Debate contribution: Ban Petroleum Licensing and Fracking
Debate contribution by Dr Steve Aiken OBE on .
- MLA
- Dr Steve Aiken OBE
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 29 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Ban Petroleum Licensing and Fracking
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4486638
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Mr Principal Deputy Speaker —. Or Ms —. I apologise, Principal Deputy Speaker. It has been a long day, as you can imagine. I echo my friend Mr Nesbitt's remarks: the Ulster Unionist Party will support both the motion and the amendment. Members will be aware that, in our nation, fracking has been under a moratorium, in some parts of it, since at least 2015. That started in Scotland. In Wales, it has been the case since 2018 and, since 2019, there has been a moratorium. There is no indication anywhere across our nation — with the exception of Northern Ireland, because we have not caught up with the legislation yet — that there will be any more onshore fracking or that any onshore fracking will be allowed. As many Members have noted, the debate is also about how we manage our renewables and where we go in the future with renewable systems. Minister, as you are well aware, one of our biggest problems is the interconnectivity of the grid. Earlier, when you gave answers to various questions, you pointed to the fact that there are significant areas around grid connections in the Province and rural grid connections. That cannot be overstated. The number of problems that face anybody who wants a grid connection for renewables, whether solar, wind or any other form, is quite frankly scandalous. The fact that we are paying significantly more for grid connections in Northern Ireland than we would in Scotland, England or Wales, or the Republic of Ireland, needs to be investigated clearly. Without doubt, it is the monopolistic situation here that has been an absolute barrier to the progression of renewable energy across Northern Ireland. Whether in battery storage, novel applications or smart grids, on every occasion the System Operator for Northern Ireland (SONI) and Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) have been working to the detriment of Northern Ireland. Questions have to be asked about that. One of the other significant issues that we have to worry about is our regulation process. I declare an interest: I am a great supporter of the Utility Regulator here, particularly the chief executive of the Utility Regulator. However, quite frankly, Northern Ireland is too small to be doing its own energy regulation. Talk to anybody in the renewable energy business, and you find that one of the single biggest problems is getting a route to market and an understandable method of getting contracts for difference. England Scotland and Wales, interestingly enough, have their own regulator in Ofgem. Neither Scotland nor Wales decided to go it alone. They have a system that industry can buy into and get renewables rapidly onto the market. We cannot do that. One of the things we have to ask about, going forward, is what we do about reforming the system so that we get a proper, fully integrated energy market.
Certainly. Over to you, David.
Thank you very much indeed. No, I propose that we join Ofgem. Let us look clearly at what we need to do. If you look on this island, with renewable energy, the market and the interconnection is not big enough to make it work in all circumstances. If that were the case, they would not be building new connection grids to Wales and they would not be looking to build a new interconnection system to France, which will then use lots of nuclear energy to fill in the gaps. We need an all-islands solution. The sooner we get to that, the better. It is appropriate that we start thinking strategically if we are to hit our renewable energy targets, which we must, because there is an energy crisis. There is also a climate emergency. We need to deal with those situations. Minister, when you look at the future of energy generation in Northern Ireland, I ask you to look very closely at how we marry up with the rest of these islands to make it work. Clearly, nobody in the Assembly supports fracking onshore. Let us make a ban happen. Since it is not happening now, we have no difficulty at all in supporting the motion and the amendment.
692 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.87 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.10 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:20 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.