Smoky Coal: Legislation to Ban its Burning

Private Members' Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 6:00 pm on 20 January 2015.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker 6:00, 20 January 2015

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer will have 10 minutes to propose the motion and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Photo of Sammy Wilson Sammy Wilson Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Treasury)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes that, on the basis of a flawed all-Ireland air quality report, the Minister of the Environment proposes to introduce legislation to ban the burning of certain types of coal in Northern Ireland in order to match similar legislation in the Republic of Ireland; expresses its concern that tens of thousands of households who rely on this cheap coal will be affected by the proposal through increasing levels of fuel poverty, especially in rural areas; believes that this measure would reduce competition in the market for domestic fuel to the detriment of consumers; and calls on the Minister of the Environment to reconsider his position on this issue.

I want to, first, address two issues that have been raised by those who want to wriggle out of supporting the motion. The first is that, since the report has not been published, it cannot be described as "flawed". The second is that, since the Minister has indicated that he will receive the report and then make his decision, the motion is only scaremongering and is premature.

I want to deal with the issue of the report being flawed first. I accept that the report has not been published, but I know what its terms of reference are, and it is flawed in a number of ways. First, if it is genuinely a report about air pollution, one would have expected that it would have addressed all the issues of air pollution. Oddly enough, the two forms of residential fuel that are more polluting than household coal, wood and peat, are exempt. They are not included in it. Of course, we know why that is; it is because peat is produced in the Republic by a state monopoly that produces about €51 million of income a year. It will never be included and, even though it is more polluting than coal, it is described in legislation as "smokeless". Wood is the same. Secondly, in all the reports and, indeed, even in the Minister's 2013 report on air quality in Northern Ireland, the emphasis for where air quality has deteriorated is not on the result of the burning of residential fuels but pollution from transport. However, transport is not included. If it was a genuine report about air pollution and concern about air pollution, one would have expected transport to have been included.

When it comes to the impact of any changes, there is only a passing reference to the impact on fuel poverty. Indeed, if one looks at the terms of reference under the "Impact Assessment", one will see that it is geared towards a Republic of Ireland agenda. Fuel poverty is mentioned, but the emphasis is on alternative fuels and, especially, manufactured smokeless fuels. Of course, we already know that CPL Fuels Ireland is making a substantial bid to the Government of the Irish Republic to set up a plant, and we also know the tax revenue and jobs that that would produce. So even the terms of reference will try to gloss over the impact of fuel poverty — and, of course, none of that is going to benefit people in Northern Ireland. When I say that the report is flawed, the terms of reference indicate that the report is flawed.

The second point that has been made is that I am assuming that the Minister has made his mind up. Well, the one thing that I do know is that the Minister in the Republic has made his mind up, because, on the day that the air quality report was announced, he said that the Government plan to extend the ban on smoky coal to every town and village in the country. On the same day, Alex Attwood was a bit more circumspect with his words, but he said, and you can see where the drift is going here, Mr Speaker:

"Air pollution from smoky coal can have negative impacts on people’s health. I can think of no better time than ... 2013 ... to address the issue" and that we would have to take the necessary steps.

While he did not come out as vocally and as transparently as the Minister in the South, we have a report that concentrates on one kind of fuel and ignores the important impacts that the ban might have, which is really directed towards a problem that exists in the Republic and ignores other sources of air pollution, and one of the people engaged in the decision has already made his mind up and said that a ban will be extended. Therefore, I do not think that the charge that the motion is premature is correct. I do not believe that the charge that I am scaremongering is correct. I want to look at the impact that going down this road is likely to have on Northern Ireland.

First of all, in answers to me, the Minister has accepted that the majority of people who use household coal — indeed, the term "smoky coal" indicates where the thinking is going — live in rural areas and cannot get connected to the gas grid or whatever. Secondly, the majority of people who use that coal are from low-income families. Thirdly, air quality in rural areas is not a huge issue. If this was going to affect only a few thousand people, one could say, "Well, it is not really an important issue", but 50,000 to 55,000 houses use household coal as their primary source of heating. Another estimated 110,000 households use it as additional fuel where they cannot afford, for example, to run the oil central heating all day, so they use household coal. The impact on those families of having to switch from a cheap form of fuel to a dearer form of fuel, since many of them already exist in fuel poverty, will be devastating and not something that the Assembly can ignore.

Although it is argued that the cost difference will not be all that much, the fact is that even to move — if you can — from household coal to smokeless coal is likely to put up the bill that households will face by anything from 20% to 50%. If they have to switch, and if they can switch — many in rural areas, of course, do not have —

Photo of Steven Agnew Steven Agnew Green

I thank the Member for giving way. I have absolutely no idea where he gets the 20% to 50% figure from. Will he substantiate it?

Photo of Sammy Wilson Sammy Wilson Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Treasury)

A ton of household coal costs about £300. A ton of manufactured smokeless fuel costs between £350 and £450. The Member was not the best economics student, but an increase from £300 to £450 is £150; it is 50% of an increase on £300 a ton. Even if that were the case, the appliance, in many instances, would have to be changed because not all open fires will burn smokeless fuel.

Fuel poverty will hit a substantial number of people, mostly in rural areas. We are not talking about a few thousand people; we are talking about tens of thousands of households on the basis that there may be a problem in the Republic and a desire to ban household coal. Of course, if you ban household coal, they do not want it being available in Northern Ireland and being transferred across the border. People who suffer from fuel poverty in Northern Ireland become victims of a policy in the Republic. For that reason, the Assembly should be addressing the issue. If we are serious about the issue of air quality, why does the report not include a whole range of other issues? Why has it zoned in on the one issue that is a fixation of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government in the Irish Republic? Fuel users in Northern Ireland should not be penalised as a result of a policy that originates in the Republic and that people want to be extended across Northern Ireland.

I would welcome it if the Minister is going to tell us today that he is not prepared to —

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Photo of Sammy Wilson Sammy Wilson Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Treasury)

I will.

Will the Minister tell us that he is not prepared to disadvantage his own constituents? In Strabane, his predecessor was asked to lift the ban on the use of household coal because 80% of households in fuel poverty could not afford to heat their houses. Minister, do not turn your back on your constituents. Do not turn your back on —

Photo of Sammy Wilson Sammy Wilson Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Treasury)

— do not introduce the policy.

Photo of Cathal Boylan Cathal Boylan Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I congratulate you on your new role. I certainly welcome the debate. The Member who proposed it was on fire earlier but he is only smoking tonight in presenting it.

We are not trying to wriggle out of this. The motion is premature. We are waiting on a body of work to come forward and we will analyse it. It does not matter whether it is through the Committee or anything else; we will assess it and see what comes out of it. The Member mentioned the terms of reference. I thank the research team for bringing forward the report. I was trying to figure out where the Member was bringing his arguments from about a flawed report. Some things in the terms of reference hit the mark, which is why I would have preferred to have held off the debate until we receive the report in May this year. I have no qualms about dealing with it in the Committee.

The Member mentioned a few important things. I have been on the Committee for a number of years. I have not heard anything from the Minister to say that he intended to bring forward legislation on banning smoky coal at any point. Over the last number of years, some of my constituents who were under pressure because of the price of oil have reconverted to back boilers and open fires. The party certainly would not support any legislation that uses a big stick approach; we would not support legislation that would cause those people any undue economic problem.

If we are serious about all of that, that is why I would appreciate seeing what is in the report. We certainly could not bring anything forward unless there was an alternative and a way of supporting those people. Whether it is a subsidy or not, I do not know, but I would like to ascertain and assess all the information in relation to that. That is why I said to the Member that I was concerned about the issue.

I certainly take on board the Member's points, and I agree with him that, if we are to have a bigger debate on pollution, let us have it. Why then was there not any reference to it? He is correct: if you read the reports, you see that other forms of air pollution are a major issue for us. Out of 28 references in the research document, 20 relate to fuel, cars and transport pollution. I do not mind having the bigger debate on that, but the Member who moved the motion has talked particularly about smoky coal. That is the debate.

Photo of Sammy Wilson Sammy Wilson Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Treasury)

Will he accept that I mentioned only this one form of fuel because that is what the report restricts itself to? If it is genuinely a report about air pollution and not, as I believe, a first step towards meeting the stated objective of the Minister to ban this one form of fuel, why was the report not more inclusive?

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

The Member will have an extra minute.

Photo of Cathal Boylan Cathal Boylan Sinn Féin

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I accept the point that the Member is making. In continuing, I was going to say this to the Minister: why, then, Minister, is that the case? We are waiting for a North/South Ministerial Council all-island report. The previous Minister requested it. Maybe the Minister can indicate, as part of his contribution, why it has only been in relation to smoky coal. Maybe he will have something to say on that.

It is a good debate, and it is a welcome debate, but I cannot support the motion at this time. As I stated from the start, once we get all the facts, I will be happy to come back to the Chamber and debate it. Let us see what is in the report. Let us see all the things that are in the terms of reference. Let us bring it forward and see exactly what they say. I am happy to debate it again.

Photo of Colum Eastwood Colum Eastwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

I am very interested in the motion and in Mr Wilson's psychic powers, which have been on display today and in the writing of the motion. When I sat down to read it, it was kind of strange to understand how it even got to the Floor of the House. I know that he has pre-empted this attack, because he has obviously realised his mistake. I do not know how he can say:

"on the basis of a flawed all-Ireland air quality report, the Minister of the Environment proposes to introduce legislation to ban the burning of certain types of coal".

I am not sure how he can come to that conclusion. Maybe he was using the crystal ball that he used to write some of the Budgets that got us into the black hole that we are in. He has also called:

"on the Minister of the Environment to reconsider his position on this issue."

I am good friends with the Minister, and I am on the Environment Committee and have spoken to the Minister about this issue many times. I do not think that the Minister has a position on this issue yet, because, like the rest of us, like the proper organs of the House — the Assembly Chamber and the Environment Committee — he is waiting for the results of this report. As any parliament, any assembly or any legislature should do, we should take the report and examine it and either take on its findings or throw its findings out without implementing them. We have to have some respect for the democratic institutions that we are all in, and let us make a decision in the proper way.

It is interesting that the Member has also said that the Minister in the Republic has made his mind up. Unfortunately for some of us, the Minister in the Republic does not have jurisdiction over this part of the world. I wish he did — maybe some day he will — but he does not. It is not a decision that this Minister or any other Minister from this Executive can be held accountable for. The whole premise of the motion is wrong. The idea that the Minister has made up his mind, made a decision and made a proposal — none of that is correct. It is good that we can have this debate, but let us have it in an informed way. Let us have it after the report has been published, when we can all have a proper opportunity in the Committee, the House and the Department to examine it and go through it. Then we can have a debate that might be a little bit more informed, rather than an hour and a half late on a Tuesday evening without even having a report that any of us can read.

I recognise that there are grave concerns. The Member obviously has concerns in his constituency. We all know that. We have concerns in ours. The Foyle Port in Derry is heavily reliant on the import of coal, and many people are employed in that industry. I do not think that anybody will take a decision that would jeopardise that. We are also very aware of fuel poverty issues. All of us deal with people every day who are in fuel poverty. I think that some of the Executive's decisions could do a whole lot more to alleviate some of those issues. However, we have to make a balanced decision; we have to make a decision based on all those factors, as well as factors of air pollution. We know that smoky coal, however you want to describe it, is not the only thing that contributes to air pollution, but we know that it does. We have to take all the evidence on board. High numbers of people across the North and across this island die because of air pollution every year. We need to examine that. I say it again: we need to examine the facts. Go ahead.

Photo of Sammy Wilson Sammy Wilson Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Treasury)

Will the Member also accept that far more people die from the cold than die from air pollution? If he is just going to take the air quality issue, the choice may well be that, if we restrict the availability of household coal, many people will die because they will not be able to afford to heat their house.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Colum Eastwood Colum Eastwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

Thanks. I will probably not need it, Mr Speaker. Thanks for your intervention, Mr Wilson, but I do not think that the terms of reference say that we are just going to take one part of it. They do not say that we are going to look just at fuel poverty or at air quality; they say that we are going to look at all of it. That makes perfect sense. It also makes perfect sense to do it in an all-Ireland way, as the air that we breathe and the water that we drink are all related. The air that we breathe is the most obvious, since the border makes no impact on it. Therefore we should examine it in an all-Ireland way. I for one am prepared to wait until May to make up my mind. I wish that the Member, instead of jumping up and down on his high horse, looking at his faulty crystal ball, would wait until May, examine the report and join all of us in a proper, informed debate about where we go next.

Photo of Sandra Overend Sandra Overend UUP

I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the broad principle of the motion. It is regrettable, however, that the flaws in the wording of the motion have diminished the value of the debate. We tried to rectify the inaccuracies with an amendment, but, bizarrely, it was not selected. No doubt the Speaker has his reasons, but, standing here today, they are difficult to see.

Whilst the air study is being taken forward by the North/South Ministerial Council, there is no doubt that the Republic of Ireland is really taking the lead on the issue. Northern Ireland has somehow been dragged into it, and it concerns me that, unless the Department starts speaking up on the issue and making its concerns clear soon, we could end up walking ourselves into a foregone conclusion. We understand the rationale and why it is important that whatever is being burned in our domestic properties is monitored. When the ban on burning certain fuels in many of our towns and cities was introduced in the 1960s, it had a major impact on smog and general air quality. That was something to be welcomed.

Over the years, that protection has grown to 16 councils, with well over 100 smoke-control areas. I support that. What I do not support is that, somehow, the next step has been assumed to be a widespread ban on certain types of fuel. Although the motion refers to smoky coal, not even referring to its correct name of bituminous coal, the issue is broader than that. However, we accept that the study, by focusing on — I quote Minister Hogan, the former Republic of Ireland Minister for the Environment — "in particular, 'smoky' coal", was always compromised, and, as has been said, there are other fuels worse than coal.

In my constituency of Mid Ulster, we have a great number of people who dig peat and use it to heat their home. Although the study is deemed to be biased, singling out smoky coal or bituminous coal, which is the preferred title, it must be said that, as the proposer said, peat briquettes are classified as smokeless fuel in the Republic of Ireland but not here in Northern Ireland. I find that rather strange, since emissions are greater from peat than from bituminous coal. I am sure that the same can be said for other areas of Northern Ireland, in that there are a great number of installations of wood-burning stoves in Mid Ulster, in an attempt to save money on heating our homes.

At this stage, I thank the Minister for recently meeting me, my colleague Tom Elliott, who was the environment spokesperson before me, and members of the Coal Advisory Service. The Minister was open to listening to the concerns of people from the sector, and we requested that the Minister publish the interim report so that the industry can assess whether the study will be fair and unbiased.

If a ban were brought in, it would have immediate and significant consequences. Although air quality is an issue to be watched, banning fuels such as a bag of bituminous fuel will have a major financial consequence. Very often, people burn the cheapest fuel available to them, so, if it is banned, it is inevitable that costs will increase. Some officials scorn such a suggestion and try to claim that, in the longer term, other, smokeless fuels are cheaper, but we need to remember that the priority for most people is heating their home. That may not go hand in hand with environmental considerations —

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Sandra Overend Sandra Overend UUP

— but that is the reality of it. Certainly.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

Is the Member aware that, over Christmas, I visited a home in which there was clearly fuel poverty? The family could not afford to fill their oil tank, and there was a young child in that family. Their only option for heating their home was to use the open fire, which, of course, is not suitable for smokeless coal. Therefore, there are great risks and a danger of fuel poverty if bituminous coal were to be banned.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Sandra Overend Sandra Overend UUP

I thank the Member for his intervention. As the proposer of the motion said, to accommodate the change to smokeless fuel, appliances need to be changed. That is an additional cost in itself. Indeed, to convert all appliances in Northern Ireland would cost in the region of £210 million, I understand.

Before any decision is taken, I remind the Minister that any ban on bituminous coal will have a direct and immediate effect on people's pockets, especially those living in rural areas. I am sure that I do not need to remind the Minister that our rate of fuel poverty was last measured at 42%. There has been pitiful success over recent years in tackling our fuel poverty rate, and a ban similar to what is being proposed will only exacerbate it.

I conclude by asking the Minister to publish the interim report to provide reassurances that local householders and fuel merchants will not be disadvantaged.

Photo of Anna Lo Anna Lo Alliance

In May 2013, Ministers Attwood and Hogan, the Environment Ministers of Northern Ireland and Ireland respectively, commissioned a joint research study of the problem of emissions to air from solid fuel combustion, particularly from smoky coal. As the report has not been published and the Committee has not seen it, I shall speak as the Alliance environment spokesperson only.

Smoky coal is a significant source of particulate matter, which is microscopic solid or liquid matter suspended in the earth's atmosphere, and can adversely affect human health.

EU directives limit particulate matter; in fact, recent evidence has suggested that health problems occur even below the directive levels. Smoky coal also includes roughly 10 times as many various particulates as smokeless fuel.

Places regularly deemed as having high pollution, or that are under air-quality management regimes as a result of particulates, include Derry, Strabane, Newry and Ballymena. Levels in Derry sometimes reach six times the limit, and Ballymena 10 times.

The ban on the marketing, selling and distribution of smoky coal was first introduced —

Photo of Sammy Wilson Sammy Wilson Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Treasury)

Would the Member also accept that the air-quality reports, from which she is probably quoting, that were produced by the DOE do not distinguish between the particulate matter that comes from, for example, diesel cars, lorries and the burning of fuel in households? Indeed, given the erratic nature of the measurements, it is more likely that it is related to transport rather than the burning of fuel?

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Anna Lo Anna Lo Alliance

All the same, smoky fuel plays a major part in contributing to air pollution.

The ban on the marketing, selling and distribution of smoky coal was first introduced in Dublin in 1990 in response to severe episodes of winter smog, which resulted from the widespread use of smoky coal for home heating. The ban proved effective in reducing smoke and sulphur dioxide levels, so it was extended to other areas, including Cork City, in 1995. Interestingly, research has since shown that air quality in smaller towns in the Republic is worse than in major cities because of the burning of coal.

There have been dramatic improvements over the years in urban air quality through the introduction of smoke-control programmes. As a result, we no longer experience the appalling smog of the 1950s and 1960s, but it is a frequent occurrence in cities like Shanghai and Beijing. I have seen it.

Under the Clean Air (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, district councils may make all or part of their district a smoke-control area. There are currently 16 district councils in Northern Ireland with smoke-control areas in operation. Since 1966, approximately 120 smoke-control areas have been declared. In smoke-control areas, residents are required to use authorised smokeless fuel. This means that it must produce less smoke than ordinary fuels when burned. Alternatively, they can install an exempted fireplace, such as a stove, heater or boiler that has been tested to show that it can be used for burning fuel other than authorised fuels without producing any smoke or a substantial quantity of smoke. The Environment Committee has approved a number of these exemptions in the past year.

The Republic's Environmental Protection Agency stated in an all-island report:

"Local air quality is significantly impacted by solid fuel heating ... particularly in small towns without a 'smoky' coal ban."

Professor Alan Lockwood from the State University of New York at Buffalo, who has written extensively on the issue and is an expert in nuclear medicine, said that up to 490 lives could be saved in Northern Ireland each year by the move. The Asthma Society of Ireland also estimates that up to 500 lives could be saved annually as a result of such a ban.

I recently met a representative from the coal industry. Whilst I understand that smokeless fuel is more expensive, I believe it is around £1 per 25 kg bag, which is perhaps a price worth paying to obtain better air quality for all.

It is worth noting that the carbon tax in the Republic —

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Anna Lo Anna Lo Alliance

I am fine; thank you. I am running out of time.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

I am sorry, but the Member's time is up, including the extra minute.

Photo of Anna Lo Anna Lo Alliance

— was increased —

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

Thank you. I call Mr Trevor Clarke.

Photo of Trevor Clarke Trevor Clarke DUP

I support the motion. It is difficult to follow on from Sammy's contribution, but it was interesting to listen to Cathal Boylan, and I listened attentively. He said, "Let's see what's in it". The difficulty that we on these Benches have is that we already know what is not going to be in it. That is the inclusion, or, in our case, the exclusion, of other types of fuel. As mentioned, let us look at two forms of fuel: peat and wood. In one of those cases, the end result is almost double the impact of smoky coal. It is difficult to see how we can have a report that focuses on one area. If it is all about air quality and trying to get the best arrangements to prevent air pollution, I think that everything should be included.

It seems that, whilst Mr Eastwood has not got his wish for an all-Ireland policy, his Minister seems to be a puppet for the Republic. As Sammy read into the record, on 22 April 2013, it was announced that the Government plan to extend the ban on smoky coal to every town and village in the country. What part of that does Mr Eastwood not understand? That is the direction that his Minister, and indeed the Minister in the Irish Republic, wants to take this. As I said at the outset, if the whole purpose of this is to improve air quality, everything should have been included in the report.

I listened to what Sandra Overend said, and I support it. Someone like myself, who is from a rural constituency, knows that many people in rural constituencies have turned to a form of fuel that they can afford to heat their home. Not this Christmas but the Christmas before, I was involved in a case where the council put a threatening letter through a pensioner's door. That woman was living on her own, and the only form of heat that she could use was "smoky coal", if that is the term that we want to use. She was that fearful that she chose not to heat her house over the Christmas period because she was scared of the rigours of the law.

It was interesting listening to Ms Lo when she said that it is only £1 a bag dearer, given that, only yesterday, her party suggested that we should increase the domestic rate and introduce water charges and everything else. The Alliance Party is really showing its hand as being a party for high taxation in Northern Ireland. Heaven forbid that it ever gets its way, because we are all familiar with fuel poverty in our constituencies.

Photo of Anna Lo Anna Lo Alliance

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Trevor Clarke Trevor Clarke DUP

I will indeed.

Photo of Anna Lo Anna Lo Alliance

We were suggesting that it not just be cut, cut, cut. We want to think of revenue increases and of getting income from different streams, rather than just having 100% cuts.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Trevor Clarke Trevor Clarke DUP

Thank you for that, Mr Speaker.

You made my point for me. The whole idea is that raising revenue is an additional cost to households. The purpose of the debate, and I think the direction that Sammy wanted to take it when he tabled the motion, is to think of the 50,000-plus homes that people have difficulty heating. The Alliance Party policy is to increase, increase, increase the contributions that individuals have to make.

Back in October, Sammy Wilson put a question to the Minister. He asked what are:

"the main sources of problems with air quality in rural areas."

The answer was:

"Air quality is, in general, better in rural areas than in urban areas."

Mr Speaker, you are from the same constituency as me, and, as someone who represents a rural constituency, I am worried that, if this Minister and his counterpart in the South get their way, there will be a very negative impact on people in rural constituencies. For that reason, I support the motion.

Photo of Ian Milne Ian Milne Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I congratulate you on your position as Speaker of the House.

Cathal and Mr Eastwood already covered lots of stuff that I am going to say, and what I have to say is very similar. However, I want to carry on and present for the record what I prepared earlier.

While the recent weather conditions no doubt make coal as an alternative heat source a very topical debate, voting on the issue without having had sight of the final report being prepared by the North/South Ministerial Council seems somewhat premature. There are many factors to be taken into consideration, not least, as the motion points out, the impact on those experiencing fuel poverty. In the North of Ireland, 43·7% of households were reported to be in fuel poverty in 2014, making it the highest percentage in Europe.

In my constituency of Mid Ulster, I know of many households that had converted to oil a number of years ago but have since reinstated the open fires and back boilers. That is not due to personal preference but simply because it is practical, affordable and fuel can be bought in small amounts as needed, making it easier on the budget. For many, that is the only viable option in the current economic climate. The price of oil has risen significantly over recent years, gas infrastructure is not widely established and reliance on electric sources can leave people without heat during power cuts.

Smokeless manufactured fuels certainly have a role to play, but, like everything, their quality and environmental credentials vary. While they may burn for longer, they are generally more expensive than coal and are not always compatible with the traditional fireplace. That means that, for some people, switchover would involve a greater cost than just the fuel.

That said, air pollution remains a problem and a responsibility for us all. There are targets to be met, but of more importance is the effect on human health, particularly for those suffering from conditions such as lung cancer and asthma. While I recognise that the burning of coal is not the only cause of poor air quality, current available evidence shows that it is a significant factor, and smoky coal, as it is commonly known, is the most pollutant coal for particulate matter PM10 and PM2·5 and is very high for PAH emissions.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Ian Milne Ian Milne Sinn Féin

Yes, go ahead.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

Will the Member accept that there is not a pollution issue in rural communities where there is plenty of fresh air and the countryside? Not only that, but if he were to support a Northern Ireland-wide ban on bituminous coal, he would also have to support a ban on the burning of peat, because it is even more pollutant. Would he support a ban on peat burning?

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Ian Milne Ian Milne Sinn Féin

First of all, I am not supporting a ban, because we are waiting on further reports, as was articulated earlier this evening.

Photo of Trevor Clarke Trevor Clarke DUP

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Trevor Clarke Trevor Clarke DUP

I know from your answer to the previous intervention that you are not supporting a ban. However, in response to the question that has just been asked, how are you supporting a report that is not inclusive of peat and wood?

Photo of Ian Milne Ian Milne Sinn Féin

We are dealing with the motion that is before us tonight. That report is incomplete.

In areas deemed smokeless zones, the air quality has improved, and positive health impacts are backed up by the studies around the world, not just in Ireland. Legislation of this kind therefore warrants consideration. Where there are environmental and health benefits, it is our duty to work towards them. It would be unthinkable not to do so. Equally, if the health of people who cannot afford alternatives will be impacted, solutions have to be found before any change could be considered.

In short, there are still too many questions on which there is limited information, and there is no proposed legislation before us to focus the debate. If a ban on certain types of coal were to be proposed, would it be based on the population of an area or in places where air quality is poor or would it be an outright ban across the North? What measures would the Minister bring forward to alleviate the fears and concerns of households that depend on that source, and how would he propose to mitigate any negative impact of such a decision?

Until we have all the information before us, and until we have seen the final report of the North/South Ministerial Council, all we can do is merely speculate. Therefore, I feel that I cannot support the motion and will reserve judgement until I can make a fully informed decision.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

I call Ms Pam Cameron. I call Ms Pam Cameron. Sorry for wakening you.

Photo of Pam Cameron Pam Cameron DUP 6:45, 20 January 2015

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also thank my party colleagues for bringing this motion to the House today. Sammy Wilson has already highlighted a number of important issues. I feel that it is prudent to add my concerns about the Minister's proposals to the record.

Whilst a solution to air quality issues is in all our interests, I believe that the all-Ireland air quality report contains fundamental flaws and lacks locational context. The impact of traffic pollution has not been taken into account in the study, which therefore ignores the bearing things such as the impact of HGV traffic will have on levels of airborne pollutants in a given area. I trust that the Minister will take the many dozens of HGV lorries that will bear down on Mallusk into consideration should he decide to approve the Arc21 proposal in South Antrim. Of course, he would already have been aware of residents' concerns had he bothered to turn up for the debate on that issue.

That is not to mention the effects on pollution levels of other environmental factors like topography and weather systems, which also appear to have been overlooked in the study. Whilst the proposals focus solely on bituminous fuels, they notably exclude the burning of peat and wood, which are equally as polluting through polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Indeed, examining the levels of nitrous oxides that are emitted during the burning of so-called smoky coal shows that they are equal to those of oil and gas. In neglecting to consider other solid fuels, the Minister appears to be incredibly naive and is, I suspect, being led down the garden path by his Southern counterpart, Mr Hogan, who, whilst aiming to ban smoky coal, is actively encouraging the Republic's lucrative peat and wood local and export businesses. Any changes to the current legislation will have a major impact on Northern Ireland's coal importers, resulting in job losses, and will have huge implications for the local economy.

Around 40,000 homes in Northern Ireland use smoky coal as their only source of home heating. Those households are typically in rural areas and not on the gas network. They are often elderly people or those on low incomes. For many who use coal, it is simply not a choice but a necessity. Coal provides a key source of affordable energy for many homes across Northern Ireland and allows those people to purchase fuel in small, budget-friendly amounts. For these people, the banning of smoky coal would most certainly lead to increased levels of fuel poverty and financial uncertainty.

I believe that the argument that the burning of smoky coal is detrimental to health is far outweighed by the counterargument that fuel poverty will cause far more health problems, with many not being able to afford the expense of upgrading their heating system or indeed the energy source itself. It has been recognised that the majority of households that use coal are in rural areas of Northern Ireland. It is therefore absolutely unnecessary to introduce legislation banning coal, as rural areas of Northern Ireland do not suffer any air quality issues.

Current legislation enforcing smokeless zones is more than adequate to deal with more urban and built-up areas. It is widely accepted that the proposed ban would be entirely unworkable and almost impossible to police. Currently, smokeless zones are enforced by local councils, but in bringing forward a ban on smoky coal, the Minister will undoubtedly force increased rates on already financially stretched households. The cost of implementing such a proposal would be significant, but, in real terms, it would be of little benefit to the majority of people.

In closing, I implore the Minister to rethink his plans on this proposal, which is erroneous and fundamentally flawed in many areas. With levels of tyres being illegally dumped at a record high, many of which end up being burnt on bonfires and causing toxic gases to be released into the atmosphere that are much worse than those created by smoky coal, I encourage the Minister to focus his efforts on legislation in this area rather than chasing the vanity project of his Southern counterpart.

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

Mr Speaker, I congratulate you on your elevation and wish you well in your term of office.

First of all, this motion is clearly ill-judged and premature. It has also given rise, I believe, to substantial scaremongering and fear in many communities throughout Northern Ireland. I think that it is deeply regrettable, but it is also irresponsible coming from the Member for East Antrim.

The Member has raised a number of issues. He did so with great ingenuity, in order perhaps to divert attention from the self-evident flaws in the motion and perhaps to distract from his own failure in his term of office as Finance Minister. Mr Eastwood referred to the creation of a black hole in public finances. Perhaps if Mr Wilson had applied himself with the industry that he applied to this issue, we would not be in the position we are in.

There has been a sudden conversion on the part of the DUP to the prevention of fuel poverty. The DUP was the most obstructive of all parties in the House to the green new deal, which would have introduced measures that would effectively have eliminated fuel poverty by giving people fuel efficiency in their own homes, whether in urban or rural areas.

Photo of Sammy Wilson Sammy Wilson Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Treasury)

I thank the Member for giving way. Perhaps he would bear in mind that it was Nigel Dodds, as Social Development Minister, who first introduced the warm homes scheme, and it was during times when Peter Robinson, Nigel Dodds and I were Finance Minister that more money was given to warm homes schemes, window insulation and so on. Rather than not dealing with fuel poverty, our record on dealing with fuel poverty is fairly good.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

I will let the public judge them by their record on the green new deal. The green new deal would have transformed the situation for many thousands of homes throughout Northern Ireland by giving people energy efficiency in their own homes.

Photo of Anna Lo Anna Lo Alliance

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

Will the Member also confirm that, contrary to what the former Minister of Finance said, it was at the insistence of Social Development Ministers that more money went into the warm homes scheme. When Mr Wilson was Finance Minister, it so happened that Margaret Ritchie and I were Ministers, and the green new deal was repeatedly derailed by Mr Wilson and DFP making the argument that the business case somehow did not stack up. Some £175 million that could have gone into the warm homes scheme and the green new deal was denied by that former Minister and DFP.

Photo of Anna Lo Anna Lo Alliance

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

No, I will run out of time.

Not only is his motion defective but so is his memory. I thank Mr Attwood for bringing that to the attention of the House. Scaremongering is irresponsible. I know that elections are imminent but descending to the level of frightening people in their own homes about a source of heat and fuel ought to be rejected by the House.

Air pollution is insidious. There are carcinogens in air pollution that affect people's health. According to a 2010 UK report, 500 people died in Northern Ireland as a result of air pollution. It is not something academic: smoky coal is a problem. It will not be resolved easily but it has to be addressed sensibly. That is why the Minister is right to wait for the report. It is right that it should be done on an all-Ireland basis because the problems are common to both jurisdictions. It is right that the research be carried out. It is correct for the Minister to say that Mr Wilson's motion is utterly premature and ought to be rejected by the House.

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. While I accept that the wording of the motion is presumptuous in areas and is maybe not the best, I understand the reasoning for bringing it forward, and I support the principle of bringing it forward. I suppose I should declare an interest because I have a relative who sells coal. Whether it is smoky coal or not, I am not sure.

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy UUP

You do not buy it.

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP

That is a good point. Mr Kennedy says I do not buy it; I do buy it. We have a heard a lot about smoky fuel and smoky coal. Can anybody give me a real definition of smoky fuel and smoky coal? I see Mr Wilson shaking his head; he brought the motion forward, and I am not sure whether he can tell me what smoky fuel or smoky coal is.

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP

I am not sure whether the Minister will be able to tell us, when he gets to his feet, what smoky fuel or smoky coal is.

Photo of Anna Lo Anna Lo Alliance

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP

Mr Wilson was first, and then I will take Ms Lo.

Photo of Sammy Wilson Sammy Wilson Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Treasury)

According to the definitions that have been used so far, all coal, apparently, is smoky unless it is manufactured smokeless fuel. That seems to be the only kind of coal that is deemed as being non-smoky, but, of course, it is much more expensive than all other kinds of coal.

Photo of Anna Lo Anna Lo Alliance

The smokeless coal is the smaller, round coal. They have been treated. The ordinary coal is big lumps of any size, and you burn it in the open fire. That is my understanding of it.

[Laughter.]

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP

I am not sure which definition to accept because both seem to be getting out of proportion.

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy UUP

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP

OK, go on ahead; everybody else is.

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy UUP

It might be useful for the Member to cut a bit of slack on this issue.

[Laughter.]

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP

I think I will try to get back to the motion, if that is reasonable. There is a huge divergence of opinion. The difficulty is that, in the past, coal has been banned in some areas for smokeless fuel. That has happened in cities in the Republic of Ireland, and it has happened in some areas of Northern Ireland where it cannot be used. Is it a good thing? If it is a huge pollutant, maybe it should be banned in some areas, but the reality is this: has anything been put in its place? One of the reasons why I reject the report coming forward is that it has not looked at other aspects. It has not looked at the fuel poverty that we have heard about; it has not looked at the cost of the alternatives that may be required if it goes out of business; and overall alternatives have not been looked at. Are people going to burn more sticks and peat, which pollute the air more, as somebody else mentioned? We have not got that information, as I understand it. I will listen to the Minister. Maybe he will say, "Mr Elliott, you are totally wrong". If I am, I will hold my hands up, but, as I understand it, this report will not include any of those aspects. If we are doing a report, it needs to be comprehensive and all-inclusive.

Mr Maginness said that pollutants are bad for your health and affect people. Hypothermia affects people. If you cannot heat your home or your house, or if you cannot keep the room warm, that will affect people in a negative way. In fact, it can kill people. That is the reality. So, unless reasonable alternatives are looked at within the report, I will not accept or support the report coming forward in the first place, irrespective of what it says in the end. It must be a much more comprehensive report. Many in the coal industry see the report as an attempt to get at them. They see it as an attempt to reduce their business and to stop the importation of that coal or product into Northern Ireland or, indeed, the Republic of Ireland — both jurisdictions.

I heard Mr Eastwood say that he has concerns about the Derry port and what comes in there. I call it Londonderry port, but I will not argue with him about that today.

[Laughter.]

The reality is that, yes, there are significant concerns not just about the pollutants that can be brought about but about many other aspects of fuel burning in Northern Ireland. Do we really want to say to people that soon they will not have an alternative? Let me tell you that pressure will be coming on the burning of oil before too long; that will be the next thing. There will be coming pressure, especially on heavy oils. We have heard about the potential of fracking; people do not want that either. We accept that renewable energy sources have some potential, but they are not all they are made out to be either. There is a huge lobby group against wind energy production, but I will not get into that with Mr Wilson today at all.

Photo of Steven Agnew Steven Agnew Green 7:00, 20 January 2015

The Assembly is used to hearing nonsense from Sammy Wilson as, indeed, are the people of Northern Ireland.

[Interruption.]

I have to say, however, that what he has brought us today is nonsense of the highest order. The motion refers to a flawed all-Ireland report, and, of course, that report has not been published.

I should apologise to the House because, when Mr Wilson tabled the motion I tackled him and asked him why he was putting this nonsense in. I told him that the report had not even been published. He has had a couple of weeks to come up with a few answers, and now it is the terms of reference and other such things that are flawed. However, that is not what the motion says; it says that the report is flawed. He has not read the report, and I do not see how the Assembly could stand over such an assertion. It is a perfect example of a Member and a party that have no interest in evidence-based policymaking. Instead, we have a Member who, at the mere hint of possible environmental regulation, has an instinctive knee-jerk reaction and forms an ill-conceived and ill-considered motion.

I want to address some of the points that Mr Wilson made. He said it when we were on the radio today and again in the House that Northern Ireland does not have the same problems with air pollution as the Republic of Ireland. That is true. We have only 500 people dying each year because of air pollution. That is not a serious problem; it is not something that we should investigate or take measures to tackle.

Photo of Steven Agnew Steven Agnew Green

I will not give way for the simple reason that Mr McCrea is restricted to two minutes, and we have only two non-Executive parties speaking in the debate. Otherwise, I normally do give way.

It is a health problem that we have to face. Within the last week or so, the Chief Medical Officer attributed the spike in A&E demand to air pollution, so we do have a problem in Northern Ireland. We have evidence that we have a problem in Northern Ireland, and we need evidence on possible solutions as to how we tackle it.

The other issue that has been raised is fuel poverty. The Member states that insufficient focus has been put on fuel poverty in the report. Again, I say, how does he know? He has not read it. Indeed, specific reference is made to fuel poverty in the terms of reference where it says:

"The report will assess potential impacts of policy proposals on vulnerable sections of the population including fuel poverty issues."

So, fuel poverty is in the terms of reference and we do not know how much focus it is given in the report because we have not read it because we have not seen it because it has not been published.

Mr Wilson also made the argument about the price; he came out with figures that the price of smokeless coal is 20% to 50% higher. That is not the case in the figures that I have; it is certainly not as much as 50% higher, but I accept that he is in the right ballpark. However, he does not mention that smokeless coal burns for 40% longer and one third hotter. It burns hotter and longer and, if he does the maths, the consumer gets a better deal.

The other thing that I will say on fuel poverty echoes what Mr Maginness said. It was Mr Wilson's party, the DUP, that rejected the green new deal. I suppose that I should give some credit to Mr Wilson, who budgeted for the green new deal when he was Finance Minister. However, his colleague the Social Development Minister, then Nelson McCausland, decided that he would instead spend the money on a boiler replacement scheme, when all the evidence shows that, no matter how efficient your heating system, if you are burning any type of fuel for the heat to go out the roof or the window, it is inefficient and does nothing to tackle fuel poverty.

So, we had an opportunity in the Assembly to take serious action to tackle fuel poverty. Indeed, we had an opportunity to bring in investment from the private sector as well as the public sector to address fuel poverty.

I am not calling for a ban on smoky coal today. I am simply calling for evidence-based policymaking and that we read the report before we condemn it.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

I call Basil McCrea, and I hope you will rise to the challenge of two minutes.

Photo of Basil McCrea Basil McCrea NI21

Yes, two minutes. Thank you for all the hot air. You want to wait for a report to come out. All that I can offer you on this is that I am a chemical engineer by background, which means that I do study such things as particulates, but for this contribution I rely on National Energy Action, which some of you will know. It is a national charity that aims to eradicate fuel poverty and campaigns for greater responsibility in heating.

It provides some statistics, which I will summarise, because I do not have long. Yes, coal is cheaper, but coal is inefficient. The statistics that Mr Agnew brought out prove it. If you really want to heat your home properly, you use other fuels. Where possible, if you are really serious about fuel poverty, you also get better insulation.

Coal is cheaper; coal is also a bigger pollutant. It makes a nonsense of this place to say we are going to carry on burning coal, when you have only to look at the amount that we recently spent on Ballylumford. This part of Northern Ireland spent £17 million to reduce the emissions coming out of Ballylumford just to keep the lights on.

That was to do with pollutants and NOx. Read the report: coal is not good for your health. In the long term, coal is not the solution. Yes, it is cheaper, but coal is the fuel of the past. We should be investing for the future. This is a spurious argument based on electioneering, and it does not do the people of Northern Ireland any good.

Photo of Mark Durkan Mark Durkan Social Democratic and Labour Party

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Comhghairdeas leat faoi do phost nua. Congratulations, Mr Speaker, on your recent elevation.

The motion has presupposed that I have decided to introduce a Northern Ireland-wide ban on smoky coal. That is not true.

Having had to answer several questions on the subject after my recent North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) statement, and another during topical questions today, this would certainly seem to be a burning issue.

The motion has been brought before the Assembly because of my Department's engagement in a joint study with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (DECLG) in Dublin. That joint study was commissioned by the NSMC in July 2013. The project commenced in February last year, and a presentation providing an update on progress with the study was made at the NSMC meeting on 8 May 2014.

At the last NSMC environment meeting, in November, the Council noted that officials are considering an interim report, which will be presented to Ministers in the near future. I have not yet seen the interim report.

I have already engaged extensively with representatives from the solid fuel industry and with other key stakeholders and Departments across the North to ensure that their views are taken on board during the research. That includes engagement with Minister Storey's Department.

Let me be absolutely clear: my being against the motion in no way disregards the very serious impacts of fuel poverty that we all see here. Nor will I be doing anything that will exacerbate fuel poverty here.

It is simple. The reason I am against the motion is that it is premature. It is pure speculation and, worse than that, it is scaremongering. It is based on an assertion regarding a policy that I have not put forward and on the outcomes of a report that has not yet been completed. I have not made any decision to ban the burning of any types of fuel across the North. Maybe Mr Wilson thinks that there is no smoke without fire, but let me assure you that there is no fire here. The motion asks me to reconsider my position on the issue, but my position is, and always has been, as follows. When this research is concluded, I will consider its findings and recommendations. Any recommendations that I consider worthwhile will be put forward for consultation with ministerial colleagues, Committees and key stakeholders.

I will now address some of the points raised by contributors to the debate. I will start with the proposer of the motion. Mr Wilson stated at the outset that the report is flawed. He pointed to the absence of wood and peat. It is no secret in this Chamber that Sammy would love to get rid of Pete.

[Laughter.]

I do, however, have to say that some of the points he made were not dissimilar to points that I have made about the report. I understand that Mr Wilson may not be as close to politics in the South as some of us, but I should point out to him that there is now a new Environment Minister there, Alan Kelly, who may not be quite as wedded as his predecessor was, and as Mr Wilson anticipates, to this report or the policy.

It is great to hear Saint Sammy, defender of the disadvantaged — I do not know what happened to Sammy, the champion of the Tory cuts — make all these arguments on behalf of those suffering fuel poverty. There is not a word about the big business interests of those in the coal business or, indeed, the interests of Larne port in his own constituency. His claims about the intentions of the Southern Government actually border on paranoia. Perhaps he wants to start his own "coal war". He is right when he says that our citizens should not suffer as a result of policies drawn up in other jurisdictions. I just wish that he shared my sentiment that they should not suffer as a result of policies here either.

Mr Boylan lamented the timing of this debate and concurred with some of Mr Wilson's more sensible remarks; I did not say that they were sensible, just more sensible. It is clear that any policy development in this area needs to take account of pollution from the residential burning of all solid fuels. The report is, therefore, examining evidence relating to air pollution as a result of residential heating from all sources. Any policy options that I actually consider will also have to address emissions from these other solid fuels.

Mr Eastwood stated the sensibility of an all-island approach to this and many other environmental initiatives.

Let me assure Mrs Overend and the House that I have spoken up on this issue with my Southern counterpart; I am sure that her colleague Mr Kennedy could vouch for that.

[Laughter.]

One of the points that I did speak up on was the one that she made about the anomaly around peat briquettes and the different classifications in both jurisdictions. The Member referred to a meeting that I had with representatives from the sector. I have to say that I thought that those representatives actually left that meeting quite content with my approach to this issue. In fact, I actually undertook to share with them and other interested parties any report prior to publication. This makes Mr Wilson's motion seem even more ridiculous. While we can sympathise with much of its content, bringing the motion at this stage has been a huge mistake or, as he might put it, a faux pas.

Ms Lo spoke of existing smoke-control zones. She also drew on recent published figures outlining the real damage caused to human health by airborne pollution, to which emissions from burning solid fuel certainly contribute.

Mr Milne also referred to the health risks of pollution, and Mr Beggs, quite rightly, identified that coal is far from being the only causal factor. Mr Maginness saw many of Mr Wilson's points as a distraction from the paucity of his motion: smoke and mirrors, perhaps. Mr Maginness spoke of how the green new deal could and should have done so much to tackle fuel poverty. Although that great opportunity has been missed, we in the Chamber must all remain focused on tackling the scourge of fuel poverty.

In conclusion, a Cheann Comhairle, I urge Members to oppose the motion, which is not much more than an ill-timed, ill-informed and ill-judged attempt to grab headlines. I implore Members to at least wait until I have a position before asking me to reconsider it.

Photo of Gordon Dunne Gordon Dunne DUP 7:15, 20 January 2015

I welcome the opportunity to speak on what has been a good and thorough debate, although a lot of Members are somewhat reluctant to give their real opinions and thoughts. I am happy to support my good colleague Sammy Wilson, a former Minister, who calls on the Minister to ensure that any change to the legislation has no adverse impact on levels of fuel poverty.

Since the early 1990s, coal sales have reduced dramatically. In fact, domestic coal sales through the members of the Coal Advisory Service have reduced from over 1·2 million tons to 100,000 tons, which is a reduction in excess of 90%. That trend in coal usage is largely due to the availability of cheap North Sea oil since the 1990s and, in the early 2000s, the introduction of natural gas, which, although somewhat limited in Northern Ireland, continues to be an attractive option for many householders. That will continue to be the case with gas, particularly with the extension of the network to the west of the Province.

There is no doubt that, with the very significant decrease in the use of coal, there has been a great improvement in air quality in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has come a long way since the 1950s and 1960s, when smog was the norm across the city of Belfast in particular, until the introduction of smoke-control legislation. However, there remain thousands of households that rely on this relatively cheap form of coal to heat their home. With the ever-increasing cost of energy, it is vital that we encourage competition, especially in the domestic sector, and ensure that consumers are not thrown into fuel poverty. A household is said to be in fuel poverty if it needs to spend more than 10% of its income on fuel to maintain an adequate level of warmth. It is widely agreed that the rate of fuel poverty in Northern Ireland is among the worst in northern Europe. The most recent official estimates put the rate of fuel poverty here at 44% of households, and it is widely accepted that fuel poverty can disproportionately affect those on a low income, the ill, families with children, other young families and older people.

I will now focus on Members' comments, many of which were wide-ranging and entertaining. Sammy Wilson vigorously opened the debate and registered his concerns about what he sees as a flawed report. The terms of reference do not include wood and peat, which are exempt. That, I think, is a major flaw. Sammy also made the point about air quality in Northern Ireland, which in many ways is influenced by transport. However, transport is not included in the report.

Sammy is convinced that the Minister responsible in the Republic has plans to ban smoky coal in every town and village. He believes that the debate is not premature and that it is only a matter of time until the Minister enforces that ban in Northern Ireland. Sammy also made the point about the cost differential, which is significant. He believes that it costs between 20% and 50% extra to move away from bituminous coal to smokeless fuel.

Cathal Boylan made the point that he is waiting for the report and thought that we were premature in tabling the motion. He is very opposed to the big stick approach — that is new from Sinn Féin. He welcomed the debate but said that he could not support the motion at this time.

Colum Eastwood was not sure how Sammy was able to make a decision at this time. He said that he is convinced that his colleague the Minister is not in any position to make up his mind at this time. He also said that he has many concerns about air quality and pollution.

Sandra Overend, I think, supported the principle of the motion. She is obviously concerned about fuel poverty and is aware of the ban in many council areas, which is enforced by the councils. She said that she was concerned about the major impact that a ban on smoky coal would have on people on a low income and the significant increase that there would be in fuel poverty.

Pam Cameron also made the point about peat and wood being excluded from the study. She spoke about the effect that a ban will have on low-income families, especially those in rural areas.

Alban Maginness said all sorts of negative things about the DUP and our former Minister. He mentioned the green new deal. There are too many green new deals, and we need to move on. He also accused the DUP of not moving forward on the green new deal but going for the alternative warm homes scheme. That seems to me to be a positive thing.

Tom Elliot was supportive of the motion in principle. He made a good point, even as an Ulster Unionist, about there being no real alternatives in place. That is significant. He also said that he thinks that there is a major move to stop the importing of coal to Northern Ireland.

My other colleague from North Down, Mr Agnew, who, I know, has major issues with the motion, made various points. He said that he felt that the motion was a knee-jerk reaction. There is no way that that could have been a knee-jerk reaction from Sammy. He was also concerned about the lack of evidence about the issue and felt that there is a health issue. Despite being a great champion for those in fuel poverty, he seems to have forgotten all about that. He also accused the DUP of going down the route of supporting the boiler replacement scheme.

Basil McCrea summed it up by saying that coal is not good for your health and is not a fuel for the future.

I think that that is most of it. Anna Lo expressed her concerns about health issues. She said that the ban in Dublin came in in 1990 and that she believed it was effective. She said that she was very much aware of the Clean Air Order 1981 and that the councils in Northern Ireland are responsible for enforcing the clean air zones. She said that that, in itself, had saved many lives.

The debate has been worthwhile. I trust that the Minister will, in all seriousness, listen to the genuine concerns of Members. It is important that we keep the cost of heating to a minimum and ensure that we keep the home fires burning.

[Laughter.]

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

You did not disappoint.

Question put. The Assembly divided:

<SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"> Ayes 40; Noes 43

AYES

Mr Allister, Mr Anderson, Mr Beggs, Mr Bell, Ms P Bradley, Mr Buchanan, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mr Craig, Mr Devenney, Mrs Dobson, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mr Elliott, Mrs Foster, Mr Frew, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mrs Hale, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kennedy, Mr McCausland, Mr I McCrea, Mr D McIlveen, Miss M McIlveen, Mr McQuillan, Mr Moutray, Mr Newton, Mrs Overend, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Spratt, Mr Storey, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr Wilson

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr McQuillan, Mr G Robinson

NOES

Mr Agnew, Mr Attwood, Mr Boylan, Ms Boyle, Mr D Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Byrne, Mr Dallat, Mr Dickson, Mr Durkan, Mr Eastwood, Dr Farry, Ms Fearon, Mr Ford, Mr Hazzard, Mr G Kelly, Ms Lo, Mr Lynch, Mr McAleer, Mr McCallister, Mr F McCann, Mr McCartney, Ms McCorley, Mr B McCrea, Mr McElduff, Ms McGahan, Mr McGlone, Mrs McKevitt, Mr McKinney, Ms Maeve McLaughlin, Mr McMullan, Mr A Maginness, Mr Maskey, Mr Milne, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr Ó hOisín, Mr Ó Muilleoir, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr Ramsey, Mr Rogers, Ms Ruane, Mr Sheehan

Tellers for the Noes: Mrs McKevitt, Mr Milne

Question accordingly negatived.

Motion made: That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Speaker.]