst possible outcome is for people not to know what the Budget will be. We know that that is already having an impact on many of our third-sector partners, which have had to put staff on protective notice. We will lose talented people who are carrying out essential work on behalf of the Department as a result of their having no certainty about their employment.

Ms Hunter: We know that budgetary issues can have huge negative knock-on effects. What will the budgetary pressures mean for areas like the Causeway Coast and Glens district, which already struggles with officer availability? Have you spoken with any officers in that area? They already feel overstretched.

Mrs Long: I have not spoken to officers in that area for about a year. I think that that was the last time I called into police stations in the north-west and met officers from the general area. I know about the good work that officers there were doing to engage with communities and try to build confidence but also to ensure that people were reporting incidents so that the police could get a proper pattern of behaviour to respond to.

Standing here today, I cannot predict what decisions the Chief Constable and his officers might make on how to adapt to the draft Budget as it stands, but it is clear that it would mean fewer police officers on the ground. The Chief Constable spoke about the reduction in numbers, and he was talking in hundreds and not in tens, so we need to be realistic about the impact that that would have on front-line services. Whilst the police have done a lot in recent years to try to put more officers on the streets rather than in back offices, that takes time and investment, so we need to be realistic about the impact that that would have on services.

Ms Armstrong: Minister, the Finance Minister stated last week that the Department of Justice's baseline would actually increase under the proposed draft Budget. Can you clarify that, please?

Mrs Long: Yes, I can. During Question Time on Tuesday 22 February, the Minister of Finance said that the Department of Justice's baseline would increase by 2·9%, 3·9% and 3·3% across the Budget period, which, in monetary terms, is £31·2 million, £42·3 million and £35·6 million. However, in my opinion, that is misleading, as it includes security funding of £31·2 million, which is an ongoing commitment from the UK Government to assist with reserved policing costs linked to the prevalent level of security threat. That is not part of the Department of Justice's baseline. In addition, the funding for the domestic violence and sexual abuse strategy has been included in full in the Department of Finance's calculations for Justice when, in reality, it will be shared across a number of Departments.

Removing those two elements means that there will be a baseline decrease, in the first year, of 0·1% and an increase of 0·7% and 0·1% in years 2 and 3 respectively. In monetary terms, that is minus £1 million, plus £8 million and plus £0·8 million. That reflects the findings of the Fiscal Council report and demonstrates that the draft allocation for my Department is not an increase to the Department of Justice's baseline in the quantum described by the Finance Minister in his response to a question last week. It is actually a decrease in the baseline for 2022-23.

The draft Budget includes £14·8 million per annum to the PSNI for police staffing, but that allocation can only be used for that specific purpose, so it is insufficient for maintaining police officer numbers at approximately 7,100. Further progress towards achieving the NDNA commitment of 7,500 officers will not be possible unless further funding is made available. In fact, an allocation of only £14·8 million would reverse the uplift in headcount that got under way in 2021-22. The Department could not achieve 2% cuts without impacting the PSNI budget, as the PSNI budget is around 67% of the total Department budget, excluding security funding.

Mrs Long: Last year, I committed to a review of the existing vagrancy legislation and its usage. While I made no commitment on the time frame for its completion, I had hoped that it could be progressed in the current political mandate. As Members know, it had been my intention to bring about change to vagrancy provision through an amendment to the then Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. However, given the limitations of the re-scoped Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Bill and the substantial engagement of my Department's policy and legislative resources in the delivery of what has been a very challenging legislative programme, that has not been possible.

With the valuable assistance of the Justice Committee and the Assembly, I have progressed five significant pieces of legislation through the Assembly in this mandate. Four are complete, and the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Bill will soon reach Further Consideration Stage. With the legislative programme nearing completion, resources can now be focused on the review.

I am very aware that begging and rough sleeping are often linked to underlying issues such as homelessness, addiction and poor mental health, and I have always maintained that poverty and destitution should never be criminalised. I appreciate that there can be associated behaviours that are unacceptable, and it is important that the review establishes how vagrancy powers are being used. However, in the majority of cases, our response should be to provide support and seek to address the issues that have driven people to a point where they feel that there is no alternative to begging and rough sleeping.

These are complex societal issues, which are cross-cutting and require a coordinated response across Northern Ireland Departments. The repeal of vagrancy legislation alone will not suffice. It will be important to ensure that any proposed legislative changes are crafted so that they do not have any inadvertent adverse impacts on the most vulnerable in our society. Proposals for legislative change will have to be taken forward in the next mandate, though they will, of course, will be subject to ministerial priorities in that new mandate.

Miss Reilly: As you said, Minister, you have repeatedly stated your intention to complete the review of the vagrancy legislation by the end of the mandate, and now you say that it may happen in the next mandate. You have also stated that no one should be criminalised for being homeless. We really should be supporting those people and not punishing them. Although you think that the review will be in the next mandate, when do you expect that that may be?

Mrs Long: It is fair to say that we are now able to allocate resources to the review, and we will be able to look at the circumstances and impact of the use of the legislation. There are wider societal issues, and it will be important that we have an Executive that can work on those matters. Homelessness requires the engagement of the Department for Communities. Getting people into employment with alternatives to begging so that they can support themselves, either on benefits or in work, will require the engagement of the Department for the Economy and the Department for Communities. Many people, potentially, are begging because they have come here seeking refuge or because they have been trafficked. It is important that we also use the legislation that we have in that regard in order to protect them.

It is important, however, that we find a good response to those issues. That has been a priority for me, and I met Crisis recently to discuss the progress that is being made in England and Wales on the vagrancy laws. It is not possible for us simply to piggyback on the decision that has been made there. We have two separate pieces of law, one of which is the Ireland Act 1949, which we would need to repeal in order to do this properly. We need to do the work, and it is hard to estimate when that will happen. It will not necessarily be taken forward by me. I can simply say that it is a priority for me and is currently a priority for the Department.

Mrs Long: The Nationality and Borders Bill is at Report Stage in the House of Lords. The UK Government considers the Bill to be the cornerstone of their new plan for immigration. The Bill does not change Northern Ireland legislation on modern slavery. Part 5 of the Bill, "Modern Slavery", will, however, make changes to the law on modern slavery insofar as it relates to the operation of the national referral mechanism (NRM). The Bill seeks to ensure that victims are identified and supported as quickly as possible through the national referral mechanism.

The changes include but are not limited to the following: clause 58 sets a deadline for potential victims to disclose full details of their exploitation; and clause 62 excludes victims of slavery and trafficking from protection who have been identified as a threat to public order based on a previous conviction. Those clauses raise concerns, as it is often the case that victims of modern slavery and human trafficking may take a considerable time to be able to be open about their experiences because of fear for their safety or a lack of trust in enforcing authorities, even if their traffickers are behind bars.

Initially, officials from my Department have engaged with and sought clarification from the Home Office on clauses in the Nationality and Borders Bill that could impact on potential victims going through the NRM. It is now my intention to write to the Home Office as Justice Minister, setting out clearly where I have concerns about the proposed changes to the NRM, which, as the Member will appreciate, will apply across the UK. I am also aware that concerns have been expressed by a number of stakeholders in relation to clauses in the Bill, including clauses 58 and 62. I will also be seeking an assurance that concerns that have been expressed by those stakeholders will be considered and addressed.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Minister for her response. She has mentioned some stakeholders, but the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission have called for the North to be removed from the modern slavery and human trafficking provisions of the Nationality and Borders Bill as it would potentially breach article 2 of the protocol, which, obviously, obliges no diminution of rights as a result of Brexit. Does she believe that those provisions would roll back on rights and equality and would they breach article 2 of the protocol?

Mrs Long: We have not assessed whether they would breach article 2 of the protocol. We recognise, however, that immigration and asylum are not devolved matters. They are reserved matters and, as such, we have no powers to except ourselves from them or to change them. As the Member will know, at the Consideration Stage of the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Bill, we extended the support that will be available to victims of human trafficking. As a Department, we will always take a compassionate view of those who find themselves in those circumstances, irrespective of the view that may be taken elsewhere.

Ms S Bradley: Will the Minister give her assessment of the reasons behind the broad upward trend in the numbers of adults and children who have been referred to the NRM as potential victims of trafficking since 2012?

Mrs Long: It is difficult for us to be able to assess the reasons. There could be a number of complex reasons. Some of it is because people are more aware of the mechanism and are coming forward and reporting crime more effectively. That, therefore, provides the opportunity for people to be referred into the mechanism. In other cases, it is because there is, potentially, some increase in activity. We need to take those figures and look at them carefully and ensure that we have the resources available to protect those who are, potentially, victims of modern slavery and also to prosecute those who are involved in those crimes, and ensure that those concerned can pursue offenders using all available tools at their disposal.

Ms Armstrong: I thank the Minister for the work that she does in the area of modern slavery and human trafficking provisions, and I pay tribute to Invisible Traffick, which works so hard in my constituency. Does the Minister share my concerns that the UK's Government's hostile environment policies, including the ban on work for those seeking asylum, risk further marginalising vulnerable people and leaving them at risk of exploitation through modern slavery or trafficking?

Mrs Long: I share those concerns, and, having spoken to others who work in the field, I know that they share those concerns. Over the past week, we have seen people who had lives, jobs, families and stability being thrown into absolute turmoil as a result of a war that no one asked for and no one wanted. Those people are being displaced from their homes and seeking refuge all over the globe, particularly all over Europe. They are people who have skills, abilities and dignity, and they want to be able to work and provide for themselves and their families. They do not want to be reliant on handouts from anyone. If we are to fully deal with issues of human trafficking and issues around asylum and refugee status, it is incumbent on us to allow people who are here, but who do not have a decision made about their long-term future within six months, to be able to find employment, work in employment for which they are qualified, and rebuild their lives. Some people remain in the system, with no decision, for four, five and six years. It is an indignity on them and their family that they are left to scrape and scrimp on what are paltry amounts of money to survive. People who are in that situation have already been traumatised. Part of their recovery is about restoring their dignity and agency, and work is one key way of doing that.

Mrs Long: Since the onset of the pandemic, the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunal Service, along with the judiciary and other justice partners, has continued to provide essential public services within a challenging public health environment. The safety of court users and staff has been effectively managed through the completion of COVID-19 secure risk assessments and the implementation of all mitigations recommended by the health authorities. The fact that the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunal Service has not had to close a venue as a result of a COVID-19 outbreak is testimony to the effectiveness of the mitigations that it has operated.

The mitigations in place at all court and tribunal venues include facilitating remote hearings, as well as physical attendance; arranging the physical environment to allow social distancing; increasing the provision of mechanical and natural ventilation; providing physical screens in courtrooms and at counters; and providing an enhanced cleaning service. For those people attending court and tribunal venues, the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunal Service is still reminding people that, to keep themselves safe, they should attend court only when required to by the judge, continue to wear face coverings, continue to maintain social distance from others and continue to practise good hand hygiene. My officials are continuing to engage with colleagues from the Executive Office and the Department of Health to ensure that the safety measures at courts and tribunals venues remain proportionate and consistent with the public health guidance.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for her answer. At the same time, I appreciate the difficulties that the courts service and many others had, given the pandemic.

Have any representative bodies made representation to the Minister about getting the courts service back to a normal process? Has anyone raised the suitability or otherwise of how some of the work has been done by video? It could be suggested that, sometimes, people do not get a fair representation.

Mrs Long: No one has raised the issue that people do not get a fair representation, because, ultimately, the judiciary has the power to require in-person hearings if it believes that that is in the interests of justice. I have not heard that complaint.

I am aware of and respect the fact that people are eager to get back to normal. Our courts, however, have unusual circumstances. Unlike in hospitality, people cannot make a choice about whether or not they go to court: they are compelled to go there. When we compel people to attend a venue, therefore, we have a particular responsibility to ensure that that venue is safe.

From our perspective, we are moving through the process of relaxing restrictions. With COVID recovery, however, the biggest challenge is not where people are based or whether they do their work in a hybrid fashion; rather, it will come if we do not have the resources to have the qualified staff to be able to work at the rate that we are at the moment, which is that of about 115% of output across the entire justice family. If we continue with that rate, we will see court recovery in the next two years. If we do not, we could be looking towards 2027 before we see the High Court return to normal levels of business.

Mr Speaker: That ends the period for listed questions, Members. We will now move to 15 minutes of topical questions. Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Mrs Long: People are not being denied in-person visits. Those visits have been restored in the prison system, alongside the opportunity to have virtual visits. There are restrictions, in that we still have screens in place at visitation, because we are trying to protect what is a residential population with no choice over its exposure. Members will be aware that, for the first time, there have been cases of COVID in Maghaberry prison, which is highly unusual, given that we had managed to keep it out of the prisons until this point.

COVID is not over and certainly not for vulnerable people in our prison system. We need to work towards a date when we will be able to remove the remaining restrictions. The target date is 4 April. However, we will look carefully to see how things are on the ground outside in order to make sure that we keep those inside the prisons as safe and secure from COVID as we possibly can.

Mr Boylan: I thank the Minister for her response. Minister, clearly the screens and other measures are burdensome for the prisoners and their families. You gave a provisional date of 4 April: is there any opportunity for that date to be brought forward?

Mrs Long: We are working through a series of measures that need to be removed. We are aware that the screens are a concern for some prisoners at visitation, but we have to be proportionate in the discretion that we show about what is and is not safe, because it is not just one prisoner who is affected. If a prisoner contracts COVID, every other prisoner on that prisoner's wing is affected. We therefore need to move with caution, but, when we can move forward, we should not hold back.
We are working towards 4 April for the removal of all restrictions; if we are able to remove screens before that date, of course, we will do so. It is not about putting the foot on the brakes with making changes, but we have to be conscious of the vulnerability of some of those in the prison system with underlying health conditions. We need to make sure that they are safe and secure in our prisons. That is our primary responsibility.

Mrs Long: I completely concur with what the Member said about the appalling scenes that we have witnessed over the past number of days. It is hard to believe that people who were living normal lives like us, holding down jobs, raising their families, going to school and going about their normal lives like we are have now been thrown into the kind of turmoil that we have seen being visited on them on our television screens over the weekend. It is horrific. I know how difficult it will be for those from Ukraine who are resident in Northern Ireland and who desperately want to know that their families are safe and secure and, most of all, to be reunited with their families so that they have that assurance.

We have very few powers in respect of international issues, but, if there is anything that my Department can do to aid that work, we will be more than happy to do so. From my perspective, I am happy to make a call, because I believe that the Government now need to lift the restrictions on people moving from Ukraine. They should not need to have visas and paperwork to seek refuge in this part of the world. It would be absolutely wrong for us to stand on those issues and hold people outside safety who could otherwise be here and secure and who could start to rebuild their lives, because all of them will say that they want a life in the here and now, but most of them will say that they want to return. It is their home and where they belong. They are not coming here for any reason other than they are currently not safe in their homes. We should be open when it comes to supporting them.

Ms S Bradley: I thank the Minister for her answer and, in particular, for putting on record her view on lifting the visa requirements, which I share entirely. I request that the Minister expresses that directly to the Prime Minister and the Home Office from her Department. On a more practical level, there have been calls across the House, with Members willing to do practical things like opening their constituency offices as drop-off points. While I appreciate that this cannot be done through the platform of an Executive, will the Minister, along with other Ministers, reach out, have conversations, try to coordinate some sort of practical effort and act as a leading voice in this, because people want to help?

Mrs Long: I am more than happy to commit to doing that. I do not believe that there would be any resistance from any Ministers around wanting to assist with humanitarian efforts to assist those in Ukraine who are living in some of the most horrendous circumstances at the moment.

Mrs Long: It is our hope that the legislation will receive Royal Assent in the next few months and that the offence will be operationalised by the end of the summer. Hopefully, the protection orders will be available from the end of the year.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I welcome that. The sector and everyone else will be aware of the timescale, and, certainly, some of the feedback is that we hope that that will be the case. Minister, will you also give us an update on what additional support your Department can provide to people — again, mainly women — who have been affected by stalking, which in itself is violence and harassment?

Mrs Long: We already do a number of things to support people through the justice system, whether that is through Victim Support NI and the funding that we give to it or some of the other work that we have been doing to raise awareness. There will, of course, be a media campaign that will run alongside the new stalking legislation.

We are also rolling out training for all our partners in the justice system to make them aware of the new offence and how it operates, which is also very important. Undoubtedly, those who have been subjected to stalking will want to see that legislation in place as soon as possible. We certainly want to see it operationalised at the earliest possible opportunity, but it is important that we have that training complete and that we do the awareness raising so that, when it is brought into operation and people report stalking behaviours, those are picked up on by the police, prosecutors and, indeed, the judiciary and that people are fully aware of the legislation and the tools that they have available to them to stop that insidious behaviour.

Mrs Long: I am glad that the Member recognises that the role of the Minister for Justice in Ireland is completely different from the one that I hold. The equivalent role is the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whose welcome is, unfortunately, rather half-hearted and slightly depressing. I wish that the Home Office would go further, remove the requirement for visas and be more open about welcoming people to the UK. It should also use its powers of account forfeiture and unexplained wealth orders to start to deal with some of the oligarchs.

Let us be clear: it is a war that is being visited as much on the Russian people as it is on the people of Ukraine. The Russian people are not desirous of the war; it is being fought from the Kremlin, with the backing of finance from oligarchs. The sooner that the UK Government can show a clean slate when it comes to being funded by and having relationships with such individuals, the better, and the more secure that people will feel about seeking refuge in the UK.

Mr McNulty: Minister, I fully agree. It would be positive if you made representations as Minister of Justice. Can you, as Minister, call a shadow Executive to make representations on behalf of this place, state your opposition to visa restrictions and make this place more welcoming to refugees?

Mrs Long: It is very difficult to do so when there is no Executive, but perhaps the party leaders' forum would be able to take that forward. I am certainly happy to raise that with my counterparts in Westminster and here. Perhaps there will be a good opportunity for us to do that when we meet next in a couple of weeks' time.

Mr Speaker: The next four Members to ask a question are not in their place.

Mrs Long: We are out to the first phase of consultation on the hate crime Bill. Obviously, the work that Judge Marrinan did set out a pathway for how we could develop new approaches to hate crime, but there are some quite complex legal questions that need to be answered for us to be able to do that.

The first phase of consultation is currently with the public, and we hope that that will come back very shortly. That should then give us a steer on some of the complex areas, such as how we deal with sectarianism and misogyny, whether we deal with gender as an aggravating factor and whether we specify misogyny as part of the Bill. There are a number of key questions. When we get this consultation back, we will be able to develop legislative proposals around those call-for-view questions that we have out at the moment, and we will go back out to public consultation, hopefully, later this year.

Our hope is that a hate crime Bill will be brought forward in the early stages of the next mandate. It is likely to be complicated legislation, but it is of huge importance in protecting people's dignity, rights, safety and security. I, as Minister, am passionate about driving it forward. I will continue to do that until someone replaces me, potentially, after an election.

Ms Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire fosta. Minister, you touched on Judge Marrinan's recommendations, one of which was assurance test review to create a legal definition of "sectarianism" in developing a hate crime Bill. Has your Department been informed by the flags, identity, culture and tradition (FICT) report?

Mrs Long: In light of the hate crime legislation, I wrote to Executive colleagues to ask what they intended to do with regard to the FICT report and what their plans were to take forward the recommendations, so that our plans did not cut across each other. Unfortunately, we never got to that point, and the report was published without an attached action plan. That is a huge missed opportunity. Given that we spent £800,000 on developing the report, the very least that people would have expected was that we did something with it. However, given where we are at the moment — the fact that we are without an Executive — we are, simply, moving forward and asking the public for their views on how we should define any new hate crime relating to sectarianism.

On the back of that, we will then, hopefully, be in a better position to introduce specific proposals in that area for a new Executive to consider.

Mr Speaker: Members, time is up. Please take your ease for a moment or two before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Finance, Conor Murphy, to move the Bill.

Mr Speaker: No amendments to the Bill have been tabled. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to group the eight clauses of the Bill for the Question on stand part, followed by the four schedules and the long title.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Budget Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. Members may wish to note that, as the Bill is proceeding under the accelerated passage procedure and Further Consideration Stage is listed in the provisional Order Paper for 7 March, the deadline for amendments is 9.30 am on Wednesday.

Members, take your ease for a moment, please.

Miss McIlveen (The Minister of Education): I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate.

Miss McIlveen: I am delighted and privileged to bring the School Age Bill to the Assembly for its Final Stage. The Bill will make important and enduring changes to the lives of many children in Northern Ireland. No longer will there be a one-size-fits-all approach to starting school; rather, parents will decide the right approach for their child. All young-for-year children and all children born prematurely who would have been young for year had they been born at term will have the option of deferral.

As Members know, there has been long-standing concern that children born towards the end of the school year suffer adverse educational impacts by virtue of starting school at a younger age than their peers. When I was a member of the Education Committee, I consistently advocated greater flexibility, and, when I assumed office in June last year, I made sure that it was the top legislative priority for my Department. In the summer of 2021, I commenced a major review of our approach to school starting age. Since then, my officials have engaged extensively with key interest groups and stakeholders to develop the proposals for change that form the core of the Bill. That work has led us to today's final milestone.

I am committed to ensuring that every child has the best start in life. The new approach to school starting age is a key part of a wider suite of departmental policies such as implementation of the 'A Fair Start' report, investment in nurture and the children and young people's strategy. Each of those policies aims to support and develop children throughout their time in education and recognise the importance of early years to our children's development. My aim is to ensure that all children have access to high-quality education that is suitable for their individual needs. Greater flexibility in school starting age is an important element of that approach.

I will briefly set out the changes implemented by my Bill. First, it provides flexibility, so that children born between 1 April and 1 July will be able to commence primary education in the September following their fourth birthday or, alternatively, defer entry to primary school until the September following their fifth birthday. The parent of every young-for-year child in Northern Ireland will have the automatic right of deferral of both preschool and primary school for their child. That is one of the most wide-ranging and progressive approaches internationally and one that is firmly based on the evidence on attainment of young-for-year children. The Bill will also provide flexibility for premature children who would have been young for year if they had been born at term. No longer will any child in Northern Ireland be required to start school a year earlier due to their premature birth. Secondly, my Bill will ensure that children who defer will not reach the lower limit of compulsory school age until after their fifth birthday. That removes any requirement to provide full-time home education in the year before deferred children commence primary school. Thirdly, my Bill amends the definition of the upper limit of compulsory school age for children who defer entry to primary school, so that they will continue to receive 12 years of compulsory education like all other children. That means that children who defer will not leave education at the end of year 11, midway through their qualification courses. That is a very important measure to ensure equity of educational provision for children who defer. Finally, the Bill also amends the regulations for preschool admissions to facilitate the deferral of preschool education. Parents of children born between 1 April and 1 July will be able to choose for them to attend preschool in the school year following their fourth birthday. That approach will allow children who defer to access preschool immediately before commencing primary school, which will provide important continuity of early years education.

Let us reflect. The passage of this reform represents the biggest change in our approach to school starting age in many decades. Such change is unprecedented in its scale and scope and will transform the lives of many children in the years ahead. Northern Ireland will now have one of the most progressive and evidence-based approaches in the world.

Mr Lyttle (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): The campaign for a flexible school starting age has been a long-running one. I welcome today's achievement. The Education Minister's Bill will give parents greater flexibility and the option to defer starting school for their children born in April, May and June and, indeed, prematurely before those months.

I recognise the work of TinyLife, early years services and Belfast Mum in leading the campaign for this important legislative provision. As the Education Minister acknowledged, the work of the Education Committee has been so long-running on the issue that it started when she was on it. That is testimony to the persistence that has been shown to getting greater flexibility in the school starting age.

I raised the issue as a priority for the Education Committee with the Education Minister at our first-day meeting. I welcome the urgency with which she and her officials undertook the work. It is a credit to the Minister and the Department that they saw an opportunity to deliver the legislation before the end of the mandate and worked closely with the Committee to agree accelerated passage and to make important and useful amendments to allow for a substantive review of the Bill's provisions and include the criterion of prematurity in the Bill.

This is a good day. As the Minister said, it is good legislation that will deliver meaningful change and greater flexibility for children in the categories provided for. They really need to start school at the appropriate age so that they can set off on their educational journey with a sound foundation. We welcome the Bill's Final Stage and the fact that it will be in place as soon as the next school year in order to give those children the opportunity to defer. We look forward to seeing it obtain Royal Assent.

Ms Brogan: I am pleased to speak to the Final Stage of the School Age Bill and once again express my support for this important Bill. As I have said a number of times, it is legislation that will have a hugely positive effect on the young children who will benefit from delaying starting school by a year. It will also be a huge relief to parents who are concerned about their children starting school before they feel that they are ready. It is really positive legislation, and today is a positive news day.

I say, "Well done" to all those who have advocated the change and campaigned for it for such a long time. Since becoming an MLA, I have worked closely with TinyLife and Belfast Mum. They have campaigned hard to have a flexible school starting age. "Well done" to them for getting the legislative change made and to the Education Committee and the Minister for working together to make it.

Mr Newton: I support the Bill. "School Age Bill: Final Stage": is that not a nice term to be using today in the Chamber? I, like others, pay tribute to the groups that have lobbied hard over a long period on the issue. I particularly pay tribute to Belfast Mum, who, by addressing the issue and lobbying for it, has been a strong advocate.

I pay tribute to the Minister and her officials for their hard work in delivering this piece of legislation. Indeed, I thank the Chamber for agreeing to accelerated passage. We all recognised that there was a need for flexibility, not just in the age of starting but in the provision of preschool education and in the time that the pupil has the opportunity to remain in school.

We all recognise that, with children who were born prematurely, in a class you could have one child starting aged four years and two months and another child starting aged five years and two months. In the time from birth until that age, the development of the premature child might not have allowed them to take full advantage of education. The Minister addressed that and is providing the necessary preschool education.

Everything that we wanted to say about the Bill was said in its earlier stages. We have reached the Final Stage, which means that the Bill will soon become law. As others said, it is a good piece of work by the Minister and her team in the Department. Much credit goes to those who were involved in developing it.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Minister for her work in bringing the Bill forward. As the SDLP's education spokesperson, I welcome the Bill and the fact that it has reached its Final Stage. The Bill is very important and will have significant benefits, particularly in practical terms, for parents, families and all of those who are affected by the issue from a very young age.

As I articulated during the earlier stages of the Bill, the Bill undoes a great injustice that has faced many young-for-year and prematurely born children in the North. The parents of those children will now have an opportunity to defer the school starting age, which will have considerable benefits and alleviate a lot of stress and anxiety.

There has been widespread support for the legislation. That was highlighted in the Department's consultation, in which 93% of respondents agreed that there was a need for change and flexibility in the school starting age. The Bill also has widespread support across the Chamber — indeed, we are united on the issue — which is extremely positive for all involved.

However, I reiterate the concerns that I raised at Second Stage. We need to ensure that those parents who are impacted are given the necessary support and information to allow them to take an informed decision on whether to apply for deferral for their children. I will continue to engage with the Minister on that work.

To conclude, the SDLP is happy to support the Bill at Final Stage. It is a massive step in the right direction. I formally thank all of the campaigners — the various groups and parents — who lobbied for change. This is a very positive piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

Mr Butler: At the start of the Bill's passage, we all stood up and said that under normal circumstances we do not like to use accelerated passage. However, in instances like this, the proof is in the pudding, and it was right and proper to use it in this case. Thank you, Minister, for the amount of effort and work that you have put into this particular piece of legislation since you took over the portfolio, because it will make a difference to the lives of young people and parents. It has been a pleasure to work on and speak about the Bill.

My daughter, who is now 23, was five weeks premature. Thinking back to all those years ago, some of the difficulties that she had at the start may not have necessitated the need for a deferred school start, but the option will give comfort to children who need it and their parents. It was very useful that the Minister tabled amendments at an earlier stage. That caused some work for her Department, but it is incredibly appreciated. As has been said, people like Alison McNulty, Belfast Mum and TinyLife, who for many years have been working with ourselves and yourself, Minister, can now breathe a sigh of relief, because today will be the day that they see the Bill going to print.

The Bill is very simple: three pages and four clauses, including the short title. Sometimes brevity is better with legislation, and enables it to be understood by the people who need to read it.

On the point that the Member from South Tyrone has just shared —. Is it South Tyrone or West Tyrone?

A Member: West Tyrone.

Mr Butler: West Tyrone, is it? It is not Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

Mr McCrossan: West Tyrone.

Mr Butler: It is West Tyrone. I do not even know where Strabane is, to be honest [Laughter.]

Mr Speaker: Geography class is next [Laughter.]

Mr Butler: When the Bill receives Royal Assent, maybe one question will be this: how quickly can the Department get the information online for parents so that they can undertake whatever process is necessary to avail themselves of the provisions in the Bill?

Mrs Dodds: Again, I want to place on record our thanks to the Minister for introducing the School Age Bill. As the previous Member to speak said, it is relatively small in size, but it will have a big impact for children and families in Northern Ireland. I also want to put on record my thanks and acknowledgement for the cooperation of all parties in the Education Committee to ensure that the Bill has had smooth passage through the legislative process. Most of all, we want to acknowledge the work and efforts of parents and, indeed, organisations who have worked hard to ensure that the issue was kept foremost on the political agenda.

Today is a good day. It is a good day for young children and their parents in Northern Ireland. The Bill ensures that we give children the best possible start at a time that is right for them. It is a good day for politics. We have listened and addressed the concerns that have been raised with us. Northern Ireland is unusual in that, until today, we had no flexibility for young children who were due to start school. The Bill will bring welcome changes and ensure that we have the most progressive evidence-based policy of the nations of the United Kingdom.

The Bill, rightly, puts parents at the heart of decisions about the time when their children should start school. It acknowledges that children who are born in April, May and June may need a little extra time before they start school, and therefore allows the deferral of school start until the year following their fifth birthday. It allows for premature children whose natural birth dates should have been within the April to June period to be given that flexibility. It ensures that children will be entitled to a full 12 years of education and that they should avail themselves of nursery education. Best of all, it will actually become operational for September 2022. That is delivery.

The Bill is relatively small in size but has a huge scope to change the lives of young children and offer them a better start. Thank you to all who campaigned and made that a reality today.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Member for that contribution. I call the Minister of Education, Michelle McIlveen, to conclude the debate.

Miss McIlveen: I thank all Members for their comments and observations on the Bill. It is heartening that there is such consensus on the need for greater flexibility for young-for-year children.

The Bill will provide reassurance and optimism for parents who are concerned about their very young child starting school shortly after their fourth birthday. As the School Age Bill reaches its Final Stage, I thank the parents and supporting groups who made the case for young-for-year and premature children. It has been inspirational to hear their voices. I am delighted to be able to bring forward change on their behalf. I pay tribute to Alison McNulty of TinyLife, who so ably and effectively made the case to include in the scope of the Bill premature children who would have been young for year if born at term. I would also like to acknowledge the goodwill and support of the Education Committee in granting accelerated passage for the Bill. We have acted together with unity of purpose to bring real change for families right across Northern Ireland.

My Bill gives choice — real choice — to the parents of many thousands of children who are both in April, May and June each year and also to the parents of premature children who would have been young for year if born at term. The first years of life lay the foundation for future development. The Bill will ensure that the very youngest members of society are supported to fulfil their potential. I believe that my Bill will sit alongside other important legislation that has been passed in recent days as a valuable legacy of the work of this Assembly on behalf of the population of Northern Ireland.

To answer Mr Butler's question, my officials will work closely with the Education Authority over the next number of weeks to ensure that the option of deferral is available for September 2022 and that information and support is made available. This is important, groundbreaking and progressive legislation, and I am delighted to commend the School Age Bill to the House.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Minister and all Members for their contributions.

Mr Speaker: Please take your ease for a moment or two before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Education, Miss Michelle McIlveen, to move the Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: No amendments to the Bill have been tabled, and I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to group the two clauses of the Bill for the Question on stand part, followed by the Question on the long title.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the General Teaching Council (Directions) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister for Communities, Ms Deirdre Hargey, to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Mr 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 is a single group of amendments, which contains two amendments that deal with gaming machines and the code of practice. I remind Members who intend to speak that, during the debate on the single group of amendments, they should address all the amendments in the group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on the group is completed, 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. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mr Speaker: We now come to the single group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment No 2. I call the Minister for Communities, Ms Deirdre Hargey, to move amendment No 1 and to address the other amendment in the group.

Ms Hargey (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move amendment No 1:

Ms Hargey: From the outset, I make it clear that my amendments do nothing more than, first, rearrange part of article 108 of the Bill's parent legislation — the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements Order 1985 — and, secondly, rectify the wording of an amendment that was passed at Consideration Stage.

Amendment No 1 adds a new provision to clause 7 of the Bill. The new provision rearranges the part of article 108 of the 1985 Order that deals with the regulation of gaming machine stakes and prize limits in certain premises. Amendment No 1 will allow the Department to prescribe either the same or different stakes and prize limits for gaming machines according to the premises in which they are located, whether that is a betting shop, bingo club, pub or amusement arcade.

Amendment No 1 does not in any way affect clause 7(1) and (2) as the Bill stands. As agreed at Consideration Stage, it will continue to be an offence to invite, cause or permit a person under the age of 18 to play anything other than a lower-limit gaming machine. The mode of prosecution and punishment for that offence also remains as agreed at Consideration Stage. Furthermore, amendment No 1 will not extend the types of premises that may, at the moment, obtain a gaming machine certificate. It does not alter any of the stakes and prize limits for gaming machines that currently apply under the 1985 Order.

Before explaining amendment No 2, I extend my thanks to Paula Bradley, who originally moved an amendment at Consideration Stage that relates to amendment No 2. I am grateful to Paula for being open to the possibility of her amendment being revisited by my Department.

Amendment No 2 represents nothing further than an attempt to strengthen the wording of the provision that was passed at Consideration Stage. The amendment inserts a reworked provision in every article of the 1985 Order that deals with procedures for revoking or renewing gambling licences, certificates and permits. Under article 2, the basis for revoking or refusing to renew gambling licences, certificates or permits is maintained, namely in instances where there are serious repeated or continuous failures to comply with a code of practice issued by my Department. Amendment No 2, however, widens the scope of the original amendment to include betting offices, bingo clubs and lotteries. I do not believe that the amendment intended to exclude those activities from the necessary control, but I was concerned that that could be the effect. To ensure that that cannot happen, amendment No 2 increases the number of provisions in the 1985 Order that are caught by the code of practice. It is now proposed that the amendment applies to articles 27(1), 28(1), 42(1), 72(1), 92(1), 103(1) and 149(1). Those are the amendments.

Ms Armstrong (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): On behalf of the Committee for Communities, I welcome the Bill's Further Consideration Stage. You will be glad to hear that I will keep my comments to a minimum, as the Chair of the Committee outlined the Committee's deliberations and views at Consideration Stage. The Chair also highlighted that, through the substantial number of comments and recommendations in our report, we dealt with many of the important but wider issues brought to the Committee in evidence.

I turn to the Minister's proposed amendments on gaming machines and the code of practice. The Committee was aware of concerns from the Northern Ireland Amusement Caterers Trade Association (NIACTA) about gaming machines. We requested a briefing on the amendments from the Department at our meeting on 24 February. With regard to amendment No 1 on gaming machines, the Committee was advised that proposed new clause 7A will allow the Department to prescribe either the same or, if necessary, different stakes and prize limits for gaming machines according to the premises in which they are located, whether that be a betting shop, bingo club, pub, amusement arcade etc. The Committee was assured that the amendment does not change the type of premises that can apply for a gaming machine certificate. We were also assured that it does not alter any of the stakes and prize limits for gaming machines that currently apply to those premises under the 1985 Order. The Committee was pleased to hear that any changes to those limits will be made at a later date using secondary legislation and by affirmative resolution to allow for the appropriate scrutiny. The Committee supports amendment No 1.

With regard to amendment No 2, the Committee, at its meeting on 24 February, was advised that the amendment proposes to change the wording of one of the amendments made at Consideration Stage to clause 15 on the codes of practice. We were advised that the amendment inserts a new provision in every article of the 1985 Order that expressly deals with the procedures for revoking or renewing licences, certificates and permits. It also establishes a more explicit basis for revoking or refusing to renew gambling licences, certificates or permits in instances of serious, continuing or multiple breaches of one or more of the departmental codes of practice. The Committee heard that, for consistency, the proposed amendment extends that explicit basis to include bingo clubs, registered clubs and lotteries. The Committee supports amendment No 2.

I will conclude by stating again for the record that the Committee would have wished to see a more ambitious Bill in this mandate. However, it is aware that the outcome of reviews of gambling legislation in neighbouring jurisdictions will provide valuable information to inform the second phase of reforms here.

As Alliance communities spokesperson, I am very pleased to see that, in amendment No 2, article 28(1) has been included, as was brought up at Consideration Stage. The Alliance Party supports the Minister's amendments at Further Consideration Stage.

Ms Á Murphy: I will keep my comments succinct and brief, as the Minister and the Committee Deputy Chair have already touched on many aspects. I support both amendments from the Minister. As previously outlined during the different stages, Sinn Féin supports the Bill and believes that it will go a long way to updating our outdated and complex gambling legislation. This is a very welcome start to gambling reform in the North. We welcome the Minister tabling the two amendments as a result of technical issues that came about after Consideration Stage. The amendments will further strengthen the Bill and ensure that the policy intention and objective are met.

Amendment No 1 will bring us back in line with the Minister's original policy intention. Amendment No 2 will help to strengthen the wording of the amendment that was passed at Consideration Stage. It increases the scope to ensure that all forms of gambling are included for control and regulations. In turn, the amendment will further strengthen the proposed code of practice.

In conclusion, we welcome and support the amendments and look forward to the legislation being introduced as soon as possible.

Mr Frew: I rise to speak on the Minister's amendments. Again, I thank her and her Department for listening to and working with the Committee through a lot of detail. Some of the scrutiny was quite detailed, and I put on record my thanks to the Minister's officials, who often attended the Committee to discuss and go through each aspect of the Bill and the amendments.

Amendment No 1 is about gaming machines in different premises. It is required to tidy up the legislation and the amendments made at Consideration Stage. We all share concerns about gaming machines. It is a form of gambling that is in your face.

The flashing lights in those dark rooms draw young people to gaming machines. Sometimes, gaming machines are the start and can lead on to other things. You can lose a lot of money very quickly through a gaming machine, so I am alarmed at some of the tariffs, if you like, and some of the winnings that you can get, which entice young people to use them. There has to be more awareness of that. I worry about that, and I look forward to seeing, in a new place and at a new time, further legislation in that regard. To me, that will be the bigger, wider piece, and it will be the real prize.

Amendment No 2 concerns a code of practice and revoking licences. It is a wish of my party and, of course, the Committee to have a code of practice with teeth that cannot be ignored. It is right that there are real consequences for bookmakers and, of course, bingo halls, registered clubs and lotteries. I thank the Minister for her amendment to tidy that up. There should be real consequences for anyone who does not treat people in the safest way possible in the business that they conduct. Everyone has a duty of care, no matter what business you are in or how you take money off people. Whether it is by selling wares or providing entertainment through gambling, you should have a duty of care, and it is important that such codes of practice are adhered to. It is also important that the code is agreed by everyone in the industry, including bookmakers. It is important that they have a say in the code of practice that they will have to administer and adhere to.

More work has to be done on the code of practice to ensure that it is fit for purpose and robust. It should not penalise anyone unfairly, including businesses, and it must not be ineffective in safeguarding people who have an addictive attraction to gambling. It is that balance that the code of practice should achieve: helping people with addiction and ensuring that it is effective. It should be effective in bringing to light, stopping and being able to punish bad practices, and it should be effective and efficient for everyone in the business. That is really important to me. If we do not get that balance right in the code of practice, it might have an adverse effect, and that effect could drive things underground, meaning that there would be no protection for those with an addictive attraction to gambling.

Remember, at the heart of this are people and families in real pain, savings lost, houses gone, homes destroyed and lives in ruins. We should always be mindful of that when it comes to the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Amendment) Bill and any further legislation that comes in the new place and at a new time.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for tabling the amendments, which we will support. I hope that she does not mind my saying so, but she sounds almost as bad as I feel, so I will be brief as well.

We are certainly happy to support amendment No 1. I contend that Ms Murphy's comment that the Bill and this amendment will go a long way to reducing gambling harm is wrong. It is our regret that the Bill seems to go after the low-hanging fruit, or, if you like, the low-hanging fruit machines. However, we are happy to support the amendment. We might have preferred to have seen the inclusion of a robust regulatory provision for fixed-odds betting terminals: meaningful steps that would reduce — I mean really reduce — the real risk of gambling-related harm.

During the early stages of the Bill, I indicated the need to improve clause 15, and we supported amendments at Consideration Stage to strengthen the provisions on the code of practice. We are, therefore, content to support amendment No 2, which provides a bit more clarity on the revocation of licences.

Ms Hargey: I thank everyone for their contributions. I particularly thank the Committee, which worked with my team in the Department on the two amendments. I again thank Paula Bradley for working closely with the Department on the amendment that she tabled at Consideration Stage.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Amendment) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Members, please take your ease for a moment.

Mr Speaker: Members, before the Further Consideration Stage of the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill, I want to reiterate a couple of points from my recent correspondence to all Members. During amending stages, the focus of speeches should be on the merits or otherwise of specific amendments or, where appropriate, opposition to the Question that a clause stand part of the Bill. Speeches during amending stages should deal with the amendments on the Marshalled List. It is not in order for Members to take time to focus on the merits or otherwise of amendments that were not selected and were, therefore, not listed for debate. The Speaker and Deputy Speakers will seek to employ that direction throughout the debate. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Mr Edwin Poots, to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Mr 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 two groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn.

The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 19, which deal with methane and interim emissions targets, carbon units and carbon budgets. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 20 to 70, which deal with sectoral and climate action plans, just transition and a climate commissioner.

I remind Members who intend to speak that, during the debates on the two groups of amendments, they should address all 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. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mr 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 19. In this group, amendment No 2 is mutually exclusive to amendment No 1; amendment Nos 7 and 8 are consequential to amendment No 6; amendment No 16 is mutually exclusive to amendment No 15; amendment No 19 is consequential to amendment No 17; and amendment Nos 9, 11, 13 and 14 are all paving amendments to amendment No 17. I call the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Mr Edwin Poots, to move amendment No 1 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Poots: I have tabled a number of amendments to my Bill. I am hopeful that Members will appreciate the reasons and logic behind the tabling of those amendments and, ultimately, support them. The vast majority of the amendments are technical amendments to remove duplication from the Bill and to more effectively link the additional elements added to the Bill at Consideration Stage within the framework of the Bill as introduced.

My officials have engaged with the proposers of the amendments upon which these fixes are being attempted to explain the rationale behind the further amendments and to make clear that they are not changing the will or amending the policy ambitions agreed at Consideration Stage. Instead, the amendments are making the Bill more workable and improving the operability of what would be a multi-decade piece of legislation. Some of the Members in question seem willing to accept the rationale behind some of the proposed amendments. I hope that all Members want the legislation to be at least technically operable and will be supportive of the intent behind the technical amendments.

I will discuss the majority of the fixes in more detail during the group 2 debate. First, I want to focus on the amendments in group 1, particularly amendment Nos 1 and 17, which I have tabled. Amendment No 1 would amend clause 1, which sets out the emissions reduction target for 2050. The amendments made at Consideration Stage mean that the overall target in clause 1 is for net zero emissions by 2050. Those present are well aware of my view on that target; it is not just my view but that of the Climate Change Committee (CCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I have consistently highlighted that there is no evidence to support such a target and that the impacts and costs of trying to achieve such a target would be colossal. Unfortunately, it is clear that some people do not want to face those facts.

The consequence of the potential impact of those proposals is even more clear to us now than they were when we debated at Consideration Stage. No one anticipated war in Europe in this century. No one anticipated that the second-largest producer of fossil fuels — oil and gas — in the world would invade one of the largest food providers in the world.

We are living in a circumstance in which the things that we use every day, such as the light that we switch on in the morning, the kettle that we boil and the bread that we put in the toaster are all impacted on by what is happening many thousands of miles away. We are all affected by that. The significance of that, and its potential impact, is absolutely huge and game-changing for the rest of the world.

Ukraine produces enough food to feed 600 million people. If this becomes a protracted war in which harvests are not planted, the implications for food supply will be felt this year by the rest of the world. That will include your bread, chicken, and dairy products: all those things. As well as oil and gas, Russia is one of the largest suppliers of nitrogen fertiliser. I believe that the only inevitable sanctions that will make any real difference to Russia are those that include its oil and gas. Whenever that filters through, however, Russia is going apply further pressure on us. The decisions that we make in this country must therefore be in the best interests of the people whom we represent. One of those decisions should be that we sustain our ability to produce food for the people who live on these islands.

During the debate at Consideration Stage, a number of Members who supported the 2050 net zero target also indicated that they supported the agriculture sector, that they cared about farming and that aiming for such a target did not mean that there would be cuts to the herd. Ms Bailey said that the Green Party was pro-farmer. She said:

Mr McGuigan, speaking for Sinn Féin — at least I assume that he was — said:

He further highlighted developments and plans in the South of Ireland and indicated that cuts to the herd are not being called for there in the context of the South's carbon neutrality target. He said that Sinn Féin would not allow beef and sheep farmers in less-favoured areas (LFAs) to go out of business. Indeed, Mr McGuigan said that Sinn Féin would not tolerate food production in Ireland being reduced only to be replaced by unsustainable imports from the other side of the globe and that it would protect the interests of family farmers, and the communities that depend on them. There is therefore an opportunity for Mr McGuigan and the other Sinn Féin Members to put their votes where their words were in the previous debate, and that opportunity will come this evening at some stage.

Mr O'Toole said:

In the context of those comments, I look forward to the support of the Members from those parties that I have mentioned for amendment No 1. Amendment No 1 ensures that, in the context of aiming for net zero emissions by 2050, the level of reductions in methane emissions is not required:

The potential level of reductions in methane emissions is consistent — this is important — with the advice from the IPCC and with the CCC's "balanced pathway" recommendations on methane and the ambition that we should have for reducing methane emissions. Importantly, it will prevent a situation in which, in the context of aiming for overall net zero, disproportionate reductions in methane emissions are pursued.

I note that the IPCC has today published a global report, titled 'Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability', which makes for stark reading. I want to take time to read it in depth and analyse its findings in more detail. The report, however, again highlights the serious risks that we face from the impacts of global climate change and the need urgently to do much more about adaptation and reducing our global emissions. The report also highlights, in line with the Paris agreement, the importance of food security and the threats to food security from climate change.

However, another threat to food security — a very real one in Northern Ireland — is the pursuit of policies that would decimate our food production capacity. Amendment No 1 will help to prevent that from happening. It will protect and preserve the overall net zero target, which was the will of the House, while ensuring that the levels of methane reductions required are consistent with the advice and guidance of the experts. In so doing, it will help to provide some degree of protection for our agriculture sector without limiting overall climate ambition. The protection of the agriculture sector was clearly stated as being the will of many Members, so now is the time to vote for an amendment that will help to do just that and show that it is their genuine will.

Amendment No 1 does not, as some might claim, limit the ambition of farmers. Rather, it shows that you are all committed to protecting rural communities and the important role of agriculture in our economy and in those rural communities, whilst, at the same time, to pursuing the ambition of net zero for Northern Ireland. The level of reductions can, of course, be higher as technologies evolve, but, for now, the amendment recognises the special characteristics of methane and the need for us to produce food from livestock from which there will be methane emissions instead of simply shifting that food production to elsewhere in the world — to another island or another land mass — where the methane continues to be produced. We can all agree that that would be a better outcome.

Mr McGuigan, Mr McAleer and Dr Archibald have tabled amendment No 2, which requires that, in terms of targets for biogenic methane reductions, we aim that they:

I considered that as being complementary to my amendment No 1, and would have been willing to support it on that basis. Unfortunately, the Speaker has ruled that amendment Nos 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive, which I understand. If both amendments were passed, it would cause a problem.

My amendment is the better one for a number of reasons. There are no targets for biogenic methane in clauses one to four of the Bill, nor will there necessarily be any expressed in those terms in carbon budgets. Therefore if we want to effectively incorporate something useful in the Bill on methane at this stage, Members should support my amendment, which deals with specifics regarding the amount of reductions in baselines and is, therefore, more legally robust and easier to measure in terms of deliverability. Therefore, I hope that those Members who supported the net zero target and, at the same time, expressed their support for the agriculture sector will see amendment No 1 as being a positive additional element to the Bill and support it.

I have also tabled amendment No 17, which aims to remove agricultural emissions from the targets in the Bill as an alternative for Members. That amendment would mean that agricultural emissions from specific agriculture sources do not count as emissions of gas for the purposes of the target in the Bill. The sources in question are the primary sources of agricultural emissions in Northern Ireland, namely emissions from enteric fermentation and other emissions from livestock; emissions from agricultural soils, wastes and manure management; and emissions from agricultural machinery.

Amendment No 17 would also provide my Department with the power to make regulations in the future that specify the extent to which, and under which circumstances, emissions of greenhouse gases from agricultural sources count as Northern Ireland emissions of that gas for the purpose of the targets in the Bill. Amendment No 17 would protect the agriculture sector from the negative consequences of a net zero target and allow us to decide in the longer term which emissions from agriculture should count towards the targets in the Bill.

Amendment Nos 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12 are consequential to amendment No 1, and amendment Nos 9, 11, 13, 14 and 19 are consequential to amendment No 17. Those are all minor technical amendments to update references. I will not go into the detail of those amendments, as the key decisions to make are on amendment Nos 1 and 17.

Turning to the other amendments in the group, amendment Nos 3 and 4 attempt to replace the current 2030 and 2040 targets with the words

They are linked to clause 2, which was agreed at Consideration Stage. However, I have tabled amendment No 5, which would add new clause 5A. That will better achieve what amendment Nos 3 and 4 and, indeed, clause 2 are trying to do. Under amendment No 5, creates new clause 5A, which requires the existing 2030 and 2040 targets to be reviewed in the context of the target in clause 1 and, if appropriate, update it within two years using the powers in clause 5.

My amendment links to the power in the Bill to amend the targets for 2030 and 2040 and retains the current targets for 2030 and 2040 until the relevant analysis has been undertaken of whether they should be changed and to what. Given that various provisions in the Bill refer to the targets in clauses 3 and 4, it is better to retain an actual target in those clauses than to substitute the suggested wording in amendment Nos 3 and 4. I therefore urge Members to support amendment No 5 rather than amendment Nos 3 and 4.

Amendment Nos 15 and 16 relate to clause 8(3)(d). Amendment No 16 would change the wording in the provision to the use of "emissions removal technology", but amendment No 15, which I have tabled, would change it to:

Those are fairly minor amendments. They attempt to do the same thing, but my suggested wording is more commonly used. I therefore urge Members to support amendment No 15.

Amendment No 18 would replace clause 10(3), which was inserted at Consideration Stage. As I highlighted during that debate, the provision is defective in that it supposes that regulations under clause 10(1) will specify reductions in the net emissions account, whereas the regulations only set the framework for calculating that account. While I support the principle of the amendment that was agreed at Consideration Stage, it did not specify what kind of reduction is forbidden and does not link properly to the power in subsection (1). I have therefore tabled amendment No 18, which requires regulations under clause 10(1) to:

and places a restriction so that the limit:

The amendment will retain the intent of the original amendment, but, crucially, it will make it operable. Indeed, that is what all my professionally drafted, technical-fix amendments have been put forward to do.

In summary, Members will be glad to hear, I urge Members to accept and agree all the amendments that I have tabled to protect our agriculture sector and community. I cannot support the other group 1 amendments, because my amendments will achieve the same outcomes in a more legally coherent way. As an Assembly, we need to do the right thing, ensure that we tackle the complex and urgent issue of climate change collectively and support and protect our key sectors. I commend my amendments to the House. They will do what we are setting out to do, which is to ensure that we have a much better environment, considerably reduce the amount of carbon in our environment through greenhouse gases and sustain our agri-food sector for generations to come. We have young people who are dependent on opportunities in the agri-food sector to continue to live in our rural communities. As we see people move into cities across the world, let us in Northern Ireland do something a bit different by ensuring that our rural communities can not just survive but thrive and continue to have a place of value to them in which people can sustain a living without having to move to cities or, indeed, other countries for employment opportunities. Let us ensure that we do not sell our young people short but do the right thing by supporting rural communities and the agri-food sector, in particular, through the Bill.

Mr McGuigan: Two climate Bills, months of Committee scrutiny, 80-plus amendments at Consideration Stage and 70 amendments at Further Consideration Stage today show the interest in and the importance of climate legislation. It also shows the importance of the efforts of all of us to get it right for our citizens. That is the spirit in which Sinn Féin has approached the climate legislation debate to date, and it is further evidenced by our amendments today. The North needs a climate Bill that is ambitious, fair and deliverable and that, in the context of this jurisdiction, plays its part in achieving the scientific necessity of keeping to the Paris agreement targets. Given the IPCC report that came out today, that should be the clear focus for every one of us who is determined to fight back against global warming.

Our legislation must be fair to individuals and to all sectors of society, such as transport, including shipping and aviation, infrastructure, our energy sector, our business community and waste management, and it must be fair to our agriculture sector. I have said at every stage of the Bill that no sector of our society can be left behind. I thank the Minister for recounting my comments at Consideration Stage about Sinn Féin's protections for our agriculture sector. At every stage of the process, Sinn Féin has submitted amendments in the interests of being fair and to make the Bill both more ambitious and fair to those in society whom it will affect.

Our amendment No 2 is, again, an attempt to strength our previous amendments to protect our agriculture sector on our pathway to net zero. It states:

Those are all encompassed within the main target of the Bill, which is to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. I hope that that will have the support of all of us in the Chamber, and I hope that it has the support of the agriculture and agri-food sector. Sinn Féin will leave no sector behind. We will stand by our farming, agricultural and rural communities, as we always have. It should never have become a battle between agriculture and the environment. Whilst it may have suited some in the Chamber to frame it that way, that has done a disservice to the climate legislation debate.

The same could be said of the Minister's amendment No 17, which would exclude the agriculture sector from the outworkings of the Bill. It is a total nonsense amendment. When I first saw the amendment, I thought that it was an early April Fool's joke. I hope that the Minister reads today's IPCC report and that it resonates with him. The Minister needs to realise that we need to move on climate change and to protect our farmers and agri-food sector, as, in the North, it will be they who will be hit hardest by the impact of global warming in the years to come. He is the Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, and he needs to start acting as such. We can have ambitious climate legislation that protects our environment and our agriculture sector. Each is dependent on the other. The Minister does not need to take my word for it: the farming sector has repeatedly stated that it needs and wants to be part of the climate change solution. It wants to play its part in a fair and proportionate manner. Our amendment No 2, rather than the Minister's amendment No 17, will allow our farmers to do that.

We will oppose amendment No 17 and amendment Nos 9, 11, 13 and 14, which are related to it. We will obviously support our amendment No 2. We will also move our amendment No 4 but not amendment No 3 and will support the Department's amendment No 5. We had a conversation with the Department and accept the rationale that there is a need to keep a target for 2030 in the Bill to allow for early work on carbon budgets and sectoral plans. We still believe that the 2030 and, certainly, the 2040 interim targets should be amended. Amendment No 5 allows for that to happen within the context of the unmovable target of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Mr Irwin: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the issue and to channel the voice of the farming community into the Chamber today. I am passionate about our agri-food industry in Northern Ireland, about the benefit and security that it brings to Northern Ireland and about defending the industry from the attacks of those who seek to bite the hand that feeds them.

Farmers are very much used to the various smells that agri-food production generates. I, too, am aware of those smells.

With my keen sense of smell, I certainly detect a whiff of a U-turn from the party opposite — Sinn Féin — which has, obviously, started in recent days to listen to the voice of the farming community in Northern Ireland. That change of plan is very notable.

The recent and very obvious change of policy by Sinn Féin is certainly not before time. What is most alarming is the fact that so much time has been lost in the House debating and explaining the damage that net zero targets would bring about, be they through the Sinn Féin-supported Clare Bailey Bill or the Sinn Féin-supported amendments regarding net zero by 2050. The disregard for the farming community in the pursuit of those mindless policies has been alarming and, ultimately, hugely unsettling for our farming community across the Province. I have spoken with many farmers who are genuinely deeply concerned by the actions of certain parties in the Chamber and do not feel that they have been listened to. I assure the farmers who have contacted me that I am listening and that my votes in the House will be to their betterment and that of climate change. I will not vote to damage our agri-food industry, as others have so easily and causally done.

The Climate Change (No. 2) Bill is by no means an easy path to follow. However, because of the damaging amendments that the other parties in the House voted for, the path has been made almost impossible to implement. It has been made so costly to our Northern Ireland economy that following such folly to a conclusion would see our agri-food industry decimated and our food supply security so badly exposed that everyone in Northern Ireland would feel the effects.

Mr Poots: I thank the Member for giving way. It is clear that Mr McGuigan, who was engaged in a monologue, as opposed to a debate, was not that keen on taking interventions. Does the Member agree that it was not this party that set a division between the farming community and what was being proposed in the legislation? If Members across the way think that farmers are stupid and that they are all about doom and gloom and nothing else, they do not understand the farming community. Farmers understood the impact that the legislation would have on the generations of work that occurred before them and that the generations that come after them would be destroyed as a consequence of the proposals that were voted through previously. Does the Member agree that the only way of saving this is by voting through the amendments that I have proposed, which will ensure that the rural community has something genuine and that some people are putting their votes where their mouths are when it comes to standing up for the rural and farming generations?

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister. I certainly agree with him. Farmers are acutely aware of the dire situation that would be before them if some people had their way.

The issues of food supply and food prices have been brought into stark focus by the current worrying and ongoing situation in Ukraine. My thoughts are with the Ukrainian people at this horrible time. Ukraine has long had the name as the bread basket of Europe, owing to its output of grain and the reliance on that product by nations across Europe. Agri-food security and supply is a vital element for any country. We in Northern Ireland should not seek to limit our ability to meet domestic consumer need.

Many of the group 1 amendments that have been tabled by the Minister are vital. I urge the House to support them in full. Amendment No 1 is critical to our agri-food industry to ensure that the path that is taken by Northern Ireland is consistent with the aims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Climate Change Committee recommendations. The UK Climate Change Committee is a body that is worth listening to. I have in Committee continually referred to the expert advice that is contained in its submissions. It is vital that we follow scientific and expert advice to best allow Northern Ireland to move forward on reducing methane outputs. The amendments that are proposed by the Minister are critical in ensuring that, while moving forward, we do not enforce unbalanced reductions in methane that would, ultimately, decimate our agri-food sector and leave us extremely vulnerable to security of supply issues.

Many parties claim to stand up for the countryside and represent large rural constituencies. It is high time that we witnessed that support in action. The House needs to pass responsible legislation that works for our agri-food industry's survival and the benefit of the climate. We also need to take a long, hard look at those countries that we rely on so heavily for cheap imported goods and that have woeful records on climate change. Indeed, they contribute very heavily to global emission outputs. I say that Northern Ireland is not the problem here. Far from it; it contributes just 0·04% to global emission outputs. We must be reasonable and calculated in our efforts on this issue.

The Minister's amendments in the second group are technical and reasonable insofar as making the Bill function more easily. They represent technical repairs to the original Bill and reduce duplication. I again urge Members to ensure that the votes taken today are responsible and add to the general movement towards improving our climate and, crucially, bringing our agri-food industry with us.

Mr McGlone: We are maybe hearing elements of Groundhog Day. As one of the Members whom Mr McGuigan spoke about earlier as having sat through a lot of evidence — probably days of evidence — on the climate change issue, I know that it is important that we come here today from a perspective of seeking solutions and trying to work things through. A lot of people are looking at the Assembly today, concerned not only about their livelihoods and the economy but about society as a whole. Farmers, too, have children, and farmers have an interest in climate change and in mitigating its worst aspects. I have not yet met a single farmer who does not realise that he or she has a commitment and a desire to doing that and to playing their part.

As I stated during the debate on the first group of amendments, it is time to get serious about addressing the climate emergency. The SDLP supports and has supported the setting of ambitious targets for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, but bringing everyone with us is essential to achieving those targets. Ensuring a just transition is the key to doing that, and we will vote on the amendments to ensure that the correct mechanism for a just transition is put in place, albeit it is in the second group of amendments. There is also a case for streamlining the amended Bill to prevent duplication of actions and plans, and our voting will reflect that. Every Department and public body will need to assess policies and proposals on the basis of their impact on emission targets and on their effect on communities across the North to enable that just transition.

As we know, there has been a delay in bringing the necessary legislation in the Bill, which was caused by the three years when we had no Assembly. During that time, the average global temperature has continued to rise. Taken together, the past seven years were the hottest seven years on record. The trend is clear and inescapable. Throughout that time, the SDLP has been clear and committed in our ambitions.

I will go through the amendments. It is our intention to support amendment No 1. We have listened very carefully to the various sectors and the outside world, and we realise that there has to be a method and a way forward for us to achieve our aims and objectives to prevent global warming yet at the same time acknowledge the very real aspects of life in Northern Ireland. We have concerns, and I will come to those. Minister, you referred specifically to amendment No 17. I really do not think, Minister, that, if amendment No 1 passes, you will require amendment No 17, but, in any event, I really do not think that it is prudent to single out any one sector and say that emissions of greenhouse gas from agricultural sources do not count. They do. Everybody has their role to play. As I said, farmers have stated that they want to play their role, and I have not heard a single farmer say that they want to be exempted from that duty and responsibility for themselves, their family and their neighbours. We cannot support amendment No 17.

Mr Poots: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: Sure.

Mr Poots: Does the Member recognise that amendment No 17 was tabled to allow Mr McGuigan and his colleagues to follow through on what they said? If you do not want any cuts to the herd, you have to accept amendment No 17, because amendment No 1 allows for the 42%, which will still present significant challenges, but, if you want to go as far as Mr McGuigan and the team claim to want in not allowing any cuts to the herd, you have to accept amendment No 17.

Mr McGlone: I do not know what your source is, Minister. I am sure that you are as erudite as usual in your application of detail, but I cannot support it, and I think that you know fine well why.

There are concerns about highlighting one sector — by exempting it — to the exclusion of all others. As in the red diesel argument, I am sure that a long line of businesses, sectors etc would form to ask, "What are you doing for them? Why are you not doing it for us?". I am sure that you understand that, Minister, just as I have some understanding of why you have tabled your amendment.

Those are my initial comments. We are committed to seeing climate change legislation through. As a representative of a rural constituency, I share a lot of the concerns that have been relayed to me about the Bill's impact on rural communities etc, but I also see its potential and its opportunities for rural communities to diversify into and expand certain areas of the economy.

Getting together and bringing everyone with us will be essential. At times, it may be problematic and difficult, but that is where leadership kicks in. That is where people and leaders lead by example and take us, hopefully, to a better place, with the creation of a society that has to think of others and of the impacts of what we, as legislators, do in the Assembly.

Mrs Barton: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. It is important at this stage that the Bill consider the interests of all who are concerned with climate change, including those who consider that we have a crisis and those who want to work to improve the situation by helping to find a meaningful solution to reduce the effects of climate change.

There is little doubt that the scientific data that has been collected in Northern Ireland points the finger at the emissions of the agriculture and transport industries, with agriculture accounting for 26% of the Northern Ireland carbon footprint. However, while the agriculture sector in Northern Ireland is the highest contributor, it understands that mitigations are needed to protect the climate and recognises the important role that it will have to play in reducing Northern Ireland's emissions. I have no doubt that our agriculture sector and our agri-economy are willing to play their part, in line with the Climate Change Committee, in the setting of achievable targets.

Throughout Consideration Stage, my party made it clear that, yes, a climate change Bill is needed. Progress that contributes to the passage of this Bill must reflect a policy that encourages our agriculture community to work towards change with scientific research. However, our agriculture industry must be supported and cannot suffer serious consequences as a result of the Bill.

Most of the amendments that you tabled for this afternoon, Minister, are technical; we understand that. Let me go through them and state our position.

In group 1, we support amendment No 1, which still has an ambitious reduction target but is in line with the Climate Change Committee's advice as it has a pathway around methane while protecting rural communities. Like you, we thought that amendment No 2 complemented amendment No 1, but that is not the case, I understand. Amendment No 3, which is from Sinn Féin, clarifies the targets, while amendment No 4 amends the target to 2050. We will support both those amendments. While the Minister's new clause in Amendment No 5 aligns targets 2030, 2040 and 2050 with net zero — we hope to support those — amendment No 6 sets the baseline for methane to 1990, as agreed at Consideration Stage. We support that, along with the Minister's tidying-up amendment Nos 7 to 15. Amendment Nos 18 and 19 again are tidying up after Consideration Stage, and we will support them.

Mr Blair: On 1 February, the Assembly voted in favour of a target of having net zero emissions for Northern Ireland for the benefit of our environment, our people and our prosperity. The net zero by 2050 target encompassed all greenhouse gases and gave no special regard to any gas. Therefore, I am baffled about why two parties have tabled amendments to decouple methane from other greenhouse gases, contrary to the will of the House and, it seems, to the advice of the UK Climate Change Committee, which is so often quoted in these debates and which has not recommended decoupling any gases for achieving greenhouse gas net zero targets. If we take that approach and give methane special regard over the other greenhouse gases, we not only separate ourselves from the approach taken in neighbouring jurisdictions but we take a unique and untested approach that could jeopardise our future.

Mr Poots: Will the Member give way?

Mr Blair: I will give way this once, but I want to make progress.

Mr Poots: I thank the Member for giving way. I would like him to elaborate on what new advice he has received from the UK CCC or, indeed, the IPCC that we need 100% for methane. They gave an overall recommendation of 82% in the first place. If they have now changed to 100% for everything, that certainly comes as news to me, my Department and everybody else. If he has something, I would be happy to hear from him.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for his intervention. I made reference to the absence of advice regarding decoupling and to the fact that neighbouring jurisdictions have not resorted to such actions.

It is timely that the IPCC report 'Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability' has come on the same day as this debate on the long overdue decarbonisation of the Northern Ireland economy. The IPCC findings are a frightening reminder — I might refer to them later — that climate change legislation is not just critical but urgent. Northern Ireland lags way behind in tackling the climate crisis, and we remain the only place in the UK, Ireland or Europe not to have our own form of net zero climate law. The impact of climate legislation on our emissions will depend substantively on the strength of the law that we make and the rigour with which it is implemented. This is our opportunity to create strong, effective climate legislation. If we fall behind now, we risk staying behind for ever and losing out on the economic benefits of new green industries, with new jobs and export opportunities; ecological benefits, with more biodiversity, better air quality, more green space to enjoy; better infrastructure; less climate damage, such as flooding; and, finally, the community benefits, including quieter streets, active travel, healthier diets, smart cities and comfortable homes.

I will turn to the Minister's amendments. Alliance will oppose efforts by the Minister to give methane special regard for the reasons that I have outlined and because that is an unconstructive basis for developing effective policy and legislation to tackle the crisis that I have just described.

Amendment No 2, which is Sinn Féin's amendment to separate biogenic methane emissions, also causes problems. Representatives from the environmental sector, including Northern Ireland Environment Link, Friends of the Earth and the RSPB, to name but a few — I am grateful for the work done by all those organisations — have made a strong case for not separating or excluding methane or agricultural emissions from the net zero target.

I turn to amendment No 17. Alliance strongly opposes the Minister's attempt to exempt agricultural emissions from the overall target of the Bill. The agriculture sector has not only overtaken transport to become the sector that emits the largest proportion of greenhouse gases in Northern Ireland but is, in fact, the only sector in Northern Ireland that has increased its emissions in recent years. Those are harsh realities but realities nonetheless. In Northern Ireland, in 2019, greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture were 471,000 tons CO2 equivalent, which was an increase of 9% on the figure for 2008, when the UK Climate Change Act was passed. To give one sector the freedom to continue to increase emissions is contrary not only to the will of the Assembly but to the Climate Change Committee's advice and our commitment under the UK Climate Change Act.

No one underestimates the impact that the target would have on our agri-food sector, but we must consider it at a broader level. Today's IPCC report confirmed what we all know: wealthy nations such as the UK bear disproportionate responsibility for climate change but are the least exposed to its disastrous effects. Low-income communities in the global south urgently need justice to cope with the escalating loss and damage and to adapt for the future. To create loopholes and exemptions in our responsibilities in Northern Ireland is to turn our back on those who are most at risk from and least responsible for the climate emergency. Not only that, but, in protecting one strand of one industry, we stand to lose enormous economic and social opportunities and confine Northern Ireland to being the carbon outlier of Europe.

We need ambition at political level, because the opportunities are ours for the taking. The race to net zero drives growth and economic opportunity amongst our neighbours and competitors; we can no longer be the exception to ambition. We are undoubtedly lagging behind in tackling the climate crisis, and we should not slip further behind. If we wish, we can hit the ground running with best practice that has already been tried and tested in other regions and countries.

I appeal to political colleagues on all sides of the House to consider the implications of taking a different approach to that taken in the UK and Ireland. If we fall behind now, we could stay behind for ever. I close with a quotation from the IPCC report:

That report is:

Mr McAleer: There has been huge focus on this debate. We have been working on it since last May, when the first of the climate change Bills came to the Committee. We have listened intensively to all of the sectors, including the farming sector. We have listened to farmers on their doorsteps, in their sheds and in different places. They have valid concerns. They are also in the eye of the storm. Climate has a huge impact on agriculture. On Saturday, my colleague Emma Sheerin MLA and I were in Glenelly again, as, unfortunately, the valley has been hit by storms again. The three named storms of last week hit the valley and did a lot of destruction, washing away a lot of riverbanks, destroying ground and all the rest of it. Farmers are at the centre of climatic change.

We have listened carefully and intensively over the last number of months. We want climate change legislation that is effective but does not impact disproportionately on farmers or any other sector. At Consideration Stage, we either tabled or supported a number of what, we felt, were important amendments to strengthen the Bill by helping to mitigate the impact on the farming community. They included the requirements for co-design of the climate action plans through a 16-week consultation, rural-proofing, equality-proofing, economic-proofing, small business impact-proofing and, of course, the agricultural fund.

At Consideration Stage, we also brought in an amendment to require the Department to consider the special economic and social role of farming when working up the climate action plans. Indeed, we also introduced an amendment on methane. At this stage, we have built on those amendments. We have continued to listen. We have tabled further amendments to strengthen protections, including making it clear:

That was done on the basis of listening. For example, I was at the conference and listened carefully to Professor Myles Allen of the University of Oxford, who is a world expert on the matter. We have also listened to good developments. Earlier today, the Minister spoke about some of those developments, including the use of seaweed as a food additive. Last week, I noticed that the EU signed off on additives to feed that will potentially reduce methane emissions by up to 35%. Some really good stuff is happening. Through our Committee, I get six-weekly reports from the Department on the great mitigation work that is going on in the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), Teagasc and universities, North and South. That is all very good and hopeful.

I am from a farming family and represent a rural constituency. Again, we have been listening. We have tabled a whole series of amendments that we believe strengthen the Bill to protect the agri-food sector. That is really important. Our amendment No 2 is mutually exclusive to amendment No 1. That was not necessarily our decision, but it is just the way that it is. We will certainly be supporting our own amendment. My colleague Philip has already outlined the other amendments that we will be supporting.

Mr Harvey: I will base the majority of my remarks around the fundamental amendment in the group, which is amendment No 1, and the other amendments that flow from it. Unfortunately, the Bill, as now amended, is a far cry from the Minister's original Bill, which was based on science and the recommendations from the UK Climate Change Committee. That having been said, I welcome any amendments that seek to reflect current science and return us from the politics of unrealistic pipe dreams to workable solutions for tackling our emissions.

Both amendment Nos 1 and 2 address the need to deal with methane emissions as a separate and distinct entity. That is a fundamental necessity if we are to achieve a workable piece of legislation. There is no doubt that the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill will shape our economy and, more widely, our society for the future. It must protect jobs, rural communities and the production of high-quality local food whilst providing an ambitious road map for reducing carbon emissions and global warming generally. As such, I welcome the change in direction from Sinn Féin that is evident in the amendments that are now before us at Further Consideration Stage. It is a change of heart for the better and will be welcomed by the agriculture sector as a whole.

It is vital that we focus on ensuring that Northern Ireland is a world leader in global warming mitigation through the creation of a sustainable economy and an efficient, climate-friendly agri-food sector. As has already been mentioned, over the past number of weeks, with the Ukraine conflict, we have been reminded not to depend on food imports. Now more than ever before, it is important that we have the ability to produce our own food. The House has a duty to the people of Northern Ireland to ensure that that is the case. The Department's amendment Nos 1, 5, 6, 15, 17, 18 and 19 speak to that.

It is intended that the outworking of amendment No 1 will be to place a safeguarding mechanism in the Bill to ensure that, in the context of aiming for overall net zero, disproportionate reductions in methane emissions are not pursued. It is necessary that the level of reductions in methane emissions that are outlined be consistent with advice from the IPCC, the UK CCC's "balanced pathway" recommendations on methane and the ambition that we should have to reduce emissions of it.

Even those who supported net zero can support amendment No 1, and they should do so as it protects and preserves the overall net zero target, which was the will of the House. Amendment No 1 will protect the net zero target whilst ensuring that the impact on our agri-food sector is closely monitored and consistent with the advice and guidance of the experts. Many in the House may want to vilify our agri-food sector, but we all need to support the sector and recognise that farmers, rather than being part of the problem, as many in the House would have us believe, are part of the solution.

A number of the amendments in group 1 will no doubt provide a degree of comfort to the agri-food sector after a period of immense concern. There is now an opportunity for Members to provide the sector with certainty and a bespoke road map to reassure it that it will not be used as a sacrificial lamb in achieving net zero.

I urge Members to put votes to their words of support for agriculture and vote, in particular, for amendment No 1.

Dr Archibald: I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the Further Consideration Stage debate. I am delighted that we are at a point where the passage of this important piece of legislation is nearing its conclusion. The Bill, as amended at Consideration Stage, provides climate legislation that is ambitious and achievable and provides for a fair and just transition to net zero.

The context of the debate is the IPCC's latest report, which highlights the irreversible nature of the impacts of climate change and the need for us to take necessary and urgent action. Sinn Féin's amendments at Consideration Stage were about standing up for our communities, workers, families, rural communities and our family farms. As Philip said, there is huge interest in the Bill and in the need to tackle climate breakdown. I have listened to many people, including many young people, who are demanding climate action. I have also listened to those who have expressed concerns, including those from our rural and agricultural community who have expressed genuine concern: they want to play their part but are concerned about how the Bill's provisions will impact on them. Those communities should look at our track record, including that of previous Sinn Féin Agriculture Ministers. Our priority has been to deliver for family farms and rural communities, including protecting them against the disastrous impact of Brexit and the threat of climate change.

The amendments that have been tabled at this stage are largely technical and tidying-up amendments. Amendment No 2 provides protection for agricultural and rural communities, ensuring that biogenic methane makes a fair and proportionate contribution to the overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. That, along with the other protections and amendments that were made at Consideration Stage to enshrine the principles of just transition, which are now clearly defined in the Bill, will provide important protections. As my colleague Philip McGuigan outlined, Sinn Féin wants to ensure that no sector and none of our communities are left behind.

The amendments will ensure that those who are in industries that have the biggest changes to make and those who can least afford it, including lower-income workers and families, small businesses, people who are stuck in fossil fuel dependency — Members have referred to the invasion of Ukraine and the impact that that is having on prices — will be taken into account, and that any plans that are being developed must provide for a fair transition. Similarly, the big polluters and big businesses have a responsibility to step up to the plate and do their share to ensure that ambitious targets are met.

Our amendment Nos 3 and 4 are also tidying-up amendments to ensure that clause 2 and clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill align. Mr McGuigan has outlined our position on keeping a target for 2030 but allowing for further work to be done to ensure that the 2040 targets align with achieving net zero by 2050. So, we will move amendment No 3 but not amendment No 4.

In relation to the Minister's amendments, we oppose amendment No 17, as it undermines the purpose of the Bill. It does not reflect the opinions of many farmers who want to play their part in the fight against climate change with the support of government. We all collectively can and should play our parts. Sinn Féin wants to ensure a fair path for all our communities and sectors with the support of government. The Bill can provide that.

Mr T Buchanan: The action taken by the majority in the House at Consideration Stage of the Bill to change the target to net zero by 2050 was a retrograde step. Not only did the target go against the scientific evidence, no costings were provided for it and no farming industry could adhere to it.

Amendment No 1 seeks to redress that issue and is consistent with the IPCC and the carbon capture and storage (CCS) balanced pathway recommendations. Following the last debate in the House, the agri-food industry was dealt a serious body blow. Many in the industry saw it as the end of a career that had been handed down to them through many generations. That is exactly what the House did when it voted through all those amendments that changed the very face of the Bill, which had been brought forward by the Minister based on scientific evidence. It was changed into something unrecognisable that spelt disaster for the agri-food sector. Therefore, at Further Consideration Stage, I urge Members who have paid lip service to the agri-food sector throughout the process to now do the right thing and vote for the amendments tabled by the Minister, which are fair and just for the industry.

Sinn Féin decided to ignore all scientific evidence and plough on with support for amendments to the Bill to shape it in line with its vanity project, a private Member's Bill that they co-sponsored while ignoring the farming community. The fact that such moves would jeopardise our agriculture industry to the extent that 86% of the industry would be assigned to the dustbin of history was reckless, to say the least. The first set of amendments protect and preserve the overall net zero target while providing some degree of protection for our agriculture sector.

In the light of the ongoing events in Russia and Ukraine, the Assembly should stop and take note that our duty and responsibility to our people is to assist them to provide the essentials that we need for all aspects of life. Those issues are debated every week in the House: food, heat, housing, law and order etc.

Mr Blair: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Will the Member accept that the UK Climate Change Committee's six carbon audits and its report 'The UK’s path to Net Zero' indicate that there should be no separation of gasses? The advice is to keep greenhouse gasses together for the best results. Does the Member accept that?

Mr T Buchanan: I accept that if Northern Ireland does nothing, it will still meet the UK's targets as set out.

Mr Allister: Will the Member give way?

Mr T Buchanan: Yes.

Mr Allister: Will the Member agree that Mr Blair made a point about alleged compliance with the UK Climate Change Committee, yet he is a Member of the House who voted to defy the recommendation of the UK Climate Change Committee when he refused to accept its recommendation of 82%?

Mr T Buchanan: Absolutely. The point is very well made. Indeed, it was not only Mr Blair; other Members did exactly the same thing.

If we are to learn anything from the past week, it is to not rely on others for essentials but to be as self-sufficient as possible. Why, then, do some in the House want to destroy that which we already have? Russia and Ukraine account for a third of the world's exports, a fifth of our corn trade and almost 80% of sunflower oil production, with Ukraine being given the nickname "the breadbasket of Europe". Our aim should be to invest in our agriculture sector to maintain and build on our production capacity while seeking to reduce the impact on our environment. The first group of amendments that the Minister has tabled allow us to do that.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member has spoken a number of times about protecting and investing in our agriculture community. He sits with me on the AERA Committee. We recently discussed the Minister's future agriculture policy. I will not embarrass the Member, but when we talked about the Minister's proposals and cutting the payment from 10 hectares —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order. I hope that this is relevant to the amendments that are before us, Mr McGuigan.

Mr McGuigan: It is, absolutely. It is about the proposal to cut the payment from 10 hectares to three hectares. One of the DUP Members said that, if this proposal got through, it would decimate our rural communities.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order. That was clearly not relevant to this amendment. I will bear that in mind the next time the Member has an intervention. I gave a direction and asked for reassurance that it was relevant to the amendments. I urge Members to come back to the legislation that is in front of us and deal with the amendments.

Mr T Buchanan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Of course, the Member was trying to widen the horizon here, and he knows quite well that that is out for consultation. When the consultation finishes, that will be dealt with appropriately.

We in this House should all be aware of the importance of agriculture in all aspects of today's society: in providing energy for our homes, price stability for our citizens, the use of renewable biomethane gas from the anaerobic digesters and many other developments within the agriculture sector. Rather than vilify our agri-food sector, we should be striving to support the it, as the Minister has sought to do since taking up office, and recognising that farmers are actually part of the solution, rather than the problem, as many in this House seek to portray. It is a sad reality that many of us from the wide rural communities see elected Members from those communities actually vilifying the farmers and the agriculture industry. That is a shame on those sitting around the House today.

Today's amendments tabled by the Minister provide comfort to the agri-food sector after many weeks of concern and anxiety and not knowing where their businesses will end up. Those amendments will go some way to rectifying the damage caused by those that were passed in the previous debate in the House. They have the full support of the farming community. Those who are in touch with people on the ground will know that all those people — from the young to the women that we have been looking at in agriculture and others — know that the Minister's amendments have the full support of the agriculture sector.

Why others chose to go against this is beyond me. It is vital, for the future of the agriculture industry, rural communities and many other aspects of society, that these amendments receive the support of the House. There is little point in saying on one hand that we support our young people going into agriculture, the family farms and the industry as a whole, and then, on the other hand, going into the Lobbies and voting for something that is going to tear it apart.

I say to folk around the Chamber, do the right thing today and support the agriculture industry.

Ms Sheerin: I am speaking in support of the amendments that have been tabled by my colleagues Caoimhe Archibald, Declan McAleer and Philip McGuigan. At the outset, and given the comments from the Member who spoke just before me and made reference to the fact that there is no point in supporting the industry and speaking about the industry and then voting for something that will decimate it, I remind him that he and his party supported Brexit, which is obviously the biggest threat to agriculture in the North since we joined the EU and put money into the pockets of our farmers.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order. I was allowing a passing comment. Let us not have a debate about the EU and Brexit. Please come back to the Bill.

Ms Sheerin: I will do. None of these things can be taken in isolation, and that is the point that I was making.

As has already been said by my colleagues, amendment No 2 is a strengthening of previous amendments tabled by Sinn Féin. Throughout this process, we have spoken and listened to all affected sectors, including our agricultural community, and have taken their concerns on board. Amendment No 2 is a response to that, because Sinn Féin has a strong history of supporting agriculture and specifically our small farmers. I am the daughter of one of those farmers. Sinn Féin delivered for our hill farmers, made sheep farming in the Sperrins a viable livelihood and attempted to level the playing field with a transition to a flat rate, which was subsequently cancelled by the DUP.

We have listened to the evidence throughout this process and made amendments that will mean that the demands on all sectors are fair, just and proportionate, that the industries that have to change in order to meet climate targets are asked to do things that are proportionate, fair and just, that farmers do not have to do more than anyone else, that food production is still an option for small farmers and rural families in the North of Ireland, and that young farmers can plan for a future.

We want to see families in rural communities such as south Derry and mid-Ulster, where I am a representative, be able to invest in their businesses and farms safe in the knowledge that they will be supported by government, in spite of the wishes of those who have dragged us out of the EU against the wishes of the majority of the people in the North. You cannot give with one hand whilst taking away with the other. Sinn Féin has been consistent in its support for rural communities and farming families.

Ms Bailey: Since the introduction of the first Climate Change Bill and a net zero ambition, it has become clear that tasking the very Ministry that has responsibility for our biggest emitting industry to bring forward a climate Bill was never going to work. We need to be really honest and speak to climate change as being the real challenge rather than targets being a significant challenge for some, because all sectors and all people need to be protected, not just some.

The title of the group 1 amendments is "Methane and interim emissions targets, carbon units and carbon budgets", and that is what I will speak to. Throughout the debates in the Chamber on climate legislation, the advice of the UK Government's Climate Change Committee was often quoted, and rightly so, and we must follow the science, as evidence, and the expertise behind it. The CCC said that we should have a target of at least 82% but have the political choice to go for net zero if we wanted. As I have quoted many times, the CCC's chief executive, Chris Stark, said that:

What the Assembly has agreed so far is perfectly consistent with the scientific and expert advice, but the proposed amendments represent an attempt to disregard the facts completely.

In its 2019 report, 'Land use: Policies for a Net Zero UK', the CCC stated:

In its 2019 report, 'Net Zero: The UK's contribution to stopping global warming', the CCC stated:

All greenhouse gases matter, yet before us we have amendments to introduce split targets for methane, a gas that has a warming effect that is 84 times that of carbon dioxide. To have a less ambitious target for methane would serve to fundamentally undermine Northern Ireland's climate action and ambition, and therefore we lose credibility on any claims that we might want to make that we recognise that we are in a climate emergency.

By allowing the amendments, we turn our back on the crisis. We refuse to take responsibility. We fail to show leadership, and we endorse climate denial becoming climate delay. The Green Party cannot and will not endorse that. Split targets have proved to be insufficient elsewhere, and they will prove to be insufficient here.

I urge Members not to go down that path.

The CCC could not have been clearer. It stated:

yet the Minister's amendment No 17 proposes to exempt agriculture from emissions targets altogether. That is hardly following the science, no matter how tricky you might find it to understand. The Minister's version of science seems to be that, if we do not count the emissions, they are not there. Denial is not an option. Unfortunately, as much as some might like to, we will not address the crisis by pretending that it is not there.

Just last week, we saw the effect of climate breakdown and how it is affecting Northern Ireland. Are we really proposing to just ignore the increasingly frequent extreme weather patterns and deny that they ever happened? If people's homes flood, do we just propose to ignore it and pretend that it did not happen? I am sad but not at all surprised that it feels as though climate denial has come back to the Chamber. As well as harming our planet, that approach lets our farmers down.

If passed, amendment No 17 would turn Northern Ireland's agriculture sector into a global climate laggard. While farms and farmers across the world are striving for net zero, Northern Ireland will be left behind. As consumers and international investors begin to look at the climate impact of their financial decisions, Northern Ireland agriculture will increasingly be locked out of the opportunities associated with being a global climate player. Instead of our farms being able to avail themselves of the opportunities presented by net zero, they will be reputationally harmed, and the status of our produce downgraded by the implication that we do not take the climate crisis seriously and are not doing all that we can to reduce agricultural emissions. Amendment No 17 is scientifically illiterate. It will harm our planet and our farmers.

The Green Party will also oppose Sinn Féin's amendment on ensuring:

Referring to the goals of the Paris agreement in that context is confusing and makes little sense when the Bill has an overarching net zero-specific target. If methane emission reductions do not help to achieve the overall target, they are not appropriate, regardless of whether it can be argued that they contribute to achieving the goals of the Paris agreement.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Member for giving way. I am a wee bit confused about the Member's opposition to our amendment. Maybe she would explain whether she disagrees with the "fair and proportionate" methane reductions or the:

of the Paris agreement. That is all in the context of all gases making a fair contribution to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. That will not change by passing our amendment.

Ms Bailey: I thank the Member for that. My opposition is in the context of the amendment paving the way for split targets, a point that I already addressed. All the parties that supported and voted for net zero emissions really need to think about that.

The IPCC released its latest report just a few short hours ago at 11.00 am. It is its bleakest report to date. Last year, it told us that humanity was facing "code red". In its findings today, it told us of:

UN Secretary General António Guterres stated:

Headlines around the world today are telling us of the:

The report states that human actions are causing "dangerous ... disruption" and suggests:

is closing.

Headlines are telling us that half the world is "highly vulnerable" to the crisis. Impacts of global warming are now simply "irreversible", according to the UN's latest assessment. Climate change is causing "widespread" and "irreversible" impacts. The IPCC report says that up 3·6 billion people are "highly vulnerable to climate change", largely from extreme heat, heavy rainfall, drought and fire. I can assure Members that those 3·6 billion people are highly unlikely to be living in Western or developed nations. Those people and populations have not caused this crisis, yet they will face the worst possible consequences. We owe them a future, not split targets.

Today, the IPCC chair warned us:

We have a moral duty to future generations and to our planet to reject the half measures proposed today. We must not pass amendments that weaken legislation. When the scientific evidence from the IPCC shows us that things are worse than we realised, we should respond by stepping up, not by burying our heads in the sand. It is time to face up to our responsibilities as legislators and as political leaders. We must acknowledge the privilege that we stand in and pass the strong net zero climate legislation that Northern Ireland needs.

In this group of amendments, we will support amendment Nos 3, 4, 15, 16 and 18.

Mr Allister: Each of the succeeding stages of the Bill has seen the triumph of ideology over reality. One would have hoped that today, given the geopolitical matters that are unfolding before us and the economic and food consequences of what is happening in Ukraine, there might just have been a chance of reality overcoming ideology, but it does not look like that is the case. When we consider what is happening in the world, and when we consider the fact that food production is likely to be highly prejudiced by what is happening in Ukraine, this, of all times, is the last time when any legislature in this country should be dialling down food production, yet that is the inevitable consequence of the ideologically driven climate change legislation — the Climate Change Bill — from Ms Bailey and the better version, the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill.

Today, we will hear, and have heard, many protestations for the gullible that those who are the pursuers of such ideology are, in fact, on the side of the farmers. Increasingly, that is not conning anyone. Amendment No 17 will be the litmus test of whether Members are on the side of farming or against farming, and we will see in this evening's speeches that, despite all the pious platitudes, when it comes down to it, the SDLP, Alliance, Sinn Féin and the Greens will vote against protecting the farming community. That is the reality of where they are headed.

Mr McGuigan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Allister: Yes, I will give way.

Mr McGuigan: Again, I am confused about the Member's support for amendment No 17 and his being on the side of agriculture, given, as I said earlier, that the agriculture sector has not said that it does not want to play its part in this. It has actually said the opposite: it needs to play its part because it will suffer if climate change is not tackled. Our opposition to amendment No 17 has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than our support for our agriculture sector.

Mr Allister: Where his farmers are concerned, maybe if Mr McGuigan had come to the meeting in Loughguile that he ran away from, he would have heard a very different message, but then he comes to the House and pretends that farmers are supportive of the Bill. Farmers are petrified by much of the devastation that will flow from the Bill, and rightly so, because the Bill, and particularly the Bill that he co-sponsored, will see a drastic reduction in livestock numbers and, therefore, in the numbers of farms, particularly hill farms and those in less-favoured areas, directly as a consequence of the ideology that the Member pursues and that Sinn Féin is pursuing in the House. It is those in that party who are the masters of reducing our agriculture industry, despite all the pious words, because their actions speak louder than their words. That is what we are seeing playing out before our very eyes in the debate.

I support amendment No 1. It is still a very difficult and ambitious target, and no one should be under any illusion about that. It will still impose a heavy price on agriculture, but, faced with the uninhibited destruction of our agriculture sector, amendment No 1 is better than paying that price. Anyone who is making the best choices will choose to support amendment No 1.

I marvel at the meaninglessness of the language of amendment No 2. It talks about:

According to whose standards? Who decides that? By what measure is that made? Those are just meaningless words that mean whatever you want them to. I trust that amendment No 1, since apparently amendment No 2 is incompatible with it, is the one that will hold sway. It really needs the sustaining back-up of amendment No 17. I make it very clear to farmers across Northern Ireland that those who will tonight vote against amendment No 17 are those who are in the business of putting many of them out of business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I call Edwin Poots, the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, to make his winding-up speech on the debate on the group 1 amendments.

Mr Poots: I am grateful for Members' contributions to the debate thus far. They have been valuable and informative. I ask Members to support amendment Nos 1 and 17 today. Amendment No 1 covers potential levels of methane reductions in the context of the net zero emissions targets. I remind Members that methane levels are set not within a supplementary target but are a clarification on a fair contribution towards NI net zero. Some Members have said that that amendment will undermine our ability to reduce overall emissions and will limit our ability to reduce our contribution to global warming. That is simply not true. My amendment does not limit the Assembly's climate ambition.

I note also that on 'Farm Gate' this morning, the Green Party said that the Climate Change Committee had said that no sources of emission can qualify for special treatment and that all emissions from all sectors must be eliminated or offset with removals. I would like to be clear that my amendment No 1 does not apply a special treatment to methane, and to make such a statement is wrong. That demonstrates those Members' lack of understanding of climate science. The Paris agreement and the advice of experts, including the IPCC, concluded that deep emissions reductions will still have to be made in the agriculture sector, and net zero will still need to be achieved by Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole under the amended Bill. In order to achieve net zero or net emission reductions of other greenhouse gases, we will need to go beyond net zero. Therefore, that means having more removals, including engineered removals, than emissions of those particular gases.

I will highlight that, in every scenario, other than a complete closure of the entire agriculture sector, we were always going to need to go beyond net zero in many of the other sectors.

My amendment makes it clear to our important rural communities that they are making a fair and proportionate contribution. I find it ironic that the Green Party is now quoting the Climate Change Committee's advice to support its position on amendments, when it blatantly disregarded it in pursuit of a net zero target for Northern Ireland by 2045 and 2050.

Amendment No 1 aims to protect and support our local food production. What the Green Party and, now, the Alliance Party and some other Members continually fail to grasp is that it is important that we protect food security and do not simply offshore our emissions. If those Members actually understood agri-food production in Northern Ireland in the way that they should before they legislate, they would recognise that the carbon footprint of the milk and beef produced in Northern Ireland is considerably lower than that of most of its competitors.

Mr Blair says that the methane levels have risen over the past number of years, but that is because production has risen. Actually, methane output, compared with the production of food, has gone down. Does he really think that it would be better to do that in South America, North America or central Europe, where they will produce more methane and more greenhouse gases than we produce in Northern Ireland? Does he think that it would be better to export jobs to those places rather than have them in Northern Ireland? Alliance needs to wake up and smell the coffee. My proposal is for the good of people in Northern Ireland. It will pull us back from the brink that so many in the Chamber took us to just a few weeks ago. We will have a less environmentally sustainable system and a more negative situation with global emissions if you do not accept the proposals that I have tabled today.

Ms Bailey talks a lot about methane, but, when it comes to household waste and there is an energy-from-waste proposal on the table, she cries out for more methane coming from the landfill sites because she is not prepared to put her hand up and to support the proposal. Let us be honest about it in the Chamber: if we are going to achieve what we need to achieve —

Ms Bailey: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Poots: In a moment. If we are going to achieve what we need to achieve, the parish pump politics of objecting to every solar panel, wind turbine, anaerobic digester and every other means of renewable energy need to stop, because we will need those things if we are going to achieve net zero. I give way.

Ms Bailey: Thanks, Minister. You can berate me all you want about what, you think, I think, but let us not forget that we do not even have a waste strategy. That is something that you can bring forward and it is within your Department's remit, but you have failed to do so.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order, Members. Again, we are not here to discuss in detail a waste strategy. I urge Members to come back to the amendments before us.

Mr Poots: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your commentary, but we are talking about methane, and one of the big contributors of methane is landfill. People are resisting taking difficult decisions in other places. As a consequence, we produce more methane, but they are ignoring their contribution to that.

From Sinn Féin, Mr McAleer talked about Glenelly valley. Under the proposals that he voted for, he need not worry about farmers in the Glenelly valley: they will not exist, and nor will the farmers in the glens of Antrim and up in the higher regions in Dunloy and Loughguile. The farmers in Fermanagh will pretty much not exist under the proposals that Sinn Féin supported. Mr McGuigan can shake his head, but those are the facts. When we sit down with the CCC and ask, "What do we need to do to deliver this?", that is the message that comes back.

If you want to take the CCC's advice, take it by backing me today.

Mr Allister is right that amendment No 1 will not solve all the problems. We will, however, live in a changing farm environment, where there will be considerable investment in anaerobic digestion and some shift to vertical farming and horticulture as a consequence, because the heat from anaerobic digestion will make us competitive in those areas.

There is an opportunity to invest and still deliver significant agricultural output, but I recognise that that will not be without pain. I also recognise that around 13,000 farmers will, potentially, lose their farms as a consequence of what was passed at Consideration Stage. In addition, tens of thousands of people who work in the agri-food sector will lose their jobs. Sinn Féin said that it was the great friend of the eastern European and Portuguese people who came here to work in the food sector, but it is prepared to do away with their jobs. Perhaps Sinn Féin Members will stand outside factories this time and give out leaflets saying, "Sinn Féin wants legislation passed that will deny you the opportunity of working here in Northern Ireland, the place that you have made your home". Tell that to the Polish people, the Lithuanians, the Hungarians, the Portuguese and all those fine people who go into our factories and do a day's work to earn a living. They are people whom we should all respect.

Amendment No 1 would prevent such unintended and negative impacts on the agri-food sector and, most importantly, on food security. It would prevent the offshoring of food production and the resultant offshoring of emissions and negative global emissions impact. I remind you — for Mr Blair and Ms Bailey's information — that amendment No 1 aligns with the science and the advice of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UK Climate Change Committee's balanced pathway advice and the Paris agreement. One might ask: what is not to like? I trust that Members will recognise that, in supporting our agriculture and our farming community, we must remain true to our word. I trust that they will demonstrate that support by voting accordingly.

When Members look at what is available to them in amendment No 17, they should see that it was contrived precisely because of Sinn Féin's words in the House. If Sinn Féin does not want any reductions in herd numbers, it has to support amendment No 17. You — Sinn Féin's Members — said those words, and I have produced an amendment to enable you to put your vote to them. I expect you to support what you said. I anticipate that you will engage in something that will ensure that you can stand over what you said in the Chamber.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for taking an intervention. During all the deliberations that we have had with the farming community, farmers have always made it clear to us that they want to be part of the solution. They are the custodians — the guardians — of the countryside, and they want to be part of the solution. I do not believe that amendment No 17 would enable that to happen.

The Minister talked earlier about the future of hill farming, and I referred to the Glenelly valley. I will make a couple of important points. If the Minister continues to defy the will of the House by not reintroducing the areas of natural constraint (ANC) hill farm payment, if he continues to push Brexit, if he continues to push his future agricultural policy —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order.

Mr McAleer: — which deprives small farms

—

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order, order. Will the Member take his seat?

I have made it clear that we are not here to rerun a wide range of other issues. I have given Members a degree of latitude. I do not jump in and intervene every time. It is clear, however, that somebody wants to start another debate. Mr McAleer, if you have a point on the amendments to finish, I will allow you to have the Floor again, but we are not here to have an alternative debate.

Mr McAleer: I will address amendment No 17. I restate that, any time that we have met representatives from the sector or heard evidence in Committee, the farmers have all made it very clear that they want to be part of the solution. I do not believe that amendment No 17 enables farmers to be part of the solution.

Mr McGuigan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Poots: I am happy to take interventions from Mr McAleer, but you did not wish to give way to others, Mr McGuigan, and did not want to debate. Given that that is how you wanted it, I am happy not to engage with you. It is not because I am afraid of anything that you have to say, by the way. I am happy to take Mr McAleer's points, but there is sometimes a price to be paid for ignoring everybody else when they want to make interventions.

I will return to amendment no 17. By the way, Mr McAleer, when you go down all those divergent routes, it demonstrates that you cannot argue on the case that is before you today. I know that you tried to go down those divergent routes when you went to the Glenavon House Hotel, and that did not go down too well there either, but that was before Ms Gildernew —

Mr McAleer: I did not see the DUP at it, making its case.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order.

Mr Poots: — insulted the entire audience by telling them that all they could ever do was talk about doom and gloom, thus castigating the farming community that, to be frank, puts bread and butter on our tables.

Amendment No 17 does not preclude anybody in the primary agriculture sector from engaging in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon and methane. It does not enforce or put something upon them, but nor does it in any way preclude the many farmers who want to and who will engage in doing that from ensuring that they reduce their carbon footprint and that they do so much.

Indeed, I had discussions today with officials from the Department for the Economy. Our ability to capture more biomethane and the need for a green growth strategy that invests in supporting further capture of biomethane were very prevalent in those discussions. We discussed how biomethane at 80% could be mixed with 20% hydrogen and used in boilers that people have in their home today without the boilers requiring amendment or change. How beneficial would it be if we in Northern Ireland were to produce more biomethane from the agriculture sector and put that into our systems instead of using gas, the price of which is being driven upwards because of war in Europe? The logical position is therefore to support the agri-food sector in doing what it can do to provide that food security, and not just for here but for these islands. That is important, because we get lots of things back, particularly from Great Britain. It is important that we not only make our contribution but provide a massive amount of energy, which will eventually take us to using 100% renewable energy that is produced in this country and not be relying on what happens in other places.

I particularly hope that those Members who said that they want to deliver on that climate ambition while supporting agriculture and the farming and rural community remain true to their words. Sinn Féin is backing away from its words already, so the words that its Members said in the past couple of weeks were meaningless. I hope that Members demonstrate their position of support by voting accordingly.

There is a clear and immediate need for local legislation in Northern Ireland to tackle effectively the serious issue of climate change. I am pleased that we have got to this stage of the Bill's legislative passage. I am also keen to push forward so that the Bill is agreed by the end of the mandate. We all know that tackling climate change is a complex issue that requires long-term solutions, collective efforts and a coordinated approach. As an Assembly, we have a duty to ensure that the legislation that we put in place on such a deeply impactful issue is in a form that is both coherent and effective. If my amendments in this group, and, indeed, those in group 2 that we will debate later, are voted through today, that will go some way to delivering that.

In supporting our agriculture sector, I will say this: if Sinn Féin thinks that Northern Ireland can do that alone and ignore what is going on in the rest of the world, it is, quite frankly, in la-la land.

We produce one twentieth — 5% — of the UK's emissions. China produces 22 times the emissions of the UK, which, in my book, is around 440 times the emissions of Northern Ireland. For every percentage that Northern Ireland produces, China produces 440. China is not participating in the reduction that needs to happen. Brazil is not. Russia is not. Saudi Arabia is not. The Members who think that flooding in the Glenelly valley is a consequence of climate change may think that they can stop that by their actions in Northern Ireland alone. They cannot.

Ms Bailey: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Poots: I will.

All of those other countries' contributions will simply replace what we are doing. I do not propose doing nothing. The Member to whom I will give way in a moment always talks about doing nothing. We have never suggested doing nothing. We should do our bit in a way that does not destroy our economy and then hands what we were doing over to others who will produce even more greenhouse gases to replace the products that we produced.

Ms Bailey: Thank you, Minister. Do you recognise that, in Northern Ireland, we produce higher emissions per head than China?

Mr Poots: Ms Bailey seems to misunderstand the situation. Coal-fired power stations are being built today in China. Its emissions continue to rise. We have a war in Russia. Russia has done a 30-year deal to sell gas to China, and we buy our products from China. That is the world that we currently live in. We live in a globalised world. We need to have jobs in this country for our people, otherwise, we will go back to the 1980s, when our biggest export was the human beings who were born here.

I am proud that our agri-food industry, which was recognised for its contribution, in the Senate Chamber, when this Building opened, is still here and is still providing over 100,000 jobs here, in Northern Ireland, while the other two industries — the linen industry and the shipbuilding industry — have disappeared. Now, we can save the industry, but, if we go down the route that Ms Bailey wants us to go down, it will end up in shreds, just as the textile industry and the shipbuilding industry ended up in shreds in the lifetime —

Ms Bailey: Is that a no, then?

Mr Poots: — of this Building. I am coming to a conclusion, so I will finish at this point.

I appreciate that Members share my view of the fundamental importance of successfully addressing climate change in a way that ensures that we have a joined-up approach to tackling the issues, and that we get buy-in from all sectors, which is important. We must not push our emissions to other parts of the world, as some in the Chamber wish to do, because that will not reduce global emissions; it will decimate the most important sector of our economy if we attempt to do so. Such actions would not deliver successful outcomes in addressing climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that was published today further confirms the importance of protecting food security while reducing emissions on a global level. Do we not all have a duty to play our part in ensuring that we protect food security? We can look at what may happen in 30 years' time, but I can tell you what will happen in a few short years if we keep going the way in which we are going: we will have a significant food problem, not just here but in many parts of the world.

I remind Members that, if my amendments in this group are agreed and voted through today, in addition to my amendments that will be covered in the group 2 debate later, they will improve the effectiveness of this key legislation for Northern Ireland and will maintain and enhance the overall climate change ambition.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Question will be put again in three minutes. I remind Members that they should continue to uphold social distancing and that those who have proxy voting arrangements in place should not come into the Chamber.

Before I put the Question again. I remind Members that, if possible, it would be preferable to avoid a Division.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I will not call amendment No 2 as it is mutually exclusive to amendment No 1, which has been made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): In accordance with Standing Order 113(5)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three-minute delay, hence we have gone straight to speedy voting.

I remind Members of the requirement for social distancing while the Division takes place. Please ensure that you maintain a gap of at least 2 metres between yourself and others when moving around the Chamber or the Rotunda and especially in the Lobbies.

Mr Blair: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that you do not mind my taking us back to the vote on amendment No 1. I was a little surprised that the vote was taken orally and without a Division, despite the fact that, as I recall, there was clear opposition to it. I respect your judgement on that. However, I am puzzled about how I should record my opposition to the amendment. I was advised previously that that could be done in Hansard. Can you advise on how we can do that?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That is not a point of order. There have been numerous votes, particularly over the past number of weeks, and Members ought to be aware that, if they want to have a Division, they should raise their voices, particularly when the Speaker or Deputy Speaker indicates that he thinks that the Ayes or Noes have it. I did that on two occasions. At the Table, we heard nothing coming back. That indicated to me that there was no wish to force a Division and that there was acceptance of what I had estimated was the view of the Chamber.

In case there is a lack of clarity on the issue for some, perhaps, newer Members, I will say that, if you want to have a Division, you should raise your voice and should not accept the estimation that is made on the assessment of what has been raised verbally in the Chamber.

That is not a point of order. We will move on. The Member's comment is on the record.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I remind Members to maintain social distancing and, in particular, to try to achieve a 2-metre gap, especially in the Lobbies.

Mr Speaker: Before we move on to the next vote, I advise Members that we will take a break at 7.30 pm. In the next hour or two after that, we will monitor the time to see when we will break this evening. With the rate of business at the minute, we will clearly be here all night, and we cannot be here all night. My worry is that we will be here all day tomorrow if we continue with the Divisions in the way that we are. That is entirely a matter for Members to choose. I just make the point that we have offered the ability for the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker to make it clear if there is a clear minority of Members opposing a measure. We can record that, and it might avoid Divisions and save a lot of time. However, it is entirely in the gift of Members to choose how they vote.

Mr Muir: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have just outlined the procedure. Can you outline practically how that would occur? Would you record their opposition in Hansard?

Mr Speaker: The Speaker or Deputy Speaker would basically say, "I note that party X has opposed the Question. That party's opposition is now on the record; however, I think that the Ayes have it". It would be on the record that party X, A, B, C or D had recorded its vote — well, that it had expressed a vote against. We have had votes today where we had 11 votes in opposition. That is fine, and all Members are entitled to their vote. It is just about how we process the voting mechanisms to save time and allow us to conclude the business. That is all that it is about.

Mr Muir: Further to that point of order, I thank the Speaker for providing that clarification. I would like to record our discontent with the way that the vote on amendment No 1 was handled. I would not seek to challenge the authority of the Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair at the time, but there was clear dissent in the Chamber, which, as far as I can recall, was not handled correctly. I will write to you separately about that. If we are going to go — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: I heard only a peripheral part of the conversation. I think that John Blair raised it on a point of order. I only heard an element of the response to that, so, to be fair, I cannot argue one way or another about how it happened, what happened or whether it was right or wrong. If the Member wants, I can examine that. I am trying to offer people another way. If it is clear that there is a significant majority for a measure and a clear minority against — that is everybody's entitlement, and I stress that — we can record that without necessarily going to a Division. That is what I offer to Members through that formula of words. OK? We will road-test that and see what happens.

Mr Speaker: Amendment No 9 has already been debated and is a paving amendment to amendment No 17.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Mr Speaker: Do the Ayes have it?

Some Members: No.

Mr Speaker: Can we take an acknowledgement of a party having voted against? We will just make the call if you want. OK, do we have Tellers?

Mr Speaker: Amendment No 11 is a paving amendment to amendment No 17.

Mr Speaker: Members, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 8.00 pm for people to get something to eat and some refreshments.

Mr Speaker: Amendment No 12 has already been debated.

Mr Speaker: As amendment No 13 is an amendment to amendment No 12, we need to dispose of amendment No 13 before returning to amendment No 12. Amendment No 13 has already been debated, and is a paving amendment to amendment No 17.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No

Mr Speaker: Do the Ayes have it? Do the Ayes have it? Are Members content to have it recorded —? Sinn Féin has opposed that amendment. Sinn Féin's opposition is on the record? Are Members content? If not, we will go to a vote.

Mr Speaker: You want it on the record? [Inaudible.]

Mr Speaker: OK; let the record show that Sinn Féin voted against amendment No 13.

A Member: And Alliance.

Mr Speaker: And the Alliance Party?

A Member: Yes. [Inaudible.]

Mr Speaker: And the SDLP?

A Member: Yes.

Mr Clarke: Och, you might as well have a vote.

Mr Speaker: Well, if there are that many, I will go to a Division.

Mr Speaker: Amendment No 14 has already been debated and is a paving amendment to amendment No 17.

Mr Speaker: I will not call amendment No 16 as it is mutually exclusive to amendment No 15, which has been made.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Members. I will not call amendment No 19.

Before we move on to the group 2 amendments, I will give people a moment to settle.

We now come to the second group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 20, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 21 to 70. In this group, amendment No 24 is mutually exclusive to amendment No 23; amendment No 44 is mutually exclusive to amendment No 43; amendment Nos 48 and 49 are mutually exclusive to amendment No 47; and amendment Nos 67 and 68 are mutually exclusive to amendment No 66.

I call Philip McGuigan to move amendment No 20 and address the other amendments in the group.

Mr McGuigan: I beg to move amendment No 20:

Mr McGuigan: As we have discussed, setting targets is a vital part of the Bill, but how we achieve them is equally important. The group 2 amendments are on the sectoral and climate action plans, just transition, the just transition commission and the climate commissioner. Those are all important aspects, most of which were added at Consideration Stage. Most of the amendments in group 2 are technical amendments that tidy up or add aspects to the previous amendments. They are important, though. We must ensure that the transition to net zero is a just one. It is not enough for us to say that no community or sector will be left behind. That must become a reality. We want them to embrace the changes and, furthermore, to guide us in how we can achieve them in a fair and sustainable manner. We want an ambitious, fair and sustainable climate change Bill, and we believe that our amendments in group 2 will help us to achieve that.

To that end, we propose amendment Nos 20, 22 and 52, which will ensure that the various aspects of the Bill are fair, proportionate and subject to financial, social, economic and rural impact assessments. Amendment No 21 is similar to amendment No 2, which was in the earlier group, re the need to take account of biogenic methane when developing the agriculture sectoral plan.

The Department’s amendment Nos 27 to 35 are technical. They change the word "target" to "budget". Obviously, we will support those as well. We must be mindful that, in seeking to make a positive contribution to climate change locally, we do not inadvertently make a negative one globally, which is why we will also support the Minister’s amendment Nos 36 and 62, which tidy up the definition of "carbon leakage" that was added at Consideration Stage.

In making climate change legislation, we must be mindful at all times that we live on an island with a shared environment and deeply interconnected economy. We have proposed and will support our amendment No 40, which recognises:

That is very important when tackling climate legislation.

All sectors will have to contribute to the fight against climate change, but, as we discussed during the debate on the group 1 amendments, we recognise the vital role that agriculture in particular plays here, economically and socially. We also recognise that, due to its nature, it will face specific changes, which is why, at Consideration Stage, we proposed and supported an amendment that introduced a just transition fund for agriculture. We will support amendment No 53 from the Department, which expands on the detail of that and tidies it up.

At Consideration Stage, we also proposed a just transition commission, which, in our view, is key to the success of the Bill's outworkings to ensure that it is done in a fair way. We will support amendment No 63, which, again, expands on and gives more detail on the just transition commission.

Independent oversight and advice are crucial to ensuring that we protect our environment as best we can while ensuring that the burden for doing so does not fall disproportionately on those who are least able to afford it. Independent oversight is vital in ensuring that we reach our targets in as fair and sustainable a manner as possible while protecting industries, incomes and livelihoods. Amendment Nos 66, 67 and 68 all relate to the climate commissioner, who will provide our independent advice on the path to net zero.

I flew through the important aspects. There is a raft of amendments, but most are technical, and we support them.

Mr McGlone: It is good to be here and to be dealing with the second group of amendments after having a productive debate on the first group. As we move on to deal with the issues, I hope that we will arrive at some form of reconciliation and accommodation on these matters.

As I stated during the debate on the first group of amendments, it is really time that we got our act together and legislated for the climate emergency. We support setting ambitious targets, but we must ensure that there is a just transition. As Members will know, the Committee received numerous representations about a just transition and the shape or form that it may take. We have to understand that we are grappling with the issues, and, therefore, we must engage with all sectors, Departments and external bodies to make sure that the just transition is, indeed, just with regard to the many social, economic, educational, skills and cross-departmental factors. As we move from one way of life and one way of doing things, with one set of skills, and from how operations are dealt with in business and schools, as well as in general and culturally, we have to make sure that every bit of support will be there to facilitate that change and to ensure that it is done in a way that does not disadvantage any sector in any meaningful or substantial way. That support will have to be applied to plans, policies, services and budgets of Departments and the Executive on a whole-government basis, including the arm's-length bodies that form part of government here. That will recognise that a just transition to a low-carbon economy involves a series of societal inputs and impacts.

There must be coordination with policies and practices in England, Scotland and Wales and with those across the rest of this island. After some work recently with the Chairman, the Committee hopes to engage with Teagasc, Queen's University and AFBI so that they can come to the Committee and start to initiate the process. I am sure that they are well ahead of the pack, but we, as elected representatives — I would be the first to admit this — need to learn more about the direction that we are pointed in and the measures, be they scientific or otherwise, that need to be taken to put us on the road to a just transition. The constructive engagement that is required will involve Ministers working through the existing bodies of the North/South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council and others.

The role of the climate commissioner is equally important, as the AERA Committee recognised. The climate adviser should advise on making policy and taking action across government and public bodies that will go towards meeting the challenges of the climate emergency. Those policies and actions should reflect international obligations, targets and good practice standards. Passing legislation is only the first step; we have a long way to go. Difficult decisions have to be taken, but we are on our way to meeting our obligations.

I will be brief, as Mr McGuigan was. I call on the Minister to shed some light on amendment No 36, which is about carbon leakage. It refers to:

Will the Minister clarify that, please? Does "comparable" mean lesser policies? If those countries do not have comparable policies, they could have better policies and practices.

Secondly, we always look at the unintended consequences. Does that amendment, in fact, have the potential to realise a non-tariff barrier to trade? Are there powers to block that? In other words, does the Assembly have legitimate powers to do what may be the outcome of the amendment? I want to get a wee bit of clarity on that. It may well be that it is one of the advantages of remaining in the single market; that remains to be seen. I would appreciate some clarity from the Minister on those points, please, before we move to the vote.

Those are the main issues that I wanted to raise. I would like the Minister to explain how he envisages, in his proposal in amendment No 66, that the chain of accountability would go back to the Assembly through the Executive Office. Amendment Nos 67 and 68 clearly identify the climate commissioner; those issues are covered there. Will the Minister and, indeed, the Members who tabled the other amendments explain the chain of accountability back to the Assembly, please?

I will conclude there, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and the proposers of the other amendments.

Mrs Barton: Having spoken generally on the group 1 amendments, I will go straight to giving our thoughts on the amendments in group 2 and explaining whether we will or will not support them.

Amendment No 20, which we will support, adds further to the development of the sectoral plans, including the commissioning of social, economic and rural impact assessments. We had thought that amendment No 21 may not be required — if amendment No 17 were made — however things have changed since then. We can support the inclusion of fair and proportionate targets for biomethane reduction in accordance with the 2015 Paris agreement, as outlined in amendment No 21. We will support amendment Nos 22 and 23. Amendment Nos 24 to 35 are mainly tidying-up requirements for the carbon budget sectoral plans and the climate change action plans, so we will support those.

Amendment No 36 makes a considerable improvement to clause 25, as at Consideration Stage, so we will, hopefully, support that. There is more tidying up in amendment Nos 37 to 39, which we will support. We will oppose amendment No 40 as there is no requirement for that insertion. Amendment No 41, tabled by Sinn Féin, ensures impact assessments on the effects of proposals and policies.

Amendment No 42 recognises the distinct characteristics of biogenic methane with regard to the special economic and social roles of agriculture. We will support amendment Nos 43 and 53, which put the just transition fund into the regulations. Recognition of the need to support farmers is stated clearly in amendment No 44, which we will support.

We will support amendment Nos 54, 55 and 56, as they are tidying-up amendments. While amendment Nos 57 and 58 involve a lot of extra regulations, we realise the necessity for them. We will support amendment No 62, which clarifies the role of the Departments. We will also support amendment Nos 64, 65 and 66. Again, those are tidying-up amendments that reword clauses.

Mr Blair: As I stated in my contribution to the debate on the group 1 amendments, Northern Ireland is lagging way behind in tackling the climate crisis. Today's IPCC findings are a powerful and timely reminder that meaningful climate change legislation is needed, and needed urgently. To quote the IPCC, we have:

to adapt to climate change, with the risk associated with lower levels of warming greater than previously thought.

In response to the IPCC report, the UN Secretary-General said that the findings were:

The report highlights how political failure to tackle the climate crisis negatively impacts, even in the immediate term, on all of us right here in Northern Ireland. Our recognition of and response to climate risk can strengthen adaptation and mitigation actions and transitions that reduce those risks. Action is enabled by governance, finance and knowledge but also by capacity building. Many adaptation options already exist and are used to help manage projected climate change impacts, but their implementation depends on the capacity and effectiveness of governance and decision-making processes.

Independent climate bodies to oversee climate change mitigation and adaptation measures are widely considered to be a major component of any leading climate action framework. I therefore support the amendments tabled to establish and implement an independent, Northern Ireland-specific oversight commissioner through the legislation.

I will speak to amendment No 57, which is based on amendments that my party originally put forward, and to amendment No 68, which my party tabled to ensure resource capacity for the Northern Ireland climate commissioner. It is so important that our oversight body have the resources to conduct the role effectively. Separate from the Northern Ireland climate commissioner, however, there remains an outstanding need for an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland. I have spoken on a number of occasions about the commitment made in New Decade, New Approach.

I turn to amendment Nos 21 and 42, which Sinn Féin tabled. As I stated, I have deep concern about giving methane special regard over the other greenhouse gases, and Alliance will oppose the amendments.

Finally, I support the amendments that introduce the specification for financial, economic, social and rural impact assessments. Not only is that good practice but it ensures that the greening of the economy is inclusive, with pathways into green careers to ensure that women and low-income families can fully participate in the new green economy.

Dr Archibald: Earlier today, I referred to the IPCC's latest report, which adds weight to the evidence, if that were needed, on why we require climate action now. The legislation that we are debating sets us on a clear path to net zero by 2050, as required under the Paris agreement, in order to try to limit warming to 1·5°C by the end of the century.

Sinn Féin's position on climate action is that it must be based on the principles of social justice. We need to have a fair and just transition. The amendments that we and others made to the Bill at Consideration Stage and the amendments tabled at Further Consideration Stage aim to ensure that the principles of a just transition underpin the legislation and the plans that are brought forward under it.

We have aimed to ensure that an approach of collaboration and consultation is incorporated into the development of all the plans that will flow from the Bill. As Philip McGuigan outlined, the amendments in the group that stand in my name and those of my colleagues further incorporate that approach into the Bill, through the development of sectoral plans and of the proposals and policies on carbon budgets. The approach will require impact assessments to be conducted and for the special economic and social role of agriculture and the distinct characteristics of biogenic methane to be taken into account.

Philip detailed the amendments that we tabled. Amendment No 40 would recognise the island of Ireland as a single biogeographic unit. Amendment No 44 would add further detail to the purpose of the just transition fund. Amendment No 52 would require the Department to set out how it intends to mitigate the negative impacts highlighted in the impact assessments under clause 28 on proposals and policies relating to carbon budgets. Amendment No 67 would set out further details on the climate commissioner. Amendment No 69 would require climate action plans to be brought forward within 24 months of the Bill's receiving Royal Assent.

The rest of the amendments are largely technical and continue the approach followed at Consideration Stage. The Minister's amendments are also largely technical, and, again, Philip has outlined our approach to them.

Our amendments further reinforce the approach to the Bill taken by the Assembly at Consideration Stage.

They will ensure that the climate legislation is based on partnership and collaboration. We have included the just transition commission to ensure that communities and sectors can buy into and be part of the planning for transition. Climate action has to be transparent, accessible and understood by communities, which is why we have included the climate commissioner. The legislation sets us on a positive path towards achieving net zero by 2050.

In the debates and discourse on the climate Bills, we have often talked about the concerns of sectors and the challenges that will be faced in meeting the targets that are being set. It is also important to highlight the opportunities and benefits. The obvious opportunity and benefit is the protection of our planet for future generations, and there is the benefit of a better environment. Also, there are the economic and social benefits. It is important that we as an Assembly and a society plan to harness the opportunities. We have a potential abundance of green energy that could help to create new jobs and skills opportunities as well, obviously, as securing our energy supply. We have talked a great deal about our food production during the debates. Our excellence in that area is globally renowned and contributes greatly to our food security.

Climate legislation might, in some respects, seem high-level, and perhaps it is not the first thing in the minds of those whom we represent every day. However, it is highly relevant. To those who are concerned about heating their homes and putting food on their tables and to the workers, families and businesses who are worried about spiralling costs the legislation is relevant and important. It can help enshrine a new approach based on social, economic and environmental well-being to create a more prosperous and more equal society. We need to talk more about that.

Ms Hunter: I welcome the contributions that have been made from across the Assembly. Tonight, Northern Ireland is one step closer to having its own climate change legislation. The SDLP has been vocal and supportive on that throughout the years, recognising the need for appropriate legislation to tackle the climate crisis.

From farming to food processing and distribution, we in the SDLP understand and recognise the strain that farmers and businesses in that sector face. I have spoken with several farmers and food chain suppliers in my constituency of East Derry and listened to their concerns. One thing that we all very much agree on is that climate change is real and concerning. I spoke with farmers in Claudy, Park, Feeny and beyond, and I was deeply impressed by their willingness to engage, which was mentioned by Members earlier, their willingness to be part of the solution and part of the change and their willingness to diversify. They had a lot of questions about what the future will mean for them, which is why the discussion on the just transition is so vital.

The SDLP supports amendment No 53, which highlights the importance of a just transition fund to support our farmers in a positive, proportionate and appropriate manner and assist with a smooth transition. Many farmers mentioned concerns about the unknown future and the uncertainty around funding streams. That is why the fund is so important. The debate should never be about the environment versus a sector; it should be about what we can all do to ensure that the correct funds, support, committees and commissioner are there to support our farmers. It is important that the legislation is shaped to do that and support the agri-food sector, as highlighted in amendment Nos 63, 66 and 68.

We also support amendment No 20, as it will help to alleviate the concerns of our rural citizens by making sure that our Departments commission a financial, social, economic and rural impact assessment on any developing sector plans. We welcome that as it takes into consideration the impact on rural communities in the key plans that are being made.

I have mentioned just a few of the many amendments that we support. I welcome the amendments, as they give our agri-food sector the breathing space that it needs to create a sustainable path to a better future.

Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): As I highlighted during the debate on the group 1 amendments, I have tabled technical amendments to remove duplication and to link more effectively the elements added to the Bill at Consideration Stage to the framework of the Bill as introduced. The majority of those amendments are in this group.

As with some of the amendments in group 1, my officials engaged with the proposers of the amendments upon which the fixes are being attempted to explain the rationale behind the further amendments and make it clear that they will not change the will or amend the policy ambitions agreed at Consideration Stage. Rather, these amendments will make the Bill more workable and improve the operability for a multi-decadal piece of legislation. Some of the Members in question seem willing to accept the rationale behind some of the proposed amendments, and I hope that all Members want the legislation to be at least technically operable and that they will be supportive of the intent behind these technical amendments, which are necessary to make the Bill a more coherent and effective piece of legislation.

In the time available, given the number of amendments that were agreed at Consideration Stage, it has not been possible to fix or address all the drafting issues in the Bill as a result of those amendments having been made. We have to try to address some of the more obvious issues, which include provisions that duplicate things that were already in the Bill, provisions that are not correctly linked to the framework created by the Bill and provisions that require Departments to establish bodies or funds without providing any legal powers for them to do so, as well as a number of other defective provisions.

The first amendment in this group is amendment No 20. That was tabled by Mr McGuigan and his colleagues, who also tabled amendment Nos 22, 41 and 70, which create similar requirements around the commissioning of various impact assessments in respect of plans and reports to be produced under the Bill. I want to make it clear that I am very much in favour of such assessments being carried out, but requirements to assess the impacts of policies and plans are already covered in greater detail and with more clarity in other legislation and strategies. The Northern Ireland better regulations strategy places a requirement on Departments to complete a regulatory impact assessment, known as an RIA, when developing new policies, proposals, significant plans, new legislation etc. The RIA includes an assessment of the impact of the policy options on financial cost, economic benefits and social impacts and on the risks of a proposal. The RIA process will identify viable policy options, assess the effects and value the costs and benefits of each option and carry out an economic assessment of the best option.

Under the Rural Needs Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, Northern Ireland Departments also have a legal duty to have, "due regard to rural needs". Indeed, the Rural Needs Act requires Departments to complete a rural needs impact assessment in respect of significant policies and plans produced under this Bill. Those assessments will assess the impacts on the rural community.

In addition, under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, all Departments have a duty to:

and to assess equality impacts when carrying out their functions.

Given the importance of the plans that will be produced under the Bill, they will require Executive approval, and all necessary assessments of impacts will have to be undertaken. Furthermore, through amendment No 59, which I proposed and which creates a new clause to replace clause 34, the Bill already requires the impacts of policies and proposals on the workforce, employers and communities to be assessed and proposals and policies to be included to support the workforce, employers and communities. Amendment Nos 20, 22, 41 and 70 are therefore not necessary.

Amendment No 21 links to amendment No 2 in group 1, and, as that amendment was not agreed, I will not support amendment No 21.

I turn to amendment Nos 22 to 26, all of which relate to clause 22. Subsections 2 to 4 of clause 22 are defective in a number of respects. Amendment Nos 24 and 25 address issues with subsections 2 and 3 of clause 22. Subsection 2 currently requires carbon budgets to be laid "with" the Assembly, when it should be "before" the Assembly. Subsection 3 also requires carbon budgets to be approved by draft affirmative resolution, but, because carbon budgets are required to be made by regulations, the requirements are already imposed by clause 52(3) of the Bill, which requires such regulations to be laid before the Assembly and approved by draft affirmative resolution.

Amendment No 26 addresses duplication contained in clause 22(4)(a), which requires the Department to have regard to the advice of the UK Climate Change Committee. That requirement is already imposed by clause 55, which requires the advice of the Climate Change Committee to be sought before any regulations under the Bill are made, so it is not necessary to restate the requirement in respect of the regulations that can be made under clause 22. As I highlighted during the Consideration Stage debate, it is poor drafting practice to repeat the same provision in different parts of the same Bill, since that achieves nothing in law and just creates confusion. I have therefore tabled amendment Nos 24 to 26 to remove those defective provisions. Amendment No 23, tabled by Mr McGuigan and colleagues, also attempts to make a minor amendment to clause 22, but again it is unnecessary. The right amendments to support with regard to that clause are amendment Nos 24 to 26.

As I highlighted during the Consideration Stage debate, clause 25, which was added at that stage, is defective, because, although the heading refers to "budgets", and it appears in a run of clauses that deal with carbon budgets, it refers throughout to "targets". In the Bill, targets are set by clauses 1, 3 and 4. Clause 25 also purports to impose a duty on my Department "when setting targets", but my Department does not set them, except if it amends them under clause 5. It appears that every reference to "targets" in clause 25 is intended to be a reference to "budgets". I have therefore tabled amendment Nos 27 to 35 to update the relevant references in the clause to "budgets".

Clause 25 also contains a definition of "carbon leakage", but I have tabled a separate amendment to replace the definition of carbon leakage in clause 35. It makes sense to have a consistent definition throughout the Bill. There is no reason why there should be different definitions for essentially the same concept. The definition in clause 25 is also defective in that refers only to "production", and the phrase "less restrictive policies" is not adequately explained. I have therefore tabled amendment No 36 to address that and insert a more coherent definition of carbon leakage.

Clause 50, which was added at Consideration Stage, essentially duplicates the substance of clause 28. Clause 50 requires the publication and laying of climate action plans that set out how interim targets and the 2050 target will be achieved. That is, in substance, identical to the requirement in clause 28, which covers reports setting out proposals and policies for meeting the carbon budget that are themselves five-yearly and are required to be set by reference to the targets. The problem is that, although the requirements are substantively the same as those of clause 28, the two provisions require different things in law. If the Bill were to pass as it stands, it would contain duties on my Department to publish both types of documents, saying the same things, and would increase bureaucracy, unnecessary administrative burdens and additional cost, with no practical benefit. Many Members would agree with me that there is already too much duplication across different plans and strategies, and therefore it does not help in delivering the right messages to stakeholders and the public.

I recognised that the will of the House was to have a climate action plan. Therefore, I have tabled amendment Nos 37, 38, 45, 46, 48, 49, 54, 55, 60, 61, 64 and 65 to combine all the substantive requirements of clause 50 into clauses 28 and 31, and to adopt the label "Climate action plans" for the reports under clause 28. That includes the relevant consultation requirements and the requirements around annual greenhouse gas and air quality targets. I am sure that you will agree that having one clear, robust and overarching five-year climate action plan to deliver and meet carbon budgets and targets is the right way to proceed. Amendment No 39 replaces the word "period" in clause 28(7) with the word "day", as the use of the word "period" in that context does not make any sense.

Amendment No 40 is a pointless amendment. While I appreciate why Mr McGuigan and his colleagues have put it forward, it achieves nothing in the context of the provision in which it would be inserted. That requires coordination of policies and proposals, where desirable, with Ireland, the UK and elsewhere. The proposed text will have no impact on that. It is simply window dressing.

Amendment No 42, also tabled by Mr McGuigan and his colleagues, attempts to place a new consideration to be taken into account when producing the reports under clause 28. However, again, that is not necessary as it is effectively provided for under clause 25(1)(n) regarding carbon budgets. Proposals and policies under clause 28 must be set in order to achieve those carbon budgets, so the need to have due regard to:

under clause 25 carries through into clause 29.

I turn to amendment No 43. Clauses 29(5) and 30, which were inserted by amendments at Consideration Stage, contain exactly the same text about the establishment of a just transition fund for agriculture. Both are defective in a number of ways, in addition to the fact that they duplicate each other. They state that the Department must establish a scheme but give no indication of the mechanism for doing so. Presumably, it is to be done by regulations, which would be subject to draft affirmative procedure. There is confusion in the provisions between the words "scheme" and "fund". Those are different things. A scheme must be established to administer the fund in order to make it work.

A power to make regulations of that kind generally includes explicit provision about what the regulations may do, in order to ensure that there is no doubt about what the scheme can do. Without the provisions, the scheme would be vulnerable to legal challenge. I have, therefore, tabled amendment Nos 43 and 53, which remove the duplication and place a requirement on my Department to bring forward regulations to establish a scheme for the administration of such a fund and outline the types of elements that the regulations should cover. Amendment No 53 provides the necessary powers to give legal effect to such a scheme.

Given the amendments that I have tabled, amendment No 44, which was proposed by Mr McGuigan and colleagues, is unnecessary, as the proposed text does not add anything of substance that cannot be covered through regulations, which my Department will bring forward under the power provided by amendment No 53.

Clause 34, which was inserted at Consideration Stage and purports to cover impacts on small businesses, is technically defective in a number of respects. It states that policies and proposals must "explain" and "set out", whereas it is the report under section 28 that will explain and set out matters. As paragraphs (a) and (b) are expressed as being:

the clause does not contain any special provision about small businesses and its title is, therefore, inaccurate. Although the clause refers to small and microbusinesses, it does not distinguish between them, defining them both as being businesses "with less than 50 employees". Moreover, clause 29(9) already makes provision about small businesses, so, again, there is duplication.

I have tabled amendment Nos 47, 50, 51 and 59 to correct the errors in clause 34 and to combine the provisions of clause 29(9) to (12), which also cover the impacts on small businesses, to make coherent special provision about small businesses. I urge Members to support the amendments to remove the duplication and to provide clarity on the assessments that are required.

Amendment No 52 requires my Department to explain how it will mitigate any impacts uncovered through relevant financial, social, economic and rural impact assessments and links to the amendments that I referred to earlier in that regard. The element of identifying mitigation actions to address potential impacts is already required when carrying out the numerous assessments that I alluded to earlier. The amendment is unnecessary, albeit that the intent behind it is fine.

Amendment No 56 makes a minor update to the wording in clause 32, so that the reference to the SEM committee and its role in providing advice on energy production and supply is focused on the functions relevant to the Bill rather than having it provide advice on all its functions, which the current wording would require.

I will not move amendment Nos 57 and 58 as they were dependent on other amendments that did not make it on to the Marshalled List.

As I mentioned earlier when I talked about clause 25, there are two clauses that, following amendments at Consideration Stage, define carbon leakage, with clause 35 being the second of those. However, clause 35 is technically defective in a number of ways. The clause imposes a duty that applies when setting out policies and proposals, whereas, in order to be effective, the duty must apply to the earlier stage of deciding those policies and proposals. The clause refers to "the department" — meaning DAERA — whereas the policies and proposals are decided by each Northern Ireland Department in its own area. It does not make sense to limit the Department's duty to "substantial or unreasonable" leakage because those words are ill-defined. The Department would have to consider all possible leakages in order to decide what it can ignore because it is not substantial or unreasonable.

The clause refers to policies in other countries being addressed against the targets in sections 1, 3 and 4. However, the targets in sections 1, 3 and 4 are for the reduction of Northern Ireland's emissions. Again, it does not make sense to talk about those targets in the context of other countries. The clause refers to countries with policies but ignores the possibility that some countries may have no policies at all. Therefore, I have tabled amendment No 62, which will replace the existing text in clause 35, correct those errors and improve the requirements for carbon leakage in the Bill.

Clause 36 requires the establishment of a just transition commission, but it gives no indication of the mechanism for doing so. Presumably, the intention is that it will be done by regulations subject to the draft affirmative procedure. Moreover, the clause makes no provision for standard ancillary rules for public bodies such as for its constitution, the remuneration of members or record-keeping. It is not clear from the provision what oversight consists of or what the just transition elements of the Act will be. For those reasons, I have tabled amendment No 63, which will replace clause 36 and provide a more effective framework from which to establish such a commission. I trust that there will be universal support for the amendment.

Similarly, clause 49, which was inserted at Consideration Stage, requires the establishment of a Northern Ireland climate commissioner, but it gives no indication of the mechanism for doing so. Again, presumably, the intention is that it will be done by regulations subject to the draft affirmative procedure. Moreover, clause 49 makes no provision for standard ancillary rules for public office such as for the appointment to the office, remuneration of the office holder or the employment of staff. It is not clear from the provision what oversight consists of or how the reporting obligation is to be discharged. For those reasons, it has been necessary to recast the provision through amendment No 66, which will replace clause 49. Amendment No 66 provides coverage for all the key elements around the establishment of a Northern Ireland climate commissioner.

Amendment No 67, which was tabled by Mr McGuigan and colleagues, or amendment No 68 from Mr Blair and colleagues, are not necessary. Therefore, I urge Members to support amendment No 66 and reject amendment Nos 67 and 68.

Amendment Nos 69 and 70 amend clause 50, which covers climate action plans, as I explained earlier. I have tabled amendments to align the requirements of clause 50 with those around clause 28 so that the Bill will require only the production of one five-yearly climate action plan. Under clause 28, the first report was to be called the climate action plan. If my amendments are accepted, the report will be required to be produced by the end of 2023. That is, therefore, within a shorter time frame than is proposed by amendment No 69, so I have no issue in supporting it.

I have already set out my position on the impact assessments, which will be required under amendment No 70. I will not labour the point about that other than to highlight the fact that, if amendment No 41 is agreed, in addition to my amendments about incorporating the climate action plan requirements into clauses 28 and 31, amendment No 70 is not necessary.

In summary, the majority of the amendments tabled by me and the technical fixes are to remove duplication and improve and strengthen the effect of a number of clauses that were added at Consideration Stage. The principle behind the amendments tabled by other Members in group 2 are fine, but, in most cases, my amendments achieve the same outcome in a better fashion. In other cases, the amendments are not necessary because the relevant requirements are dealt with in other legislation or as part of standard processes. I hope that Members present appreciate the rationale behind my amendments and the points that I have made in the debate and that they will vote accordingly.

That concludes my remarks on the amendments covered in the group 2 debate. I want to reply to Dr Archibald's comments about opportunities. Last week, I was in West Tyrone, and I was challenged by people from that constituency that the climate change legislation creates massive opportunities for mining in West Tyrone in particular, and the Sperrins in general, and that there are a lot of materials under the ground that could be used, particularly for electric vehicles. There is a genuine concern in the community that some people support this legislation so that that can be introduced into that area. I suspect that there will be considerable resistance to it. One needs to be careful when referring to opportunities: one person's opportunity is another person's nightmare. I add that comment in response to Dr Archibald.

Mr McGuigan: Tá sé mall, agus tá mé tuirseach; dá bhrí sin, ní bheidh mé ag caint ar feadh i bhfad. It is late, and we have talked at length, so I intend to keep my remarks very short. There was overwhelming support for the tenets of the aspects that we are discussing in group 2, such as just transition, the just transition commission, the climate commissioner, the need for amendments on carbon leakage and, by in large, the need for assessments. Some Members and parties have slight differences on certain aspects of that and things that they support in more detail. By and large, however, those aspects of the Bill have wide support, and that was indicated by all the parties. The Minister, in his summation of the amendments, spoke in favour of assessments. He felt that the amendments that we tabled were not necessary as they are things that the Department is currently obliged to do. He outlined the technical nature of his amendments and the reasons for tabling them. A number of his amendments are to tidy up previous amendments, deal with other amendments or avoid duplication. He felt that other amendments were unnecessary.

At this point, I thank the officials in the Bill Office and the departmental officials who were helpful to us and, I presume, to everyone else in assisting with amendments and in supporting the debate and the production of this legislation to get us to this point. As I said, it has been a long process, and we have debated at length, sometimes loudly. Hopefully, at this point, the debating has, by and large, concluded. Let us hope — fingers crossed — that the voting is quick, and we can conclude the debate tonight so that we can move towards meeting our ultimate objective of providing ambitious, long-overdue climate legislation for the citizens whom we represent. The Final Stage debate is scheduled for next week. After the voting, I hope that we can move towards that in a quick and timely manner, concluding the painstaking work by all of us to this point.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Members, we have now reached the stage at which approximately 50 votes are to occur. I intend to follow the outline set by the Business Committee, which is that business will continue to approximately 10 pm, and any outstanding business will commence tomorrow morning.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I think the Noes have it.

Mr McGuigan: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Speaker indicated earlier that he would take note of those who were voting for or against. That may help the proceedings.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I have noted that there has been opposition expressed on the Sinn Féin Benches. There was, perhaps —

Apologies. Support was indicated from the Sinn Féin Benches. There was a gentle sprinkling amongst others. I do not know precisely where, but certainly there was support from the Sinn Féin Benches. I hope that the Member is content with that.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I remind Members that they should continue to maintain social distancing and that Members who have proxy voting arrangements in place should not come to the Chamber.

Before the Assembly divides, I remind Members that, as per Standing Order 112, the Assembly 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. Members should maintain social distancing during the Division.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 113(5)(b), there is agreement to dispense with the three-minute rule and move straight to the Division.

I remind Members to maintain social distancing, in particular the 2-metre gap, especially when moving around the Chamber, the Rotunda and the Lobbies.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I will not call amendment No 24, as it is mutually exclusive with amendment No 23, which has been made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Business Committee recommended that we should work through the Order Paper until approximately 10.00 pm and that any business that has not been completed be resumed tomorrow morning at the start of the sitting.