Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): On behalf of the Committee, I am delighted to welcome members of the community organisation Letterbreen and Mullaghdun Partnership (LAMP) to the Committee. Trevor Armstrong, its chairman, will begin.

Mr Trevor Armstrong (Letterbreen and Mullaghdun Partnership): Chair, Deputy Chair and members of the Committee, thank you very much for inviting the members of LAMP to address you about petroleum licensing today. With me are Frankie McMurray and Dianne Little. We also have Eddie Mitchell, who is a good friend of ours and has a wealth of experience and knowledge about legislation and fracking all over the world.

My first slide is a community perspective from LAMP Fermanagh. We are part of a network of groups across Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the UK, Europe and the US. We have been living with the threat of petroleum licensing, exploration and hydraulic fracturing proposals in this area since 2011. We are working with US medical experts and affected communities in the US and Irish human rights experts to defend clean air, water, community health and well-being, homes, farming and tourism, and everything that we value from the threat of petroleum licensing.

I will now hand over to Dianne.

Ms Dianne Little (Letterbreen and Mullaghdun Partnership): We support the Executive's stated objective for a permanent end to onshore petroleum exploration and production in Northern Ireland. Having reviewed the Bill that is before you, our group has concluded that repeal is not an acceptable mechanism because it gives up Northern Ireland's exclusive rights over petroleum resource, and we are worried that that creates a vacuum without putting in place a legal protection for our communities and everything that we value from being turned into a toxic industrial zone. We are not asking the Committee to reject the Bill. We are bringing a fully drafted alternative, the "Onshore Petroleum Licensing (Prohibition) Bill (Northern Ireland) 2026", which achieves the same policy objective through a permanent statutory prohibition, keeping Northern Ireland's ownership and exclusive rights of petroleum in place.

The repeal removes the powers, and what you have at the moment is a repeal Bill. However, a prohibition — a ban — prevents activities. They are not the same thing. If the policy objective is a permanent statutory prohibition, the Committee should amend the Bill so that the objective is best achieved by prohibition rather than repeal of existing licensing, as a repeal creates a vacuum that may allow a UK Government to take over and issue licences themselves because it repeals Northern Ireland's own petroleum legislation.

If we look at Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland compared with here with regard to who owns the petroleum, we see that, in Scotland and Wales, it is vested. It is with the Crown and was never devolved. In Northern Ireland, however, it is the Department; as in the Republic, it is the Minister. As for the exclusive right for searching, boring and getting petroleum, in Scotland and Wales, it is still vested with the Crown. Scottish Ministers have statutory licensing authority. It is the same in Wales. In Northern Ireland, it is unique: it is held by the Department, but the Bill repeals it entirely. As in the Republic of Ireland, it is retained by the Minister. Scotland and Wales never had full ownership to lose. The Crown always owned the resource, and devolution only ever handed them licensing powers. The difference in Northern Ireland is that Stormont has had both ownership and exclusive exploitation rights since 1964, and even before that. The Bill as it stands would be the first time that any of the four nations actively surrenders a right that it currently holds rather than holding that right and just declining to use the power to protect the people and, with that industry, the planet.

Section 1(3) of the Petroleum (Production) Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 states:

The Bill repeals that subsection in full. Northern Ireland ownership of petroleum is retained, but the exclusive right to exploit it is given up entirely. Northern Ireland's exclusive right was never reserved to Westminster in the way that it was in Scotland and Wales. It has been fully held here since 1964, so why give it up now rather than retain it and prohibit its exercise?

Our concern is that democratic control is being weakened here. The devolved structure means that a Northern Ireland ministerial decision on petroleum would be subject to collective Executive decision-making, cross-community safeguards and Assembly scrutiny. We ask the Committee to recognise that, as drafted, the Bill weakens our long-term democratic control over this resource. Decisions with major social, environmental and global consequences should continue to be subject to the strongest available local, cross-community accountability mechanisms.

Pollution resulting from licensing in NI does not stop at the border. In Fermanagh, we are surrounded by border counties, and we sit in a single environmental system that straddles the border in groundwater, river catchments and Lough Erne and its connected catchments. For biodiversity, protected habitats, agriculture, food production, tourism, recreation and air quality, nothing stops at a line on a map. The water that originates in Fermanagh flows to the South. Pollution from petroleum exploration, extraction or fracking would not confine itself to Northern Ireland, where the licence was granted. Any contamination event affecting groundwater, surface water, the air or an ecosystem that that industry caused would have consequences for communities throughout the island, not just in Northern Ireland.

We highlight the reason why you need to consider this, which is to do with the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. It established institutions and mechanisms specifically to support North/South cooperation on shared interests, including environmental protection, waterways, agriculture and the sustainable management of natural resources. The Windsor framework, which was expressly designed to protect the agreement in all its dimensions, includes North/South cooperation, recognising that many of Northern Ireland's environmental, economic and social systems operate on an all-island basis. Nowhere is that more evident than in places in the border region, such as Fermanagh, particularly when it comes to this industry. Our ask is that the Committee explicitly assesses whether the Bill meets that standard and recognises that repeal rather than prohibition creates risk and uncertainty for cross-border environmental governance. Given the North/South cooperation and shared environmental stewardship under the agreement, we ask the Committee to consider the fact that communities south of the border have an express statutory prohibition, while our community in the North would rely on repeal, which makes us more vulnerable to future change.

For the next slide, I will pass to Frankie, if he is able to take over.

Mr Frankie McMurray (Letterbreen and Mullaghdun Partnership): Good morning, Committee.

We are asking the Committee to consider a fully drafted alternative Bill — a sweeping amendment to the ministerial Bill — because we need to prevent the Department from giving away our rights. We propose for the Committee's consideration an amended text of the Bill, named the "Onshore Petroleum Licensing (Prohibition) Bill (Northern Ireland) 2026". It is built on three principles. The first principle is to retain ownership of and exclusive rights to petroleum licensing in Northern Ireland. If Northern Ireland were to surrender those rights, it would be the first part of the UK to do so. Wales and Scotland never had those rights to give up, whereas we have them and should continue to retain them.

The second principle is a minimal but specific amendment that retains the framework of the 1964 Act, including leaving section 1(3) largely untouched, and inserts a new single prohibition provision.

The third principle is that the amendment will use absolute and unambiguous language to say that the Department "must not grant" licences, instead of saying that the Department no longer has the power to do so. That would close off any interpretation that a future Government might make that could revive licensing by legislating the power back into existence.

I turn to our preferred Bill title and structure. The title of the Bill matters, because having a prohibition Bill rather than a repealing Bill would state the legal effect clearly on the face of the legislation. The Bill would be the "Onshore Petroleum Licensing (Prohibition) Bill (Northern Ireland) 2026". Its long title would be:

The Bill's contents would have three parts. Part 1 would be the insertion of a permanent prohibition on onshore licences. Part 2 would cover consequential amendments and revocations, and Part 3 would be the short title and commencement.

I turn to our preferred operative clauses. We are putting forward a super clause, which would be clause 2A. That would be inserted after section 2 in the Petroleum (Production) Act (Northern Ireland) 1964. The super clause would state:

Part 2 would relate to the consequential amendments and revocations. A definition of "onshore" should be put in here, with "onshore" meaning the landward area of Northern Ireland extending to the low-water mark. Also, the Department shall, by order, revoke subordinate regulations relating to the onshore licence application process to ensure consistency with the new prohibition.

Lastly, Part 3 would be the short title and commencement. The Bill would become the "Onshore Petroleum Licensing (Prohibition) Act (Northern Ireland) 2026", and it would commence the day after receiving Royal Assent.

Ms Little: We have particular questions to put to the Committee and the Department. Will the Committee formally consider the text of our proposed "Onshore Petroleum Licensing (Prohibition) Bill", as opposed to a repealing Bill, as an amendment package to the current Bill as introduced? Has the Department taken legal advice on whether removing the licensing framework and section 1(3) leaves a vacuum in which a future Westminster Government could legislate to permit onshore petroleum licensing in Northern Ireland? We cannot understand why the Bill repeals the Department's exclusive rights under section 1(3), rather than retaining them and prohibiting their exercise, as our draft does. The Department and the Committee have that power. Have the implications of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, Windsor framework and cross-border environmental aspects of repeal, rather than prohibition, been formally assessed?

Mr Armstrong: The last slide shows our ask. We do not believe that repeal alone will deliver the ban with the legal certainty that is needed and is so overdue for affected communities in Northern Ireland and across our border that are at risk of harm. We are bringing the Committee a complete, workable amendment: the "Onshore Petroleum Licensing (Prohibition) Bill" would keep Northern Ireland's ownership and exclusive rights intact while making onshore petroleum permanently and explicitly unlawful.

Fermanagh has lived with this threat for over a decade. We are not asking you to block the Bill; we are asking you to amend it and replace its core mechanism with one that will protect everything that we value and not create a vacuum that leaves us vulnerable and at risk. Even though I keep talking about Fermanagh, because we represent Fermanagh, exploration and studies have been done in North Belfast, South Belfast, Upper Bann, Lagan Valley and South Antrim, so it affects most Committee members' constituents. Thank you very much for listening to us. We are happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Thank you very much indeed. It is clear that you have all put a lot of work and effort into your representations, so thank you for that.

Your main concern is that, if the Department gives up its rights, a UK Government at Westminster might step in. I put this to you: Parliament is sovereign, so the Assembly cannot and could not legislate to ban a future UK Government from doing anything. Ultimately, the UK Government can, at any stage, introduce legislation and make decisions about issues in Northern Ireland. I understand your point: you have concerns that, if we give up our exclusive rights, that might open the back door for a UK Government to make the decision. However, ultimately, Parliament could pass a law tomorrow to give itself the ability to do that. I understand your concerns, but, from my perspective, even if we adopted your amendment, it could still be overwritten by a law passed by Parliament, should it so wish.

Ms Little: Is that the view of the rest of the Committee?

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): It is up to the Committee to take a view. We ask questions; we normally do not answer them. My point is that it is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact and legal constitutional law that the UK Parliament is sovereign in Northern Ireland over all things. As we have seen in the past, it can make decisions on any issues that may have been previously devolved.

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you very much for your presentation. I will ask a question based on a broader point. I emphasise that I do so without prejudice to the merits of the argument that you have just made. When we discovered lignite in Antrim, we did not exploit it. When there was a proposal for gas storage caverns in Larne, people said no. You are saying no to onshore petroleum exploration and fracking in Fermanagh. People object to wind farms across Northern Ireland. As you know, a very large number of households in Northern Ireland continue to rely on oil for their home heating, despite environmental disasters such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. So, the question is this: are we in danger of being labelled as hypocrites?

Mr Eddie Mitchell (Letterbreen and Mullaghdun Partnership): I do not live in Northern Ireland; I am here to support LAMP. The difference in what you spoke about there is that the Executive and the Assembly in Northern Ireland have a policy to ban petroleum licensing. We are trying to implement that in a way that is effective. We are pointing out that giving up the exclusive rights is not the same as putting a prohibition in place. We are worried that people may believe and think —. We understand that the granting of exploration licences will be banned by Stormont, but the obvious implication is that it will not actually be banned. We would rather see those decisions being made in Northern Ireland by people who have been elected in Northern Ireland. We worry about the impact of a decision made by a UK Government at a later date. What would the impact be on decision-making in the Executive? Would a community have a veto? I am worried that the decision-making could operate outside Northern Ireland, and then you would be looking at a planning system for, rather than a policy on, petroleum licensing.

Mr Nesbitt: Eddie, I was specific and detailed in saying that I was making a broad point without prejudice to your argument, and you have spectacularly failed to address my question.

Ms Little: Perhaps I can speak with regard to the communities who live in Belfast, Antrim, Newtownabbey, Armagh city, Lisburn, Castlereagh and Mid Ulster, who are under the threat of EHA Exploration's getting a licence, and our community in Fermanagh, who have lived with this for over 10 years, to explain what it means to us. That might help to clarify the difference between such exploration and wind farm licensing. We know from the evidence and peer-reviewed reports that this exploration means massive health impacts to our community, raising rates of respiratory disease, cancer and low-birth-weight babies. The peer-reviewed evidence is massive. Exploration brings seismic and earthquake factors into our homes. It makes our homes uninsurable. It makes farms uninsurable because of the contamination risk to groundwater that is used for livestock and crops. Our clean, green produce and the overview of farming in Northern Ireland on the world stage would be gone. Tourism would be gone, because tourism relies on the clean, green landscape, but that landscape would be turned into a toxic industrial zone. It is also a massive human rights violation. There is no comparison between what we are talking about and a wind farm application. I do not know whether that answers your question.

Mr Nesbitt: No, it does not. Who cares about the Gulf of Mexico, as long as your lights are on? I am done, Chair.

Ms Nicholl: Thank you for your presentation. I am married to a Fermanagh man, so I should probably declare an interest in that I have a relative in Mullaghdun. I know how beautiful your part of the world is and why you so passionately want to protect it.

You have given a lot of detailed information, so thank you for that and for your presentation. I am happy to put any further questions that you have to the Department. I have two questions. First, the Department has come back with a response to all your amendments: what is your analysis of its response and where do you not agree? Secondly, on the Chair's point, have you engaged with any Westminster representatives about your concerns? Is there engagement with your campaign at Westminster? It strikes me that that would be a useful mechanism to ensure that there are legislative protections.

Ms Little: The answer to that question is no. We have not considered engagement with Westminster representatives, because, at the moment, under section 1(3) of the 1964 Act:

We currently have exclusive rights. Your Committee and the Department have vested in them exclusive rights to grant licences to search for, bore for and get petroleum here. You hold the power and the rights at the moment. We are asking you to keep those rights. We are considering your role as elected representatives who are charged with massive responsibility because of the huge impacts on communities in Fermanagh and all around Lough Neagh. At the moment, Lough Neagh has a pollution issue that could be reversible, but, if we pump the 48 potentially carcinogenic chemicals that come with the petroleum industry through Lough Neagh's waters, it will not be reversible. The impacts of fracking are not reversible. People think that they are safe from all this, but there is a big responsibility on the Committee and the Department to retain the power and the rights in order to protect people here. You can do that.

Mr Honeyford: Thank you for coming in and for your presentation. I listened as you went through it. I believe that we are trying to get the same point in time, but I am slightly confused. I am not sure where in the Bill it says that we are giving up the exclusive right. I was looking at the 1964 legislation. I cannot see where, in this Bill, it is set out that that is the principle of what it is trying to do. Can you explain that?

Mr Mitchell: If you open up the Bill, you will see that clause 1(3) —.

Mr Honeyford: Yes, it says:

I was looking through those sections in the 1964 Act, which I have in front of me. I cannot see how the Bill transfers the rights. I cannot see how we are giving up rights. The purpose of the Bill is to give us the ability to repeal provisions on drilling or fracking here, which we do not currently have. I agree with you on what we are trying to get to.

Mr Mitchell: It is very important to get clarity there.

Mr Honeyford: Yes, but I do not see where —.

Mr Mitchell: I need you to read it. Section 1(3) will be omitted by the repeal Bill, and section 1(3) is what retains our exclusive rights. That is acknowledged, and there is no question about that. You need to check that and get clarity.

Mr Honeyford: OK. I will check that.

Ms Little: The Bill repeals it; it gives it up. It omits it. When you repeal it, it is gone. That is what we feel —.

Mr Honeyford: I get the fear. Think about it in practical terms, however. Have you evidence of something like this ever happening, with the UK Government coming in and —? Your fear is that somebody else will step in and drill, over the head of the Department and the Executive here. Is there any evidence that that has ever happened anywhere before?

Ms Little: I would make the obvious comparison with Scotland and Wales. We have the exclusive rights at the moment; Scotland and Wales do not have those exclusive rights. We are saying that we need to not repeal section 1(3) of the 1964 Act, which is to do with exclusive rights. It is about ownership and control. Where we have that ownership and control, the wisest, most pragmatic and powerful thing that you can do to protect the communities across Northern Ireland that are at risk of harm is to keep it and, then, simply add a prohibition. The Bill does not currently do that. That is why we propose that a prohibition be added to the Bill, while ownership and control is retained here. I hope that that answers your question.

Mr Honeyford: It does. I am happy to look at something that can strengthen it. The point of these sessions is to tease out issues in the Bill that is in front of us. I do not know anything about oil, so it is useful to do that. I am happy to take our discussion offline. My understanding is that your fear is that somebody else could step in. I am not sure that what you are afraid of has actually ever happened.

Mr Mitchell: It has already been acknowledged here today that the UK Government and Parliament have sovereignty over Northern Ireland and can legislate in Northern Ireland at any time. I am not an expert on Northern Ireland — you know better — but an example might be what happened with abortion. Stormont was not open at the time. Normally, where the UK Government wanted to legislate across Northern Ireland's devolved powers, there would be a request for consent, but that is not a legal process; it is just an obligation that has been in place. Quite clearly, the powers are there: we should all be able to agree on that. When you give up powers and create a vacuum, there is very clearly an incentive for the UK Government to decide — for whatever reason they decide, based on energy security or whatever; that is their business — and they can do it. Rather than Northern Ireland doing what it says that it wants to, which is to bring in an effective ban on petroleum licensing, we are really putting a prohibition on our control over petroleum in Northern Ireland. It is a ban on Stormont ability to grant an exploration licence, but it opens the door for the British Government to do that.

Mr Honeyford: Yes. I understand what you are saying and where you are going on that. I am happy to pick up some stuff offline.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): My point, Eddie, was that, regardless of whether we pass your proposals, the UK Government could still intervene.

Mr Mitchell: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): What we have control over is the ability for Stormont to issue, or not issue, licences. The Bill meets those criteria. Regardless of whether we passed your proposed Bill, the UK Parliament could still do what the UK Parliament wishes to do. There is clear unanimity around the Committee table that we share ultimate aims when it comes to where we want to get to. I suppose that we just have different interpretations of how we arrive there.

On behalf of the Committee, thank you very much. It is clear that you put a lot of time and effort into your correspondence, drafting and work. The Committee is hugely grateful to you for that. Thank you very much indeed.