Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): I welcome the departmental officials. We are joined by Anthony Courtney, acting director of the climate change legislation and policy division (CCLPD); John Early, CCLPD deputy director; and Ian Fleming, head of carbon budgets and just transition commission regulations branch. We have received your written submission, so I invite you to give us a short oral briefing.

Mr Anthony Courtney (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Chair and Committee members, for the opportunity to brief you today. The regulations that you are considering have been brought forward under section 23 of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. DAERA is required to set carbon budgets to cover emissions across successive five-year periods. Carbon budgets are an important mechanism for climate change targets, because they allow us to achieve those targets in a more gradual, planned and fair way. They are set at an overall NI level, not a sectoral level. The regulations in question cover the period from 2038 to 2042.

It is important to highlight that policies and proposals for delivering against this carbon budget will come through the relevant climate action plan, which has to be published by the end of 2038 — by the end of the first year of the period in question. The Committee will be aware, from our written briefing, that we got advice from the Climate Change Committee (CCC) on the recommended level of the fourth carbon budget, and the SR reflects what the CCC recommended: a 77% annual average reduction across the period. There are various requirements in the 2022 Act around what we have to consider when bringing forward the legislation to set our carbon budgets. The carbon budget has to be consistent with the targets that are in place.

There are a number of other requirements in the 2022 Act to do with impact assessments — we will cover those briefly — as well as on consultation. The Department carried out a 16-week consultation and, earlier this year, the Committee was provided with a synopsis of the responses to that consultation. Just to recap, around two thirds of respondents were in favour; they either agreed or strongly agreed with what the Department was proposing. Of those responses, around 80% of organisations were in favour. There was strong support for what the Department was putting forward.

I will now turn to impact assessments. There is an explanatory memorandum (EM) with the regulations and a regulatory impact assessment (RIA), which have been provided to the Committee. We carried out a financial, social and economic impact assessment to look at the effects of the carbon budget. We also carried out an assessment of the section 26 factors that are listed in the 2022 Act. In broad terms, those assessments found that the fourth carbon budget that we are proposing — at the level that we propose — will have positive impacts for the economy, the environment and society. A number of things came through such as protecting public health, energy security, growth in renewable energy and efficiency in various areas of the economy. The impact assessments that we carried out found broadly positive outcomes.

The RIA details the costs and benefits. To get those, we used CCC datasets and His Majesty's Treasury (HMT) carbon values. The end finding was that there would be an overall benefit to the NI economy of £1·39 billion. It is important to highlight that that is for 2025-2050. We took that approach because that is the approach that is taken at UK level. We looked at the longer-term picture: not just this carbon budget but the carbon budgets that came before and those that will come after this one. Our assessment found that there would be that overall net benefit. It is also important to emphasise that the impacts of this carbon budget will depend on the policy framework and the policies and actions that are taken. They will become clearer once we come closer to the period in question, because it is then that we will have to produce the relevant climate action plan. We have done the analysis on the basis of the CCC's pathways and impact analysis, but the impacts here will depend on what we do in Northern Ireland. The CCC reflects that in its advice, but its advice is advice — we may go down different paths on certain things, and that might lead to different impacts.

I do not want to talk for too long, because you got the written briefing and you have had a long meeting today. It is important that we bring forward this legislation, because there is a statutory commitment to do so. The Department needs to deliver on that commitment. We have followed the relevant requirements in the regulations to arrive at where we are now. We hope to bring the legislation to the Assembly for debate soon. I will stop there, Chair, because I know that members will want to ask questions.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you, Anthony. There is a lot of interest in asking questions. Before we go into the detail, do you have evidence that the Executive are on track to meet the first three carbon budgets before imposing any further carbon budgets? There is a statutory obligation to introduce the fourth carbon budget, but where are we with the previous three?

Mr Courtney: Currently, we are trying to finalise our first climate action plan. It covers the first period, which we are now in: 2023-27. We consulted on that. It has policies and proposals that would allow us to achieve the first carbon budget. That is the first piece of the jigsaw. There is evidence that we are achieving what we need to achieve. Longer term, we need to bring forward other climate action plans for the relevant periods. We cannot say definitively that we have that evidence yet, but we have evidence that we are on track to meet the first carbon budget.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): OK. The CCC recommends a 77% annual reduction in emissions by 2038. It also recommends a 31% reduction in livestock. That would have major implications for food security and food sustainability. How do you square that circle for the rural economy, since food production is so necessary and integral to the success of the agrisector in Northern Ireland?

Mr Courtney: It is important to say, as I covered in the briefing, that the CCC has given advice and a pathway across sectors, but the first climate action plan, which we have consulted on, does not follow or reflect the CCC's advice. There is nothing in our agriculture measures in the first climate action plan about livestock reductions.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): But it is in the fourth carbon budget, which is what we are looking at.

Mr Courtney: It was in the CCC's advice for the first three carbon budgets, as well as for the fourth carbon budget, but the Department is not following that pathway for the sector. The Department has a clear vision for the sector, and that does not involve livestock reductions. It involves efficiencies and trying to get the same outputs by doing things more efficiently: investing in low-carbon practices etc. The first climate action plan is fairly clear. The CCC has advised us to do something across the period, but we are not doing that; we are focusing on an alternative pathway to try to deliver the same outcomes. We do not have to follow the CCC advice — it is advice — and Departments can choose how best to try to deliver reductions in the sectors in question. We do not have to follow the CCC advice.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): This may not be your role within the Department, but the farming community would need an assurance about where that reduction-in-livestock-numbers recommendation stands in respect of future carbon budgets.

You talked about the financial assessment. It is not very clear what this will cost. Carbon budgets will affect every household and every part of industry, manufacturing and transport, let alone farming. Can you therefore measure what the overall cost of the carbon budget will be for every householder in Northern Ireland, not just those in the farming community? It will impact on small farms, large farms and a swathe of society in this country.

Mr Courtney: The best process for doing that is through the assessments that will be done for climate action plans rather than for carbon budgets. As I said, we utilised the CCC's datasets and analysis for the carbon budgets. From what it has looked at, the CCC thinks that there will be positive impacts for the economy and for people, given some of the current issues with energy security and the price of fossil fuels. In the longer term, in the CCC's pathway, we move away from a reliance on fossil fuels to having more renewables and more energy security. That will lead to a saving in capital and operating costs across the sectors that it has outlined when compared with the costs that we are experiencing now. The CCC projects a positive impact pretty much across society. When it comes to NI, however, and the impact of what we are going to do, that will be taken forward through the climate action plan process. The 2022 Act has a range of requirements on impact assessments. Departments will have to get Executive agreement and ministerial agreement on the direction in which they want to go.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): When it comes to measuring emissions, in the static population of cattle, the emissions will go in a 12-year cycle. For fossil fuels, it is different. Will the farmers and the agriculture community be much more penalised by carbon reductions than other sectors?

Mr Courtney: That is certainly not the intention. I appreciate where you are coming from. We have the first climate action plan, and that is not where the Department's focus lies. The Department's focus is on supporting the sector in decarbonising in a way that maintains output. As I said, that is the policy framework and agenda at the moment. I cannot speak to the future.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): OK. Thank you.

Mr McAleer: As my party's agriculture spokesperson, I am looking at this from the perspective of the impact on farming. I hear what you say about not following the UK CCC's advice on herd reduction, and that is welcome. The alternative pathway is the likes of the beef carbon reduction scheme. Farmers will need assistance for a just transition to enable them to follow that pathway. Are you satisfied that farmers will get the support that they need through the likes of the just transition fund to enable them to move along that pathway?

Mr Courtney: Yes. There is a mechanism in the Act for the Department to establish the just transition fund for agriculture. Work is ongoing on that. There is draft legislation, and the Department is working on a draft policy framework. In the past, our Minister has tried to get a certain amount of funding to drive forward that fund. He is keen that it be given a decent-sized budget so that we can do it, but the Act requires the Department to do it in various places to support the sector, and that is certainly our intention. You will probably hear more about the just transition fund for agriculture once it is more developed and there is a better feel for what it will cover, which is not just financial assistance but guidance and other support.

Mr McAleer: This probably straddles the next SL1, but it is important to note that, for any assessment of carbon on a farm, it is absolutely essential that we have an accurate measuring tool and, importantly, that we take into account not just the emissions that take place on-farm but the amount of sequestration that happens. It is a concern among the farming community that, although we are looking at net zero, net zero is not zero but net zero. It is therefore important that, when it looks at emissions, the Department also look at the excellent work that farmers have done on their farms by way of habitat restoration: hedges, wetlands and other areas. That is work that they have done to sequester carbon to achieve the net balance. Do you consider it important that that be accurately measured and that proper account be taken of the work that they do?

Mr Courtney: I cannot speak to the detail of the policy and the things that will come forward, but, yes, that is very important. Net zero does not mean that there are no emissions. Even in the CCC's pathway, there will be residual emissions in the agriculture sector, but most of the emissions will be balanced out through natural sequestration or engineered removal. There is therefore a balance to be struck between having emissions and what is being done to reduce them to try to meet the targets and, ultimately, get to net zero by 2050. That is important.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you for your presentation. This is an important area for a lot of my constituents. As the Chair rightly pointed out, farmers are concerned that the carbon budget will be used as justification for reducing livestock numbers. You have said that you will not follow that pathway. Is that set in stone?

Mr Courtney: I can say that we are not following it now. Different Ministers will be in office in different periods. The period that we are talking about is 2038 to 2042, which is 12 years away, but it is certainly the policy direction that the Minister at the moment has committed to.

Mr McCrossan: What is the period during which our farming community will have certainty about the pathway that you are following?

Mr Courtney: The most certainty that —.

Mr McCrossan: Could that policy direction change tomorrow?

Mr Courtney: The first climate action plan covers 2023 to 2027. That plan is the definitive approach that is being taken across Departments at the moment. We are already working on the next climate action plan, which will probably be published in the next 18 months or so. It will cover the period from 2028 to 2032 and will set out what is going to happen across agriculture and other sectors during that period. Five-year periods are part of the framework that the Act introduced. There is a longer-term look to be taken as well, but it is primarily about looking at having detailed policies and proposals over five-year periods.

Mr McCrossan: You will understand the concern that Committee members may have, because the regulations will have a drastic effect on family farms, agriculture jobs and rural communities generally. Based on what you have said already, Anthony, will the Department publish the assumptions on which it is basing the expected outcomes of implementation in order to explain how an increased dependence on technology and efficiency measures will result in lower production?

Mr Courtney: There is a detailed technical annex to the first climate action plan that is about quantification. That annex sets out our assumptions about from where emissions savings will come against each of the individual measures embedded in the climate action plan. Again, the specific and granular detail will be in the technical annexes that accompany climate action plans. Alongside that, other areas of the Department are working on the sustainable agriculture programme (SAP), and they probably hold more information on the assumptions about take-up, and emissions savings and so on that are being used in the specific projects under that programme.

Mr McCrossan: Is one of the Department's assumptions that a reduction in livestock numbers would lead to there being less emissions? Is that therefore a potential avenue to be explored?

Mr Courtney: Not at the moment. As I said, we are looking at the first period, which is the one that we are in, and that is not on the cards. It is not what the first climate action plan is about. It is about efficiency and measures to lower the carbon intensity of some of the things that are being done. It is not about reducing livestock numbers.

Mr McCrossan: Whatever change comes, there will be knock-on effects, particularly for food security and food production here. It could lead to an increase in imports and to emissions being moved overseas. What account has the Department taken of the impact on food security, production standards and the environment of replacement imports as a result of the measures?

Mr Courtney: Again, for the climate action plan and carbon budgets, there is provision in the Act for carbon leakage. The legislation is trying to prevent the movement of production to places where practices are not as good as they are here and so more emissions are produced.

Mr McCrossan: guarantees.

Mr Courtney: Departments are required to consider such things when they bring forward their policies and proposals. Preventing carbon leakage so that we do not offshore our emissions is supposed to be at the forefront of our mind when Departments develop those policies and proposals.

Mr McCrossan: Will the Department proactively measure that to ensure that we have an accurate measure of success beyond a reduction in Northern Ireland's recorded emissions if, for instance, food that we consume is produced elsewhere?

Mr Courtney: Whatever sector they are responsible for, it is for individual Departments to look at what their policy framework will deliver and at what its impacts may be and then to try to mitigate and prevent any potential for carbon leakage. The Act therefore places responsibility for that on Departments. It is for policy areas in Departments to look at that as part of the normal policy development process and to ensure that they are doing it.

Mr McCrossan: OK.

Mr John Early (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): As Anthony outlined, there will be a fourth climate action plan, which will relate to the fourth carbon budget. It will be published by the end of 2038, but, as is required by the Act, it will be subject to a 16-week public consultation. It will then be subject to Executive agreement and scrutiny. More detail will therefore be available at that stage.

I appreciate that we are looking 12 years ahead at this point, but the other thing to point out is that, when Departments are bringing forward emissions-reduction policies that relate to any sector, the Just Transition Commission will then be in place. It will be the mechanism to bring out policy proposals in order to get independent views and opinions. The commission will be looking at that from the perspective of the just transition objectives and the principle behind just transition. Within those objectives, it will be about taking account of the rural and agriculture sectors, for example, and having the protection mechanisms in place to make sure that consultation takes place as we work through the proposals.

Mr McCrossan: My final question, Chair — thanks for your indulgence — is on the 1990 emissions baseline and scientific scrutiny of it. Will you explain in plain language how agriculture emissions against the 1990 baseline were calculated? What records were used? How is uncertainty handled? Who independently checks that baseline? Who checks how current estimates are comparable?

Mr Courtney: The greenhouse gas inventories are published by our statistics colleagues at the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. If you look at them, you will find detail on the level of uncertainty across the sectors. In fact, there is that detail when one looks at the inventory as a whole. NISRA used the data that was available. Every year, it also goes back and looks at data. Sometimes, the data changes, so the 1990 emissions baseline is not static. It can change, depending on whether there is new information. That means that perhaps estimations of the 1990 emissions were slightly inaccurate, on the basis that emissions factors may change. Largely, the baseline is to do with activities and associated emissions factors, so, in the agriculture sector, it may be to do with the recorded number of livestock, the amount of farm machinery and so on. Emissions factors are also applied to the numbers that we have there, but those numbers can and do change yearly. That is a statistical exercise, however, so it is not something in which we, as policy folk, are involved. It is a data-analysis exercise, and, in doing it, we follow international best practice.

Mr McCrossan: For the ordinary farmer out there who is watching the Committee and does not quite understand the technical and scientific language involved, why is the 1990 baseline used?

Mr Courtney: That is the international approach. It is the approach that the UK has been taking for many years. It is the approach that other countries take. There is a 1990 baseline and a 1995 baseline. Some of the fluorinated gases (F-gases) are measured against the 1995 baseline. The rest are measured against the 1990 baseline. That is the standard international approach, which our legislation follows. That is why we do that.

Miss McIlveen: Thank you for your presentation. My questions have more or less been covered. It should come as no surprise to you, however, that I will not be supporting the regulations. We have called for the targets in the 2022 Act to be looked at again. It concerns me that we do not know any of the detail about the policies that will be needed. We do not know what the financial implications will be from the regulations. We also do not know how the fourth carbon budget will be funded. What we do know is that the agriculture sector is under severe pressure. I appreciate what you said, Anthony, about the pathway that we are currently on, but there is nothing to say that that pathway will not change. Certainly, whenever we give a blank cheque to legislation such as this, we will, for sure, put further pressure on our agriculture sector, and that really concerns me. We are also setting ourselves up for expensive litigation when it gets to the point at which we are not meeting our set targets. All of that therefore worries and concerns me. It is bonkers that we continue to move forward with the targets in the original legislation. The Act needs to be revisited urgently.

Mr Courtney: We appreciate the fact that those perspectives are out there. The only thing that I will say about the economic implications is that all the evidence that we have, be it from the CCC, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) or any other eminent body, tells us that the cost of climate action is getting cheaper but that the cost of climate damage is growing. There are quite stark figures on the cost of climate damage to our GDP if we do not try to mitigate climate change and get towards net zero. In the broader piece, the economic analysis is fairly clear. I am not aware of any analysis that contradicts the fact that early action will be more beneficial than delayed action, because action will prove more expensive if we delay it. That has come across from all the bodies whose analyses and reports we have looked at.

Miss McIlveen: Yes, but we are in a situation in which we do not know what the fourth carbon budget will cost. You estimate that it will be around £3·56 billion, but that is still only an estimate. To say that that will not all come from the public purse is not a lot of comfort, because somebody will have to pay for it.

Mr Courtney: We accept that. The most accurate assessment of the cost to the public sector will come through the climate action plan process. More broadly, there will be costs across the wider private sector as well. As I said, however, it is anticipated that the benefits will be much greater. In the most recent advice that the CCC published this year, it estimated that, for every pound spent, we will get back between £2 and £4 in benefits. We can therefore achieve a lot of long-term benefits for health , the economy and other sectors. I appreciate that there are concerns about the costs, but, as I said, the evidence that we have from analyses suggests that early, sustained action will be more cost-effective than delayed action or not taking action.

Miss McIlveen: We are, however, still in a situation in which, at this point, we still do not know what the policies are and what costs will be associated with those policies, yet we are giving you a blank cheque to do whatever it is that you have to do in whatever period in which it needs to be done. It is all very general and not very satisfactory.

Mr Courtney: I appreciate that. I go back to what John said. There will be various stages to the climate action plan process. There will be consultation, statutory advice drawn up and engagement with Committees, Departments and the Executive. A lot of checks are therefore in place to ensure that the policies that are put forward are the right policies for delivering on a specific carbon budget. Departments will not be doing it on their own. MLAs and Ministers in the Assembly will have an important role to play in trying to make sure that we do it in the most cost-effective way.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): We have an opportunity to make a decision today.

Ms Finnegan: Michelle touched on a couple of my questions. The fourth carbon budget is estimated to cost £3·56 billion between 2025 and 2050. An assessment of the financial implications and the rural needs impact assessment cannot be completed, as the policy to implement it has not yet been developed. You have covered that well. How therefore can the Assembly properly scrutinise the impact that the regulations may have on people, especially those in rural communities?

Mr Courtney: The framework and the pathway that the CCC has outlined give us an idea of the things that may happen across some sectors. It is also about looking at what we are doing in the current period. There are programmes and strategies in place across various sectors that go beyond this period, and those can give us an idea of the sorts of things that we will do across different sectors. I accept, however, that there is not absolute certainty across all sectors about what will happen between now and 2038, 2040 and 2050.

Ms Finnegan: I accept that. You have referenced the CCC many times. It is the body from which you have taken advice. When the recommendation went out to consultation, one third of respondents disagreed with it. What were the main concerns of the respondents who did not agree with it, and what is being done to address those concerns?

Mr Courtney: Ian can correct me if I get this wrong. The respondents who did not support it did not put forward any suggestions for alternative carbon budgets. No alternative suggestions were therefore made about the level that we should aim for. Some respondents perhaps thought that what we had gone for was too ambitious. A smaller number probably thought that we should go further. There was therefore a mixture of views, but that does not necessarily mean that all those who were not in favour thought that we should go for a lower amount in the carbon budget. Some thought that we should go for a higher amount. As for our response to that, we have to consider all the requirements in the Act with which we have to comply. There is a range of factors that we have to look at. Ultimately, one of the key factors is that this carbon budget needs to be consistent with the 2040 target. The Assembly has already agreed the 2040 target of 77%. That naturally leads us to the sort of carbon budget that we have arrived at, because it is the midpoint of this carbon budget period.

Ms Finnegan: OK. Finally, cross-border collaboration is essential, particularly when we are dealing with the health of the land and river basins, air and water quality, flooding, wildfires and so. As we know, they know no border.

What has the Department done to facilitate policy development work on the proposed regulations?

Mr Courtney: We cannot speak to individual policy areas, but, from our perspective, I can tell you more about general climate change policy. We have regular engagement with the Climate Change Advisory Council in the South and with our colleagues in the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment, whom we met recently. A lot of engagement therefore takes place. Moreover, the North/South Ministerial Council is the mechanism for formal engagement at ministerial level. We do not take the lead at a policy level, however. I know that there is engagement at a policy level between policy teams in the North and the South on specific issues, so such engagement does take place. It is also important to say that the 2022 Act requires that engagement to take place. The Act contains specific requirements about having engagement with our counterparts in the South and beyond. Departments have to take account of that and make sure that they are looking for opportunities to have that engagement. There are good funding opportunities through the Shared Island Fund and other sources. We need to use that funding better in order to drive the programme forward.

Ms Finnegan: Thank you very much. I am very happy with that.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): We are really pushed for time, Tom. One line, please.

Mr T Buchanan: It is a very small point, Chair.

Anthony, the difficulty is that, given all the concerns that have been raised with you about the impact on the farming community, you have caveated every one of your answers with the words "It is not our intent at the moment". It is not your intent at the moment to reduce livestock numbers in the farming community. You are following an alternative pathway. If that pathway does not work, however, we are back to the issue of reducing livestock numbers. That would have a huge impact on the farming community, so, unless you can lay the foundations today and say that the fourth carbon budget will have no impact on the farming community, how can you expect us to support the regulations?

Mr Courtney: I cannot give such a commitment. I am only an official. All that I can do is reflect the current policy of the Minister and the Department. I cannot look into the future and say what a future Minister is going to do.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): We need to wrap up the session. I thank the panel for the briefing. We covered a lot there.

Members, following on from what we are have heard today, and bearing in mind that the SL1 stage is the last opportunity for the Committee to influence the policy approach, I need to put the Question.

Are members content that we have sufficient information in order to make a formal decision on the draft statutory rule?

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): I have four members present who say that we do not have sufficient information.

Mr McAleer: Will the regulations go out to public consultation and then to the Assembly for —?

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): A vote at a plenary sitting.

Mr Courtney: It has been through a consultation, so the regulations will go the Assembly for debate.

Mr McAleer: They should therefore proceed, in order for the Assembly to have its say.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Three members have indicated that they are prepared to let the draft SR proceed to being debated at a plenary sitting. Four members do not agree. There is therefore a majority in the room that wish —.

Mr Blair: Chair, was it not three for and three against?

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): It is four.

Miss McIlveen: It is four.

Mr Blair: Are you including yourself, Chair?

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Yes.

Mr Blair: I am sorry. That was not specified. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): It is four, including me. Do members wish to invite any stakeholders to provide oral evidence before we make a formal decision on the draft SR? I take it from members that —.

Miss McIlveen: No, we are content to vote against the SR.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): OK. The draft SR is subject to the draft affirmative procedure, so there will be a plenary debate. Are members content that the Committee support the SR as drafted in that debate, subject to the Examiner of Statutory Rules' report? We have three members indicating yes, while four members, including me, are indicating no. That concludes that item of business. I thank the panel for coming here today.

The Committee Clerk: Chair, Áine has her hand up.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Áine? Sorry —. Áine, will you come in?

Ms Finnegan: I think that she raised her hand to vote.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Áine, are you with us? Can you hear us?

The Committee Clerk: Chair, I do not know whether Áine's hand was up beforehand. Áine needs to vote.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Áine, can you come on-screen? She had gone off the screen completely but came back on.

Miss McIlveen: She is clearly not in the meeting, and I think that this is an issue that we have —.

Ms Finnegan: She is in the meeting, so just give her —. She has indicated —.

Miss McIlveen: She is clearly not in the meeting. She is not responding.

Ms Finnegan: I am saying that she is, and you are saying that she is not.

Miss McIlveen: This relates to the conversation that we had last week about members not being in the room and instead being on Zoom. They should be visible.

The Committee Clerk: She needs to indicate her vote clearly.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): My understanding was that the screen went blank and that Áine's name then came back on, but I am not hearing her. Áine, can you hear us? Yes, she is here. Great. Obviously, she is in her car. Can you unmute, Áine? She is driving. This is not exactly ideal.

Ms Finnegan: There she is.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): We cannot hear you, Áine. We cannot unmute you ourselves, Áine. You just need to be in a safe place in order to be able to speak.

Ms Finnegan: Can she indicate via hand gestures?

The Committee Clerk: Can you ask Áine to indicate how she is voting, please?

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Áine, I need to record your vote. If you can hear me, are you content that the Committee support the SR as drafted and that it go to a plenary sitting for debate? I will take that as a yes. That is four Ayes and four Noes. Daniel is not present.

The Committee Clerk: The motion is not supported. You will have to reflect the outcome of the vote during your speech in the Chamber, Chair.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): It is not supported, so I will reflect that in my speech in the Chamber. Thank you.

Mr Blair: Sorry, Chair, what was the outcome?

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Four Ayes and four Noes.

Mr Blair: Thank you.

The Committee Clerk: The Chair will reflect that in her speech, because the draft SR is subject to the draft affirmative procedure.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): It will have to go to the Chamber.