I beg to move

That the draft Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 be approved.

The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the First Minister to open the debate on the motion.

Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle

[Translation: Mr Deputy Speaker]

. Today, we seek the Assembly's approval for the Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner Regulations 2025. It might be useful for Members if I set out the principal considerations that informed the preparation of the statutory rule (SR).

The Executive Office proposes to make a statutory rule under powers conferred by section 50 of the Climate Change Act 2022. When the Act was made in 2022, section 50 was an addition to the Climate Change Bill that was voted on and agreed in the Chamber. Therefore, the regulations are procedural in that they are the legislative tool for completing the establishment of the Climate Commissioner, a requirement that was made in law in 2022.

As is required by the Climate Change Act, the statutory rule is subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure before the Assembly. The statutory rule is in line with what is allowed for in section 50 of the Act, which is that it will allow TEO to establish an independent office to be known as the "Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner" and to allow the commissioner to have the following functions. The commissioner will oversee and report on the exercise of functions of our Departments under the Act. In particular, the commissioner will be able to provide advice and make recommendations to Departments, undertake commission research and publish reports, advice, recommendations and any other relevant information. The purpose of the statutory rule is, therefore, to implement section 50 of the Climate Change Act and to establish a Climate Commissioner here.

Climate change is not a concept or a possibility; it is happening right now, and the impacts locally are as real as they are pressing. Once established, we would be the first area on these islands to have its own dedicated Climate Commissioner. They will work together with the other climate advisory bodies that operate here: the Climate Change Committee (CCC), the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) and the just transition commission to support delivery of the Climate Change Act. That is something that, we hope, Members will get behind today.

We thank the Executive Office Committee and the Examiner of Statutory Rules for their prompt scrutiny of the regulations, and we welcome contributions from Members today.

The Committee first considered the draft regulations on 23 October 2024, and Members agreed to forward the SL1 letter and draft statutory rule to the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to seek its views before formally considering the SL1. On 20 November 2024, the Committee considered the response from the AERA Committee of 11 November. The AERA Committee indicated that it was supportive of the functions of the proposed Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner. At that meeting and having further considered the SL1, the Committee decided to withhold its consent until any amendments recommended by the Climate Change Committee had been incorporated into the regulations.

The Committee agreed to request an update on the timescales for ongoing engagement with the Climate Change Committee, as well as further information on the costs that the proposed commissioner's office would entail, the organisational structure of the new office and whether the office would remain in TEO after establishment. The response to those queries, including input from the Climate Change Committee, was received from TEO on 4 December 2024. The Committee considered the response from TEO and formally considered the SL1 for the draft regulations on 15 January 2025 and had no objection to the proposed statutory rule.

The Committee then received an oral briefing on the draft regulations, as laid before the Assembly, from the director of climate change and green growth in TEO on 19 March 2025. The Committee agreed to write to the Department to request a detailed breakdown of the £1 million per annum estimated costs for the establishment of the commissioner's office, including accounts for the salaries of the commissioner and their staff and infrastructure costs. The Committee also agreed to schedule the draft SR for consideration at the meeting of 26 March 2025.

At that meeting of 26 March, the Committee considered the answers received to its queries of 19 March and the report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules. The Examiner had no issues to raise. However, her report stated that the draft regulations contained typographical errors that had arisen as a result of a technical drafting issue. The Department is concerned and will correct those minor errors at its earliest opportunity. I am content with the approach of the Department in this instance.

The Question on the draft regulations was put to the Committee, and it divided: five members voted "Aye"; three members voted "No"; and there were no abstentions. The Committee therefore recommended that the draft Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025 be approved by the Assembly.

I will now make a few points in my capacity as an MLA. The Climate Change Act was, of course, proposed by a DUP Minister. After considerable discussion to build consensus around the content of that legislation, it was unanimously agreed at Final Stage. That included DUP MLAs, of course, who backed their Minister's Bill but also Members right across the political spectrum of the Chamber.

The incorporation of a Climate Commissioner was primarily in recognition of the cost of inaction, which would be considerably higher than the cost of a commissioner who would ensure action. Northern Ireland had already been an outlier in the UK, with a record of improvement, particularly around carbon emissions, that was notably inferior to the rest of the UK for almost the entire 21st century. It would be peculiar if unionists were to continue to argue that Northern Ireland should remain an outlier in the UK on the matter. It is worth noting that steps to combat climate change in Northern Ireland, including the appointment of —

Will the Member give way?

Yes, go ahead.

Would the Member like to reflect on her statement where she rolled all unionists into one? You talked about the DUP at the start of your statement, which was fine. However, we have not had the chance to speak in the debate yet, and you have just said, "unionists". Would you like to reflect on that statement, please?

Thank you for your intervention. I was referring to the unionist position at the time that the Climate Change Act was before the Assembly.

[Inaudible.]

OK, that is fine, but I will reflect that the three members at the Executive Office Committee who voted against were all unionists.

Will the Member give way?

No, I would like to make some progress.

It is worth noting that steps to combat climate change in Northern Ireland, including the appointment of a commissioner, are to be matched by a just transition fund for agriculture, which is now in place at £12 million. However, climate change is by no means just about agriculture, despite the fact that our departmental set-up puts Agriculture and Environment together. The very reason for having a commissioner appointed by the Executive Office is that climate change is a cross-cutting issue. We need to do much more on clean energy, which falls to the Department for the Economy. We need to do much more on active travel, which falls to the Department for Infrastructure. Clean air is a Health issue as well as an environmental one. Preparing the next generation for climate-friendly living is an Education issue. The allocation of resources to combat climate change and reduce pollution falls to Finance and even, in some instances, councils. That is why the matter cannot be left to a single Department and why we support the regulations today.

Climate change is a defining crisis of our time on a global and national scale. Through the New Decade, New Approach agreement, a commitment was made to introduce legislation and targets for reducing carbon emissions in line with the Paris Accord on climate change. That commitment resulted in the Climate Change Act that was passed in 2022, which sets out ambitious emissions reductions targets for the North to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. It established a framework to help do that and requires the Executive Office to establish an independent office for a Climate Commissioner. We need to appoint a commissioner and implement the Act. As we approach 2050 and work towards net zero, we need to honour those commitments and ensure that a commissioner is appointed and the Act is implemented. The draft regulations set an annual monitoring duty for the commissioner alongside reporting and oversight roles, mainly to manage the operations of the Act.

The cross-party support for the Act makes it essential that we see the motion passed. We are living in a climate crisis typified by extreme and unpredictable weather conditions. Locally, we have seen the impact of flooding, storms and, most recently, forest fires, which cause devastation to the environment and the communities that inhabit them. As we speak, the Mournes are burning and have been for three weeks. Just this week, we have also heard that there is an 80% chance of another massive outbreak of blue-green algae in Lough Neagh this summer.

The creation of this role is a legal obligation in the Climate Change Act. We share a moral responsibility to tackle the climate crisis that is upon us and create a Climate Commissioner. On that basis, I support the motion and encourage others to fulfil their legal and moral obligations to do so.

I oppose the imposition of the outworkings of the regulations, outworkings that will undoubtedly create yet another tier of bureaucracy that Northern Ireland can do well without. Whilst I acknowledge that the Executive Office is legally bound to lay the regulations before the Assembly and create a Climate Commissioner within the mandated two-year period, the DUP position on the issue remains the same as when the Bill creating the office was debated in the Chamber during the last mandate.

I thank the Member for giving way. While I no longer sit on the AERA Committee, the Member and I were colleagues on it during the lengthy debate on the Climate Change Act. He points out that the Executive Office is legally obliged: will he also consider that the wording of clause 50 of the Climate Change Act came about from an amendment brought to the House by his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs at the time, and that his party supported that Bill in its totality? Indeed, at its Final Stage, his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, who is now the Speaker of the House, said, in the Chamber:

"I am grateful for the support that my Bill" — his words —

"has received during its passage through the Assembly. Climate change affects everyone in" —

NI —

"and on the planet, and it requires people to respond at local and global levels. As politicians, we have a duty to take action to ensure that our environmental footprint becomes less significant and that we produce a sustainable economic and environmental model where both can prosper." — [Official Report (Hansard), 9 March 2022, p2, col 1].

Philip — Mr McGuigan, there is ample time for you to speak in the debate. I can add you to the list if you so wish.

I will finish, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Interventions are supposed to be short. You and I both know that your intervention is well beyond what it should be, but I am more than happy to add you to the list.

I just want to make the point again that the Act was supported not only by the DUP but by the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, who was a DUP Minister.

I thank the Member for his intervention and comments.

Let me be clear: legislation to tackle climate-related environmental issues is a necessity. It is vital that, as custodians of the planet and the world around us, we take our role seriously and seek to live more sustainably. Our party continues to champion sustainable industries and efforts to tackle environmental harm as we collectively seek to legislate to protect our natural assets. We cannot, however, permit ourselves to operate in a bubble on the issue, however genuine our motivation may be.

There is a cost to everything, and, in an era in which we constantly ask ourselves whether we are getting value for money, I fail to see how the outworkings of the regulations represent value for money to the taxpayer. I fail to see how an estimated annual cost of £1 million to facilitate the creation and functioning of the office of a Climate Commissioner represents good value for money. The existence of a commissioner will do absolutely nothing to address the issues. It must be considered what an additional £1 million could do if it were used to tackle the likes of the Lough Neagh crisis or if it were invested in sustainable infrastructure or in the use of green energy across the government estate. All those examples would represent tangible benefits in addressing environmental issues across Northern Ireland. I am concerned that the regulations merely divert much-needed finance to administrative costs.

Will the Member give way?

Yes, of course.

The Member has rightly pointed out the financial impacts and constraints. I will put the DUP's position on the record. We objected to the amendment at the time, but, once it was made, we would have had to vote down the entire Bill. Doing so would have knocked out everything.

I thank the Member for her intervention and comments.

Given that my party and the TUV were the only parties to reject the creation of a commissioner initially, it will be interesting to see whether other parties in the Chamber continue their support for the office. It will also be interesting to note whether, when it is created, those parties take any of the advice or recommendations from the commissioner's office under their notice. I suspect that that will be the case only if the new commissioner plays the right tune. When presented with recommendations and advice in the past from UK-wide expert bodies, such as the UK Climate Change Committee, that advice was ignored, as it did not suit parties' political agendas. Even if we accept that there is some value in creating the position, the role of the commissioner has already been undermined by the failure to consult him on the content of the current carbon budgets and the 2040 emissions targets.

I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate his setting out his party's position. As I outlined, we discussed the regulations on at least five occasions in Committee. It was only at the last moment that one line was read out to say that the DUP was not in support of them. Committee members from the DUP had the opportunity on many occasions to raise their concerns and ask TEO officials for guidance and information. They never took that opportunity.

I thank the Member for her intervention and comments. We raised our objections at the proper time, thank you.

This is mandated in section 23 of the Climate Change Act. How are we to expect that any commissioner will represent value for money when we are coming so late to the game. The Office for Environmental Protection —.

Go raibh maith agat.

[Translation: Thank you.]

I appreciate the Member's giving way. I find it bizarre that the DUP and the Member are encouraging a race to the bottom. Does the Member not agree that investing in climate action is a bargain but waiting for climate collapse definitely is not?

I thank the Member for her intervention. Indeed, we want to invest our money wisely.

As I was saying, the Office for Environmental Protection and the UK Climate Change Committee, which are both expert bodies in the field, have ably provided guidance and advice on these matters in the past. I see no need to duplicate their role. At a time when hospitals and schools need funding and families are dealing with the continuing effects of the cost-of-living crisis, I cannot, in good conscience, support the creation of further bureaucracy in the system.

Climate change is one of the defining challenges of our time. We all recognise that there is an urgent need for robust, independent oversight as we strive to meet our net zero obligations by 2050. However, it is important to remember the financial reality: we need to balance our climate obligations against the need to deliver high-quality public services for all our people. The creation of an independent Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner, as provided for in section 50 of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, is a logical and necessary first step. The new office will have a clear remit to oversee and report on departmental compliance with climate obligations, offer expert advice, commission research and publish findings and recommendations to guide policy and delivery. It is also right that the commissioner operate independently of Departments such as DAERA, DFI and DFE, which will be tasked with delivering the actions that the commissioner monitors. I note that the NICC's placement in the Executive Office is a deliberate act to ensure separation of leadership from the centre of government.

While the UUP supports the establishment of the commissioner in principle, I must highlight concerns around cost, sustainability and timing. We are told that the commissioner's office is expected to cost approximately £1 million per annum. That is significant recurring expenditure at a time when our public finances are under considerable strain.

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he accept, as I do, the fact that there is a UK Climate Change Committee, which is an expert body in looking at these issues for the whole UK? Why would we spend that amount of money when that body is already in place?

I thank the Member for that intervention. She will realise that, as a devolved region, we control our own Departments and that, while the Climate Change Committee exists and offers some advice, the Climate Commissioner will specifically oversee our Departments.

A Member:

[Inaudible.]

Sorry, are you seeking to make an intervention? I thought that you were speaking to me. I will move on.

The commissioner's office is expected to cost approximately £1 million per annum, which is significant expenditure at a time when we are under strain. We face acute pressures across our health service, education system and community infrastructure. Every pound must be carefully weighed. The Executive's "Planet" mission in the Programme for Government is commendable, balancing green growth and an equitable, just transition, but we must ask whether this is the right moment to commit substantial new funding to the establishment of another body and is well intentioned.

I note that, while the regulations have been carefully drafted and comply with the enabling power of the Climate Change Act, there has not been a full public consultation. I appreciate that the Act does not require one, but transparency and public engagement are essential, so it would be good to have that.

Moving forward, it is critical that the office deliver. It must not become a well-meaning but costly entity that publishes reports without delivering meaningful change. It must hold Departments accountable, challenge when necessary and support the practical implementation of climate policy, especially where delivery lags behind ambition.

We will not oppose the regulations, as we welcome their strategic intent and the focus on strong and independent oversight, but I urge Ministers to be careful of the cost — not only the financial cost but the cost to public trust when delivering during this mandate. I reiterate that, as we strive to meet our climate obligations and to play our part, we must ensure that that is not at the expense of our people and does not further undermine the delivery of high-quality public services in an area in which these institutions are already under considerable strain.

My SDLP colleagues and I warmly welcome the appointment of Northern Ireland's first Climate Commissioner.

The SDLP has long championed the creation of an independent office to oversee and scrutinise our collective efforts to meet climate targets. The Assembly agreed to that in 2022.

Today marks progress, but it is also a reminder of how far we have yet to go. As I have said before and, no doubt, will have to say again and again, Northern Ireland will not, on its current trajectory, reach net zero until the year 2118. That is not just disappointing; it is unacceptable for our people, the planet and, above all, the future generations who will pay the price of our inaction. What makes it worse is that we were once ahead of our neighbours and counterparts, east and south, in our ambition to tackle climate breakdown. However, we have fallen behind. That is a truth that we must face.

It is not all bad news, though. Northern Ireland will now be the first region in the UK to establish its Climate Commissioner. That is a significant achievement and we should be proud of it: while others talk about independent oversight, we are putting it in place. That is not just symbolic; it is structural, and it sets us apart. It sends a signal to investors, communities and the next generation that Northern Ireland is serious about green transition and wants it to happen. Importantly, placing the commissioner in the Executive Office will allow them to operate with the independence that the role requires. Given how cross-cutting the climate challenge is — it spans Agriculture, Infrastructure, Communities, Economy and much more — separation from departmental silos is essential. Now is our chance to act more decisively.

The levers that we need to deliver a just, green and ambitious transition are all within our grasp, but we must be bold enough to use them, create certainty for businesses, empower communities and take part in local climate action to ensure that no worker is left behind in this economic transformation.

As others have said, this is a legal obligation of the Climate Change Act. I was somewhat surprised by the DUP's position at the Committee. It was a little bit johnny-come-lately. Once again, I fear that the DUP, instead of leading, is following, and it is following the TUV. That is not leading and it is not leadership.

Like my Alliance colleague who spoke previously, I am pleased to support these long-awaited regulations, which will represent, if passed, a significant step forward in our ongoing journey to a more environmentally sustainable future for Northern Ireland.

The appointment is not merely a legal requirement. The proposed Climate Commissioner will play a pivotal role in managing the delivery of our climate policies, advocating for nature recovery and supporting initiatives crucial to the protection of our species, populations, habitats and ecosystems. It is therefore crucial that the regulations before us be put in place so that the required progress is made.

We have faced instability in our Assembly and subsequent gaps in delivering crucial climate policies, including our pledge to support the appointment of a Climate Commissioner. Some are still trying to delay progress, raising concerns about costs and bureaucratic processes. Such delays and indecision jeopardise Northern Ireland's position in the global effort to protect our environment and, more importantly, the well-being of our communities. We cannot allow hesitation to hinder our progress any further.

Let us be clear: our planet must take precedence over short-term financial concerns. The nominal costs associated with establishing the commissioner should be viewed through the lens of the long-term benefits of a sustainable environment and what that will yield for communities and future generations. Unfortunately, some parties, including, very obviously, the DUP, continue to voice scepticism about the necessity of a Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner. However, we cannot afford to overlook the scientific consensus on the issue. The UK Climate Change Committee has publicly welcomed the establishment of such a role and highlighted the urgent need for strong leadership and coordinated action in addressing the climate crisis. That same —.

I thank the Member for giving way. He highlighted the fact that others have raised the issue of costs. He rightly points out the global damage to the environment, but, if we look much closer to home, 30 miles down the road, at the gorse fires in County Down and, indeed, in County Antrim, we will see that the cost of not doing the right thing for our environment and our climate will be far more expensive in the long run.

I thank the Member for the intervention, and I welcome the example that he gave. I can add another one — I am sure that he would agree with this — which is the rise in the water temperature in Lough Neagh. I know only too well about that in my constituency, and it will probably play out in the news again very soon this year. Additionally, in looking at our global responsibilities, however, we should acknowledge the fact that net zero targets that established national Governments set represent at least 87% of global greenhouse gas emission targets, so there is also a crucial part to play there.

As climate-related events escalate worldwide, the call for urgent action has never been clearer. It is our collective responsibility to support the draft regulations today, recognising that immediate action is required and that further delays are simply not an option. We are more than a quarter of a way through the 21st century, yet the climate crisis remains real and urgent, as world events show us on an increasingly regular basis. It is now time to get on with it.

No one in the Assembly doubts the need for us to be good guardians of our natural environment and to recognise where human activity is causing damage to our environment and our planet. At every level of society, we need to play our part in reducing harmful emissions and unnecessary waste and in increasing recycling. However, the headline commitments in recent climate regulations have been highly aspirational and devoid of a concrete assessment of the policies and proposals that Departments would need to advance. Despite that, there are estimated net costs of £479 million for carbon budgets to 2037 and £707 million under the revised emission targets for 2040. Those are huge sums, considering the deep financial pressures that public services face.

Throughout the advancement of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which was a political compromise in the face of a rival, private Member's Bill from the Green Party that would have gone even further, the DUP sought to protect agriculture and the taxpayer in Northern Ireland from unrealistic demands. We question the value of establishing a Climate Commissioner at a cost of in the region of £1 million per annum, which is not an insignificant sum, and whether such a post would contribute anything to what already exists through the Climate Change Committee and the Office for Environmental Protection. It remains our view that, given the state of public services, including the pressures facing health, education, infrastructure, policing and all other services, any business case that is developed to operationalise the commissioner's office should not be railroaded through at the expense of projects that are, to all intents and purposes, more important and impactful for the people, communities and groups that face significant challenges in everyday life.

Will the Member give way?

No, I will carry on; there is plenty of speaking time for all.

There has been a degree of revisionism in this place, and we have heard it in the debate, on the DUP's position on a Climate Commissioner. The record is clear: we opposed outright the establishment of such a position and voted against a host of amendments that sought to progress that proposal under various guises. At Consideration Stage of the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill, Tom Buchanan raised the following questions, which remain as valid today as they were then.

What will an additional body deliver:

"over and above the role of the independent Climate Change Committee?"

Where are the gaps:

"to justify another body being set up to provide ... advice that is already being given"?

He continued:

"To set this up and to fund it will cost us millions, with set-up costs, staff costs and running costs. Who will pay the price? Will it be Health? Will it be Education?"

Will it be policing? Or:

"Will it be our community groups?" — [Official Report (Hansard), 1 February 2022, p149, col 1].

During the passage of the Act, no thought was given to how a commissioner would interact with the Climate Change Committee or the Office for Environmental Protection. No financial modelling was provided, and there was no proper consultation or impact assessment. The Climate Change Committee's response to the consultation on the draft regulations for a Climate Commissioner was, in part, to point out the potential for its role to overlap with that of any new Climate Commissioner. It beggars belief that we are going down the road of a possible duplication, at a cost to the public purse, when no such office exists in any other region of the United Kingdom.

I am often asked why I joined the Ulster Unionist Party and not the DUP, particularly when I am interviewed by young people. It is because of moments such as this, and that is the honest truth.

Some Members:

Do not be ridiculous.

That is the honest truth. I am going to speak the truth, and I am going to speak for a unionism that is not in denial. It is a unionism that speaks to reality head-on. I am disappointed with the Chair of the Executive Office Committee for othering unionism. I will put that in context. I asked the Chair to clarify her statement and her use of the word "unionist" to describe a homogenous group of people. Unionists are free thinkers, and that is probably why we have a number of parties: because we are not afraid to speak out on important issues. I hope that the Chair reflects on that.

Will the Member give way?

I absolutely will.

The problem, when we sit on these Benches and look across, is that there are very few issues on which you vote in a different Lobby from other unionist parties. It is very easy for us to see that you, in many ways, are a block.

I thank the Member for her intervention. The Member did not engage with my point. I talked about using the word "unionist". I suggest that someone looks through Hansard and Twitter to see how many times the word "nationalist" is used to describe either Sinn Féin or the SDLP. It is probably zero. However, she has no problem with the use of the word "unionist" to talk about unionist parties.

Back to the matter under debate. A unionism that does not cherish the environment or speak to the truth of climate change is not strong. I suggest that it is brittle. We see the devastation caused by the wildfires, the scorched fields, the blackened hills and the exhausted firefighters, and yet we hear the commentary today about the fiscal appropriation of what we are trying to do. Where is the depth? Where is the sincerity?

Let me give you some testimony and background to show why this is important to me. When I joined the Fire Brigade in 2000, for the first four or five years, I probably dealt with three or four grass or gorse fires in that time. There were no major or significant incidents. The fires happened in small numbers. Since that time, worldwide, probably led most effectively in Spain, but we have spoken into it for quite a few years now, is the growing propensity, risk and cost of wildfires in Northern Ireland.

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

Will the Member add to that the growing cost of the recent storms and floods and the costs associated with the rising temperatures, which have contributed to the algal bloom in Lough Neagh?

I thank the Member for his intervention. I absolutely agree.

I will set a bit more of the context. Why do I think that this is absolutely necessary? For five years out of the past eight, we did not have any ministerial lead on anything in this country for health, education, wildfires or the climate. Let us not lose sight of ourselves here, guys. People are going to put their trust in us. Do we deserve it? No, we do not. We have no stability or credibility, and that is what we are trying to achieve. We are looking at a body that will still be created, that we can still speak to and that we can still change. But let me tell you this —.

Will the Member give way?

I will let you in in a wee second.

One week of wildfires in Northern Ireland costs more than £1 million. Just for that week, not for the reparation, not for fixing back or building back. What else happens in that week when we spend at least £1 million on a major incident? We put people's lives at risk.

Will the Member give way?

Will the Member give way?

Give me one second. I am very popular today. One wee second. I will let you in, because it is genuinely important to talk about the issue.

It is probably £1 million per week, and there is another cost that nobody has mentioned today, especially when the fire is in the Mournes. There are two dams in the Mournes that supply our drinking water. How much does it cost to clean that water after a fire? After the last burn, it cost £890,000 to clean the drinking water. We have to be fiscally appropriate, but let us talk about all the costs.

I thank the Member for giving way. Given the number of interventions, he is certainly very popular, and I appreciate this opportunity to make a couple of points. We have talked about wildfires, but as far as I understand it, those were set deliberately, and there is an investigation into that. On the wider point, though, it is this place's responsibility to make good decisions. The Member has highlighted that in this debate, but we are talking about £1 million here. My party's point is that agencies are already in place to do that work. It is not about climate change: we all agree that action needs to be taken, but there are agencies in place to do that, and £1 million could be invested in school counselling or in Health for core grant funding in the community.

I reflect to the Member that his Minister rightfully comes to the Chamber and often talks about a lack of funding —

An intervention is supposed to be short.

I will be short. That money could be used more effectively elsewhere.

Will the Member take his seat? I had a discussion with Mr McGuigan earlier about stretching the boundaries of an intervention. There is ample opportunity for you to put your name down if you so wish. Do you wish to put your name down? No. Well, that is fine. We will keep it nice and short, then. Thank you for your intervention — I think. Mr Butler?

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member has put his point on the record. Equally, I have set out why it would be penny wise and pound foolish to suggest such a thing. The Member will understand that that £1 million is set aside for this purpose. It is not something that a Minister can bid for and then allow to be traded off.

Wildfires are avoidable. They may be, and predominantly are, set deliberately. However, the reality is that because of climate change, the fire loading in those mountains and grassland areas is significantly worse than it was 20, 25 or 30 years ago. I am glad that the Member has put on the record that this is not about climate denial. I hope that other Members will speak to that.

Will the Member give way?

At this point, to be fair, it is right to be fiscally appropriate and the DUP has centred on the figure of £1 million. I think that Mr Carroll had asked for an intervention first.

I thank the Member for giving way. Is the Member concerned that gorse fires are happening generally but also, seemingly, there is no record kept of how many occur? Leaving aside whether it should happen at all, there is a requirement for farmers to notify the Department before a gorse fire. Beyond two applications for consent in the past five years, no record is kept of people notifying the Department. Does the Member have any concerns about that?

I thank the Member for raising that. One of the things that I am frustrated about at the moment is that while, to his credit, in 2021 the then Minister, Mr Poots, embarked on a strategy for tackling those types of incidents, that piece of work, unfortunately, has still not seen the light of day. I do not know whether that is down to political failure. We need to get to the bottom of that to find out why we have not —. I will give way.

I appreciate that the Member has been generous with his time. Mr Kingston posed the question: who will pay the price? Does the Member agree that communities in the Mournes have had to deal with not only this wildfire but previous incidents in 2004, 2011 and 2021? People are still dealing with the impact of the floods. Ordinary people's energy bills are going up. Those are the people who will pay the price for the DUP and others' cowardice when it comes to this matter.

I thank the Member; she has put her points on the record. I agree with the first part of what she said. There are legitimate reasons why people should question when we spend £1 million on setting up an agency. We do not want a body, whether it is arm's-length or totally independent, to be without function or purpose and not have deliverables. The outcomes will be really important, but the impacts are on our communities. In the Mournes, for example, cover is provided by retained firefighters. There are no full-time fire stations there. Those firefighters are men and women who are pulled out of their everyday jobs to spend 16 or 18 hours up a mountain. That has impacts on their families and the businesses in the area. Those impacts are probably not even captured. I am going to let Mr Blair in.

I thank the Member, who has been incredibly patient. I want to ask him two things. First — I hope that he does not mind me asking — does he feel that some of what we are hearing today from the DUP is a bit rich, considering that that party thought that it was OK to spend around or over a quarter of a million pounds on magnetic pouches for a very limited number of schoolkids? Secondly, the Member has covered well the cost of doing nothing. On that theme, apart from the fact that doing nothing is much more expensive in the longer term, does he agree that the Climate Commissioner could play a vital role in ensuring that public funds are best spent in a coordinated and targeted way?

I thank the Member for his input. Fiscal appropriation should be the concern of all the Ministries, Departments and Members here. I have no issue with that.

In reality, what we have faced over the past couple of weeks — we have all spoken about it and made comment on it — is avoidable. Some Members have said that the burning was deliberate, but we can embark on a package of work, and the Climate Commissioner and the commission can play a specific role in that. Why would that be important to Northern Ireland? It is because Northern Ireland should set the standard for everything. We should not be behind the eight ball when it comes to protecting and cherishing our environment and being the lead voice in making Northern Ireland the place that it should be. Part of that is about protecting our environment and heritage, not to mention the impact on our wildlife.

I do not want to demonise anyone, but we need to get on with this at pace.

Going by the debate so far, I have no doubt that the regulations that are before the House will be approved, but I welcome the fact that, after I raised questions on 19 March, DUP colleagues joined me in making similar points the following week in Committee.

Regardless of the motive, there are good reasons for opposing the regulations. Northern Ireland will be the first region in the UK to have its very own Climate Commissioner. When I look at all the things on which we fall behind, I have to ask why we are taking the lead on this. Importantly, the Executive Office Committee has received evidence that the commissioner will require a budget of around £1 million per annum. It is estimated that the commissioner will have 15 staff. I contrast that with other important bodies, such as Intertrade UK, which has an independent budget of zero and an independent staff of zero. No one used the appointment of a Climate Commissioner as a reason to get this place up and running, but some unionists claimed that Intertrade UK was in that category.

I will ask those who champion climate alarmism four fundamental questions. A number of Members have, rightly, made interventions, so if any of them want to make an intervention to answer my questions as I go on, I will be happy to give way.

Can you provide any data on the impact of climate change on Northern Ireland? I look to Mr McGuigan, Mr Stewart, Mr Butler and Mr Blair: does anyone want to give me that detail?

Will the Member give way?

Go ahead.

On the Northern Ireland-specific facts, we have a stand-alone Fire and Rescue Service. It is unique on these islands. Every Fire and Rescue Service in England, Scotland and Wales relies on the support of other services. We do not: we have a stand-alone service. When we have a spate of such incidents, therefore, which are happening with greater regularity and ferocity because — this is unarguable — of climate change, why would we not use the data that we have, which is our data, and respond accordingly to protect our environment?

Mr Butler, we have changes in climate. My goodness, we had the medieval warm period. Was it a renegade step that the Vikings did not come forward with a climate commissioner to sort out all their problems? The Thames froze. These are natural cycles.

Will the Member give way?

Absolutely. Go on ahead, Mr Butler.

The Member's strategy is simply to do nothing. We can do something, but his strategy is to do nothing. What sort of politics is that?

We have heard in the debate that we have a body that can oversee and look at these issues. Mr Butler denies the fact that climate changes come and go.

Will the Member give way?

Yes, Ms McLaughlin.

Mr Gaston, in the House last week, you said that you wanted a green transition. You wanted Ballymena to be a hydrogen hub —

Absolutely.

— because of climate change.

No, no.

No, you cannot have that one day and have nothing the next day. Climate change is either happening or it is not; it either is a crisis or it is not. You cannot just pick and choose your fights.

As I said in the House last week, Ms McLaughlin — indeed, she was in the Chamber at the time — I recognise where the economy is going, so I make no apology for championing North Antrim and championing Wrightbus to deliver new buses, but, my goodness, we have not heard anybody come up with a fact or a figure today to tell us what the benefits of having a Climate Commissioner will be.

My second question is —.

Will the Member give way?

Yes, go on ahead, Mr Blair.

[Laughter.]

I will give the Member a figure. The water temperature of Lough Neagh has risen by over 1°C, and he has seen the consequences. Climate change has been a contributing factor. It is not the only factor, but it has certainly been a contributing factor. Separately, when it comes to global responsibility — I would really like the Member to tell me what his global responsibility is — the Global South, which has undeniably contributed far less to climate change than industrialised and developed areas, is in a situation in which millions of people are already facing displacement from their home because of rising sea levels. Can the Member therefore define for the House his global responsibility?

I am here to talk about Northern Ireland. The Member talks about 1°C, but he fails to take into account the mass amounts of sewage that are being deposited into Lough Neagh. That also creates blue-green algae and has a big effect on the quality of our drinking water.

I will move on to my next question. How are we to assess the success of the commissioner?

[Pause.]

No? Nobody has taken me up on that one, so I will move on to my next question. What change to global temperatures will there be if he or she is the most successful commissioner that we could possibly have?

I understand that the situation will be slightly better than medieval warming.

Is that an intervention? I have no idea, Mr Blair, whether you are —.

Mr Blair.

I thought that he had given way, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Yes, I —

No, he did not.

— will give way. Take to your feet. Do you want to come in, Mr Blair?

No.

Nothing. That is OK. I gave you the opportunity.

If the UK were fortunate enough to have the most excellent Climate Commissioners in all four nations, what would be the impact be on global temperatures? I say to all the climate alarmists and all those with facts and figures that, once again, I am prepared to give way. Ms McLaughlin, you are smiling. Anybody? Officials were not able to answer those questions in Committee. MLAs? No? I will therefore move on. Unless and until those questions can be answered, this project has to be considered questionable.

Yesterday in the House, the Minister of Finance told me that he would have to examine the case put forward by the Chief Constable for the PSNI to get more funding. Who has examined the case for a Climate Commissioner against the impact that a commissioner will have on the climate? I dare say nobody. I put it to the House that, for the money involved, there are many more worthy causes that should be placed ahead of having a Climate Commissioner.

I will also explore some fundamental, factual issues with commissioners. At the Committee for the Executive Office, we were told that the suggested annual budget of £1 million was based on what one would expect a commissioner's office to cost. The Executive Office Committee has recently been looking at issues related to historical childhood abuse. We have a Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse. From what I have seen, she is doing a very good job and is an excellent fit for the role. Does she have a budget of £1 million? What was her budget to highlight her work and to look out for victims outside of Northern Ireland? Was it anywhere close to £1 million? Absolutely not. I would like the First Minister, when she is summing up, to pick up on that point.

Furthermore, I will contrast the proposed powers of the Climate Commissioner with those of the proposed Commissioner for the Ulster-Scots and the Ulster-British Tradition. The Climate Commissioner, who will take up office should the regulations pass, will, according to regulation 4, have powers to:

"(a) provide advice and make recommendations; (b) undertake or commission research; (c) publish— (i) reports, (ii) advice and recommendations, (iii) other relevant information."

When I compare that with section 3 of the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022, I discover that, unlike the Climate Commissioner, the Commissioner for the Ulster-Scots and the Ulster-British Tradition will have no powers to make recommendations and no powers to commission research or publish material pertaining to his or her office.

Whether it be on budget or powers, it seems as though some commissioners are more equal than others.

Members, we all have a responsibility to steward our environment and pass it on to the next generation in a better shape.

Will the Member give way?

I am happy to give way to Mr Donnelly.

There is worldwide scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is man-made, resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. Organisations such as NASA, the Royal Society and the Met Office are all very clear on that. Does the Member know better than them?

Once again, I ask the Member this: what difference will that commissioner make here in Northern Ireland?

You have no answer.

What will —?

[Interruption.]

One Member at a time.

Members.

[Interruption.]

Mr Donnelly, behave. We are having a fruitful debate, and I am allowing a degree of movement because many Members have considerable views. However, I will not tolerate shouting across the Chamber like that — not in this place. This is not the Dáil.

[Laughter.]

Over to you, Mr Gaston.

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. You raised a very good point about the Dáil and the conduct of its Members. You would not get that in Stormont.

We all hear well and good about the commissioner and what they are going to do. I will make a point that I made at Committee: once the commissioner is in place, there will be extra bureaucracy for businesses. Mr Butler is the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee. My goodness, once the Climate Commissioner comes into place in Northern Ireland, they are going to have a devastating impact on our agri—.

I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Clearly, he is a climate change denier. The agri-food industry is so important to here. Does the Member accept that, if this region were labelled as one that is not fulfilling its global commitments in regard to climate change, that would have a devastating impact on our agri-food industry? International customers would vote with their feet.

The net zero Bill, which was rushed through this place at the end of the previous mandate, basically put a knife through a lot of our agri-industry. In years to come, our stock numbers will be slashed. I have no doubt that the commissioner will add an extra burden.

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

Has the Member been following at all the legislation that Minister Muir is introducing? The Department is introducing measures by which we can meet our targets without slashing the national herd.

I hope that that is a commitment and that, when the new commissioner is in place, they will not challenge that.

The people who are best placed to look after our environment are our farmers. They have done that very well for the past number of years. No farmer wants to damage the landscape; they want to have the most efficient landscape in the best shape possible and to have the best produce. I will take no slight to the agriculture industry in this place. Indeed, at every opportunity, I will stick up for the farmer.

Will the Member give way?

One more.

We accept the importance of farmers: they are the custodians of the countryside, and 75% of the land here is farmed. Does the Member accept that, if this region were considered one that does not meet its global responsibilities towards climate change and the environment, that would have a detrimental impact on our farmers in marketing their produce on the international stage?

As we have already heard, we have a UK-wide oversight body that is in charge of all this. Why does Northern Ireland think that it knows best? It will create an empire of 15 additional staff, who will put bureaucracy above and beyond what there already is. I certainly do not believe in that. It is not the best use —.

I thank the Member for giving way. We hear Members talk about the protection of Northern Ireland agriculture. They say that, if we do not comply with targets or meet the vast swathes of regulations on climate change, we will, in some way, be at a loss. However, a number of years ago, China was building two new coal plants each week.

How does the Member think that a Climate Commissioner specifically for Northern Ireland will benefit the Northern Ireland public?

Thank you very much, Mr Buckley. I hope that, throughout my speech, I have shown that I do not believe that the Climate Commissioner will bring anything to Northern Ireland. I do not think that they will bring any benefit. I believe that they will bring only bureaucracy and more headaches for business and our agri-industry. I am very happy, at the end of the debate, to be the only one in that position, though, hopefully, the DUP will divide the House on this, and I certainly will vote against the establishment of this commissioner. It is not the right time, there is no need for the post, and that £1 million would be better spent elsewhere.

The previous contribution would have been a good comedy act if the issue were not so serious: the future of the planet and life itself on it. Obviously, there is a need for a robust Climate Commissioner with teeth to act and enforce a change of policy and action, but I remain unconvinced that this legislation will actually achieve that. The legislation states that the commissioner will provide advice and recommendations to Departments here on how to manage the transition to a net zero economy. Providing advice and recommendations is all that they are allowed to do. The obvious question is this: will the Executive actually act on those recommendations? Other activists will be asking that as well.

The CCC letter states:

"the priority should be to determine clearly the nature of the Commissioner's role, and then to ensure that the functions and powers provided for are suitable to deliver the role effectively. We recognise that the Act is limited as to what it says around the Commissioner's duties, so the draft Regulations may not be the best place for providing such detail."

That is not quite coming out of the traps fighting, to put it mildly. On the role of the commissioner, it also states that the commissioner, going back to my earlier point, will provide advice and recommendations to Departments on how to manage the transition to a net zero economy. As part of that, I emphasise the point that the commissioner engage with a range of stakeholders, whether it be the farming community, businesses or the community sector. The commissioner will have to engage across the board. It may look like innocuous stuff at first glance, but I believe that that will give cover to inaction, which will be presented as the farming community being opposed to this, that and the other, even though most farmers, despite protests from the big agri sector, need and want to see climate action.

Given what we have heard from one Executive party, I am concerned that the Executive have the power to include a clause to allow the office to continue to function in the event of a vacancy or defect in the appointment or reappointment. So, if somebody leaves the commissioner role because they are prevented from acting by the DUP or anybody else, how do we know that the person who is fulfilling that role will be operating independently? I question whether the regulations will allow fairness to take hold.

There are more questions than clarity in the legislation. I urge the First Minister and the Executive to move at speed to ensure that there is an independent environmental protection agency (EPA) and that the legislation comes through urgently. Despite the important legislation passed in 2022, it is clear that the Executive are moving at a snail's pace whilst the planet heats up. We have had the hottest years on record over the past 10 years or so. That is the evidence that people should be referring to and looking at. We are seeing extreme weather patterns in summer and winter. Climate change will lead to devastation across the world, including here, and particularly for poorer people in the Global South. I care about those people, even if some in the House do not. Locally, we have continuous environmental destruction; habitat destruction; gorse fires; unsafe and unhealthy meat farming; and waste dumping, whether at Mobuoy or in our waters of Lough Neagh, Belfast lough and elsewhere.

I will certainly not oppose the legislation, but my concern is the lack of action that will probably come from the commissioner's role being established. I will be happy to be proven wrong on that point.

I call on the First Minister to conclude and wind on the debate.

Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Mr Deputy Speaker]

. Thanks to many of the Members who spoke for their sensible contributions to the debate. In some ways, it is a repeat of the debate that we had in 2022. I want to pick up on some of the points that were raised today. It would be short-sighted of anybody having this debate today not be very conscious of and acutely aware that the Mournes are on fire, that Lough Neagh is in crisis and that flooding is becoming an everyday reality for many people. That is climate crisis in action. That is what is happening all around us, and we have a moral duty and a responsibility to do something and to do something with urgency. This is not a choice. It is an absolute necessity. I thank all those who contributed positively to the debate, and I welcome the fact that many Members indicated that they will vote for the regulations. It is an absolute dereliction of duty by the Members of the DUP to vote against the regulations, particularly given the crises that we face right now. It is illogical — completely illogical. I will go further and concur with some of the language that has been used today, which said that it is a "bizarre" and "peculiar" approach.

I am bringing these regulations on behalf of the Executive Office. I want to pick up on some points that Members made during the debate. I re-emphasise the fact that the commissioner will have a crucial role to play in helping us to achieve net zero. In the first instance, the commissioner will hold us all to account and ensure that we all play our part and deliver on the promises that were made. The Chair of the Committee made that point. We all have a part to play, every Department has a part to play and every agency has a part to play. The significance of the commissioner is that they will provide independent advice to all Departments on how we should go about meeting our climate change targets in a way that responds to our communities' needs.

A number of points were made that asked why we are doing this. We all voted for the legislation. That is why, and it is also necessary that we do this piece of work. The remit of the commissioner was brought forward by Minister Poots, the then AERA Minister. That is what we are voting on today.

I thank the First Minister for giving way. Did the deputy First Minister make it clear anywhere in the Executive what type of commissioner she and her party would be supportive of?

As I said, I am bringing the legislation on behalf of the joint office — on behalf of the Executive Office. I will pick up on the role of the commissioner. It has already been prescribed in legislation, so that is what the commissioner will have to do. However, there will be more work to be done on that. Some Members have questioned the value of such a commissioner when other places may not have one. The value is that it gives us a local lens. It will be in addition to other things that are already there, so it can only be an advantage to us. Members refer to the fact that there is a Climate Change Committee. That is fine and grand, and we can lean into that, but the local lens will be the additional value that will also allow us to address any particular challenges that we have here.

Members referred to the Budget and the amount that a commissioner will cost. As has been said, it will cost round £1 million. That is, more or less, the average cost of setting up any new arm's-length body. That will be money well spent, for all the reasons that many Members eloquently gave today. The cost of doing nothing is much, much higher. That is why it is essential that we get on and do this work. It is going to take a bit more time. Moving the motion on the regulations today is the outworking of the 2022 legislation, but it will take another period of time to get the commissioner up and running and to address some of the outstanding issues that have been identified.

This is not about duplication. It is very much about the role of the commissioner — that is the local lens — and the role that it will play in holding us all to account. It will also complement things that are already happening. A lot of responsibility falls to DAERA under the legislation. We have already seen some progress in some areas. We have the Lough Neagh action plan and the first environmental improvement plan, and DAERA is working towards the just transition commission. The commissioner will have to work in tandem with other agencies, so there will have to be memorandums of understanding on how they work with other bodies, such as Waterways Ireland, the Utility Regulator and the Environment Agency. There is a huge amount to be worked out in the period ahead as we get this up and running.

Someone asked a question about the role not going out to consultation — I do not think that the Member is in the Chamber now. The definition of what is included in the role of the commissioner's office has been defined in the 2022 legislation. Ordinarily, you would go out to consult in instances such as this, but, because there is limited policy discretion, it was not deemed necessary. However, the functions can be added to in the future by regulation, and perhaps that is something that we will revisit here in the future.

After the regulations have been affirmed by the Assembly — I am assuming that, given the number of Members who have indicated that they will vote for them — we will move on to the next step, which is to fully establish the commissioner, to have the office up and running and to allow TEO officials to work on and resolve any outstanding issues in section 50 of the Climate Change Act.

I thank the First Minister for giving way. It is important to put on record that the First Minister is, indeed, responding to the debate on behalf of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. It is also important that I distance myself from some of the personal remarks that the First Minister has made today in response to the debate. I am sure that those around the House will understand fully that there is a range of views. Of course, on many of the issues referred to by the First Minister, there is a different view in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

This is being moved forward because we recognise that there is a legal requirement on the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. As I indicated in response to questions last week, my concern is entirely about the cost of this, the reasoning for doing this right now and the added value of it, given the work of the UK-wide Climate Change Committee, at a time of significant financial pressure on our public services. That is my position; I have articulated it. I put on record that there is a difference of views, but we are moving forward, because this is a legal obligation. Until the House amends the legislation, it will remain a legal obligation.

The deputy First Minister has her personal view on the record. I undertook to bring this forward, in one sense because it is a legal duty, but it is also a moral duty, folks. It is a moral duty: we have to do it. I am absolutely determined to work with others to ensure that that is the case.

I thank Members for their contributions throughout the debate. Establishing the body will take a bit of time. We have a bit of a road to go to refine everything, to make sure that we have it up and running and to see how it works and interacts with all the other bodies. We have to do this. We have to protect the world for future generations. Someone mentioned going to school assemblies or talking to young kids: this is about their future. This is about the world that they live in, what it looks like and how it feels for them. We should all commit to working together and acknowledge that climate change is, in fact, a reality, that we are living in those times and that we must do something about it.

Thank you very much, First Minister, and thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for an entertaining debate.

Question put.

The Assembly divided:

<SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"> Ayes 51; Noes 19

AYES

Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Butler, Mr Carroll, Mr Chambers, Mr Crawford, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Ms Sheerin, Mr Stewart, Mr Tennyson

Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Finnegan, Ms Murphy

NOES

Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Mr K Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Harvey, Mr Kingston

Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl.

Mr McGrath acted as a proxy for Mr O'Toole.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 be approved.

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm — oh, it has just started. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

The sitting was suspended at 1.01 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —