Debate contribution: Green Growth: Removal of Barriers

Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on 17 September 2024.

MLA

Mr Phillip Brett

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

17 September 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Green Growth: Removal of Barriers

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4537340

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the motion's sponsors for bringing it to the Assembly. It is an important topic. Since its restoration, the Assembly has, rightly, focused on planning reform. That is something that the Minister worked on considerably before his appointment to office, and it is something that he will continue to work on because it requires urgent attention. However, the focus on ensuring a just and achievable transition is also vital, so I thank David and the other sponsors of the motion. I have discussed green growth with the proposer of the motion on numerous occasions, along with colleagues on the Economy Committee. We are particularly focused on the £150 million investment zone that the Minister continues to progress. All parties will work together to ensure that all sections of our society in Northern Ireland benefit from that fund. We look forward to the Minister's bringing forward the proposals for consideration by the Committee and the House. The Democratic Unionist Party is committed to ensuring that the Executive seize the opportunity that is associated with green growth. Across Northern Ireland, we are, proudly, world leaders in business and in how we manufacture low-emission vehicles and infrastructure and produce energy-efficient products and lighting, as well as energy-monitoring systems and renewables, to name but a few. We should continue to shout about and advocate that not just locally but on the international stage. I know that Minister Murphy is engaged on that on his current trade mission to Chicago, and the Committee 100% supports him in that. We stood on a manifesto of trying to double Northern Ireland's low-carbon and renewable energy economy to having more than a £2 billion turnover whilst recognising that the transition to net zero needs to be fair for everyone. A greener, more sustainable economy can create jobs, increase prosperity and lead to stronger and healthier communities, all while protecting our natural environment. That builds on the work that Minister Dodds and Minister Lyons did in their 10X vision and that Minister Murphy continues to work on in his economic vision. That is why the previous AERA Minister brought forward his draft green growth strategy — this is what was at the heart of what he was proposing. As I said, the plans to use the £150 million enhanced investment zone in Northern Ireland is to be welcomed, but the House is very keen to see those proposals as soon as possible. I say politely to the proposer of the motion that it is unclear why they have chosen to table the motion without the AERA Minister first presenting his own proposals on green growth to the Executive for consideration. Mr Honeyford spoke articulately about how we need consensus in order to work together on those issues, so the Minister's not bringing his proposals forward, first of all, slightly flies in the face of Mr Honeyford's comments. Our amendment seeks to build on and helpfully critique the Alliance proposals, which are useful, but our amendment strengthens what has been brought forward. Given the fact that the Minister has not brought his proposals to the Executive or the AERA Committee, at this stage it would be unwise for the House to endorse those proposals or plans, as we have not yet seen them. There needs to be political consensus on the issue and on how we move forward, as Mr Honeyford said, not least given the hugely constrained public finances and the cost-of-living pressures that are on households and businesses right across Northern Ireland. For the same reasons, we do not think that it is prudent for the motion to include a reference to the "wider green new deal". We recognise that that is established Alliance policy — it is entitled to that position — but it goes far beyond what was agreed in the draft Programme for Government. If we are to take forward Mr Honeyford's warm words about moving forward together, he and his colleagues will, hopefully, support the amendment. We should use this not as an opportunity to divide the House, as Mr Honeyford articulated, but as something behind which we can all unite, and I hope that proposals come forward from the Minister to the Executive that all colleagues can support, even our friends and colleagues in the official Opposition. I turn now to planning reform. As I said, the House has discussed that on numerous occasions, and I know that Minister O'Dowd has engaged on it with the industry before and since taking office. As has been articulated, the precautionary way and the very long time that we take to process planning applications in many sectors contributes further to the delay in decarbonisation. Many of the applications that are coming forward for decision would improve our environment and emissions, but as we continue to delay making those decisions, our just transition continues to be delayed. That is notable. In fairness to the Minister, he consulted on a revised regional strategic planning policy on that just last year. I am sure that, when he is summing up, he will update the House on where that consultation sits and on further proposals that he may have. As I said, the motion is important, as it focuses on issues that all Members should support, but our amendment ensures that those measures will come through the right channels, that the AERA Minister will bring his proposals to the Executive and that the Assembly will continue to work together to grow our economy, ensure that a green new deal is just and ensure that we continue to achieve great things on the world stage.

940 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification