Debate contribution: Green Growth: Removal of Barriers
Debate contribution by Mr David Honeyford on .
- MLA
- Mr David Honeyford
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 17 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Green Growth: Removal of Barriers
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4537324
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. A green new deal is our future. For the economy to grow faster, we need to develop and scale our indigenous businesses, helping them to develop products for export, but we also need inward investment to create jobs here and bring capital investment to Northern Ireland. That work needs to be focused rather than shotgun in its approach, and I and others on the Economy Committee welcome the Minister's economic vision as he attempts to shape the future. Minister Murphy is not here, but I look forward to working with him on the Economy Committee as we try to drive the economic future. This place works best when we all work together. Alliance puts our economy delivering a green new deal and working towards the green transition high in our prioritisation of issues. Minister Muir is leading the way with a green growth strategy that will help to deliver a green new deal to decarbonise our economy. Alliance will not be found wanting in its support for transformation across all Departments when that helps to deliver the vision of a greener, cleaner environment. That sits alongside our core values of equality, prosperity and reconciliation as we move at pace towards a shared, integrated and united community. In meetings with energy experts and industry representatives, the same issues that cause delays come up again and again. Every meeting you go to is like Groundhog Day. Top of the list is planning system reform, yet, frustratingly, there does not seem to be any movement towards trying to fix that. It costs all our constituents. I note that, last week, the energy regulator in GB said that the price of electricity there will rise by 10% this winter. I welcome the fact that our regulator has said that that will not be the case in Northern Ireland. Let me spell out in real terms the cost of delaying the delivery of our net zero commitments. Delays hit all our constituents in their pocket. For example, the lack of the North/South interconnector costs Northern Ireland £55,000 per day. That is the latest figure from the System Operator for Northern Ireland (SONI), and it works out at approximately £100 on each person's annual bill. We made a good start on renewables, but lack of public-sector reform has halted the growth of renewable energy. The Assembly's being down for five out of seven years is a large part of the problem. The Minister for Infrastructure is with us, and I am in no way pointing the finger; we are not looking back but moving forward from this point. However, the Assembly has not functioned, and our public sector has not reformed. Delivery of new wind and solar infrastructure is practically at a standstill, with little hope of progress in the near future without planning reform. Investment is moving to Scotland or the South, and the delay in delivering the transformation in renewable energy will further cost each of our constituents. SONI has measured that in real terms at a cost of approximately another £100 per person annually. The delay has been caused by two things. It is not about lack of interest; it is not about a lack of capital; and it is not about a lack of companies wanting to invest. It is about lack of reform in our public sector. As I have said so many times, it is our role in this House to lay the pitch for others to play on. Our planning system urgently needs reform. I want to make it clear that the need for faster decision-making should not be at the expense of quality decision-making. We need a planning system that delivers sustainable development, protects our environment and works to help our economy move forward while protecting society. We also need a blueprint for where renewables will be situated. That could be a map or an architect's plan with zones for what works where. That will give direction to the market and make it easier for the planning authorities to make quicker and better decisions. It will also give direction to network providers on where they can connect easily to the infrastructure and show where the main infrastructure needs to be developed. I welcome that the economy and green transition sit prominently in the Programme for Government, but we cannot sit back and cross our fingers that the outcomes will happen. We need to take action and make the changes that we are in control of to create the conditions for others to deliver. Unless we work hard and reform our systems to enable those outcomes, the Programme for Government will be nothing more than words on a page or a pipe dream. Far too often in this place, we have worked to get a strategy, and the strategy is the goal. The strategy should be the starting point for us to move and make changes. The foot comes off the pedal once we get the strategy, and we celebrate the strategy rather than make it the basis on which we work to achieve and deliver the outcomes. The strategy should be the starting point, and we need to work to its delivery. The issue with delivering renewables in this region is that the money invested here has been restricted because energy providers cannot navigate our current planning system, which they pay for heavily. Our planning system is not fit for purpose. We need the Minister for Infrastructure to bring forward a plan to reform the planning system as a matter of urgency. Again I say, we have not had the Assembly for five of the past seven years, and we are only eight months into the mandate, so I appreciate that the Minister is not long into office. However, a plan needs to be brought forward as a matter of urgency. Talking of planning delays, we have heard about the applicant being blamed for not supplying enough information. When you talk to the applicant, that is frustrating for them because it is simply not accurate. If the applicant spends £30,000, £40,000 and more on applications, they bring everything that they have to the process. As all of us who have dealt with the planning system have experienced that, once an application goes in, it gets stuck in the system with consultations, more consultations and even more consultations. That needs to be sorted out. I was pleased to represent the Alliance Party, alongside Matthew O'Toole from the SDLP, the DUP and Sinn Féin — we were all represented there, bar the Ulster Unionist Party — at a recent Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry round-table event to hear about and discuss the problems directly with the industry. We all agree, as we did at the time, that it was really useful to hear, first-hand, the frustrations and the need for a simple plan — a master plan — to show us where wind and solar renewables would be more appropriate. The motion calls for Ministers to act. We can develop a plan together quickly that will allow the main infrastructure to be developed to match the connection needs. That will also help make the planning process easier and reassure local communities. Again, I stress that this place works best when we all work together. Buy-in from all of us will be required to help bring things along.
1,238 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: 0.03 (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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.69 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.15 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.09 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:11 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.