Debate contribution: Energy Market
Debate contribution by Mr Peter McReynolds on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter McReynolds
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 11 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Energy Market
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4496091
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the contributors to the debate for their input. It touched on not only the challenges posed by the cost-of-living crisis faced by households across Northern Ireland and the climate emergency but the potential solutions that could lie out there, including a greener and more sustainable economy. I will take this opportunity — my first — to welcome the Economy Minister back to his post.
Members will no doubt have read the briefing document circulated by National Energy Action in advance of today's debate. It sets out the importance of today and the potential next steps from the Assembly, as well as the impact of energy prices on households here from a recent survey. We already heard that 41% of households spend at least 10% of their outgoings on energy costs, with 19% just coping with those costs, because they have not been able to afford the costs of energy. Grimmest of all, we heard that one in 10 households is skipping meals to ensure that they have enough money to heat their home. When I read that last statistic just last night, I was reminded of a film that I saw eight years ago, 'I, Daniel Blake', and of the young mother in the film who skips meals so that she can feed her children. Those particular statistics are not from a film, however. Rather, it is real life that many here face, so it is essential that we as an Assembly and an Executive take the necessary steps to deliver energy that is sustainable and affordable and that we ensure that no gaps exist for people to fall between. It also shows me, as a new Member, the importance of having an Assembly again so that, when there are problems in our society, the mechanisms are there to address them, Ministers are there to take the necessary steps and we have a strategy or framework in place to work towards collectively for the benefit of everyone here. The motion and the amendment contain key asks and set a direction that, I hope, the Minister will take us in, specifically when it comes to addressing our reliance on fossil fuels, energy transition and development rights for green infrastructure. As a member of the Infrastructure Committee, however, I think that it is also important to highlight the gaps that exist in our planning system, as has been mentioned in the debate, in order to achieve an increase in the renewables sector, a reduction in our reliance on fossil fuels and a rapid expansion of the domestic energy market. That is because, from April 2023 until March this year, less than half of total electricity consumption in Northern Ireland was generated from renewable energy sources. We can and must do better. There is significant untapped potential in renewable energy generation, especially from wind, in Northern Ireland, with here being one of the best places in the world to harvest the benefits of wind-generated energy. We truly could be a market leader in that space. To do that, we need to take urgent measures to speed up the consenting of renewables and permitted development rights for green infrastructure and to give priority to projects that deliver renewable and low-carbon energy in the planning system. As I have said before in the Chamber, 82% of renewable energy developers do not see Northern Ireland as an attractive place in which to invest, and, on average, it takes over three years for a wind farm application to be determined, with data from July 2023 showing that 125 applications for wind and solar farms are pending, the earliest of which was submitted in November 2012. That is important, because we will meet neither our "80 by 30" target nor the aims of the motion if we do not urgently address the gaps in our planning system. We need a planning system that has everyone singing from the same hymn sheet about what needs to be done to improve it and to deliver on the potential that we have in Northern Ireland. If we get that right, we can stimulate the green economy and deliver for all the people who live here, while also addressing fuel poverty. I will now turn to this afternoon's debate. As I said, we welcome the amendment from Ms McLaughlin on the need to increase retrofitting of social housing, and I welcome the consensus around the Chamber on the topic. It is such motions and amendments that got me involved in politics, as I want to make a difference and ensure that we reach everyone across our society, regardless of their community or class. I acknowledge that there is an ambition in the Chamber today, and I always remember speaking at an event while I was Deputy Lord Mayor of Belfast. An esteemed environmentalist, Sir Jonathon Porritt, talked to me about the need to be ambitious in everything that we do and to go from there to see where we end up. I try to apply that in all the approaches of my politics and to do my best for everyone. I will not run through all the contributions from Members, as I think that we have all been pretty engaged throughout. Two things, however, jumped out at me that were highlighted by a number of Members. The first was the figure cited by David Honeyford and by Sinéad McLaughlin that 70% of houses here are reliant on home heating oil and that we have the least-energy-efficient homes in Europe. I have been aware of that via a handful of oil clubs in East Belfast, where I am an MLA, that seek to buy oil in bulk in order to drive down the cost. Similar to Ms Eastwood, I have stood in too many homes in East Belfast that have walls painted black by damp, homes that have children living in them who cough from the damp in the air or homes that have residents wearing extra layers just to get by each day. Today's debate can go some way to making sure that such situations never happen again. Secondly, as a member of the Infrastructure Committee, it was welcome for me to hear the Chair of the Economy Committee, Phillip Brett, and Philip McGuigan talk about the good working relationship on that Committee on such matters. I am sure that the Infrastructure Committee will be keen to work jointly with that Committee when it comes to planning issues and the necessary reform of the system to support our net zero targets. It was good to hear the Minister for the Economy mention that he has been engaging with Minister O'Dowd on those issues in recent times.
I welcome the motion and the amendment. I welcome the goals and the ambition to secure a situation where fuel poverty is simply not allowed to happen again in Northern Ireland. It is crucial, however, that we work together to deliver a domestic renewable energy market for the benefit of our people and the planet. Lastly, I welcome the fact that the Minister has accepted the need to work with the Utility Regulator — something that David Honeyford commented on — and note that his Department is exploring biomethane in particular, which is something that I was hearing about from Minister Muir today. He was energetic in his support for it, so my interest piqued when the Minister mentioned it. I commend the motion and the amendment to the House.
1,252 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging 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 | 0.70 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.18 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:44 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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.