Debate contribution: Green Growth: Removal of Barriers
Debate contribution by Mr Gary Middleton on .
- MLA
- Mr Gary Middleton
- 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 4537377
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Members who tabled the motion. In speaking to the amendment, my colleague Phillip Brett outlined our party's position. A greener and more sustainable economy is something that all of us can and should embrace. It is not only good for the environment — that aspect is vital — but for job creation and for our having better, healthier communities. Progress to net zero cannot be viewed in isolation from an economic programme that is focused on green and inclusive growth. A couple of weeks ago, I joined Members from other parties to meet the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry, where we heard from industry leaders involved in renewable energy and from those involved in applications that can help us meet our net zero targets. They outlined a number of areas of concern. One of the main stumbling blocks that they foresee is planning. As constituency MLAs, we regularly hear about the challenges that people face in trying to get applications through swiftly and in trying to ensure that consultees and statutory agencies come back to them in a timely manner. I do not lay the blame for that on members of staff. In fact, many of them go to great lengths in their efforts to get applications over the line. Rather, it is the system that needs to be reformed. We need to move forward and try to deal with the system. As my party colleague Phillip Brett articulated, the DUP is committed to ensuring that the Executive seize opportunities for green growth. It is worth acknowledging that many businesses in Northern Ireland are leading the way on the manufacture of low-emission vehicles and infrastructure and on the production of energy-efficient products.
I will indeed.
I thank the Member for his intervention. I completely agree, but I was making the point that it is not a competency issue with staff but rather an issue with stress resulting from the burden placed on them from the number of applications coming in, as well as from tackling the backlog. We all recognise that from what we see in our constituencies across Northern Ireland. It is important to recognise that the public sector has a crucial role to play. Its role in realising Northern Ireland's green growth potential is sometimes overlooked. The transformation agenda for health, education and infrastructure affords us opportunities to do things differently and more efficiently. That should mean ensuring that green and clean technologies are harnessed for the delivery of vital front-line services. I also want to pay tribute to Translink for leading the way in my Foyle constituency with the first-ever fully electric Metro service. That is an example of leading the way, and, hopefully, others will follow. Inevitably, the transition to a greener, more sustainable economy will cause a level of disruption and change. In all of that, as we aim to improve people's quality of life through creating green jobs, it would be counterproductive for government to seek to do that by levying costly requirements on business. Most importantly, as we transition to a greener economy, we must ensure that our ratepayers do not suffer and that those who can least afford it are not expected to pay more. As we go forward in doing that, we must do so in a way that is fair to all and to everyone who has a part to play. I urge Members to support our amendment and help us to deliver on the many targets that we have set.
586 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 (0.92).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | 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 | 0.99 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
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.