Debate contribution: Green Growth: Removal of Barriers
Debate contribution by Mrs Deborah Erskine on .
- MLA
- Mrs Deborah Erskine
- 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 4537441
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I speak in my capacity as DUP infrastructure spokesperson. I welcome the motion, which brings into sharp focus the need for planning reform, particularly in the context of green energy, and our amendment strengthens that aim. We have ambitious targets contained in the Climate Change Act 2022, representing a target of 80% renewables by 2030. We sit at 45% renewables, as has been outlined in the Chamber today. Without intervention in our planning system, that target is far out of reach. Mr McMurray must have been reading my notes before coming into the Chamber today, because he is right in saying that, between 2016 and now, our electricity from renewable sources went up by just 5%. In a six-year time frame, we have to increase that by 35%, which is a huge challenge, particularly when we look at some of the issues connected to planning. Currently, the Planning Appeals Commission is not fully equipped to deal with the raft of planning applications in its system, and there appears to be a difficulty in council areas, in particular when we look at wind applications. The Planning Appeals Commission has not met its own performance measures for several years, but I welcome what the Minister has said today about planning appeals. The stark reality is painted in the 'Accelerating Renewables' report by KPMG, which surveyed developers. Eighty-two per cent said that Northern Ireland was currently not an attractive place to invest. That was partly due to the lack of support, they felt, for the industry, and a major drawback was planning, both in policy and processes. I have heard the Minister in the Chamber saying that we do not want to send the message out that Northern Ireland is not a place where you can invest and do business. I fully agree with those comments, but we have to be realistic and realise that, unfortunately, there is a word-of-mouth nature around some of this, and, unfortunately, we are not getting a good name for ourselves on planning. If we do not send out a commitment from the Chamber that we are serious about sorting out the issues, particularly in relation to planning and planning reform, the downward spiral of investors can see that and see that we are not serious. It is important that we grasp that. The bottom line — the Minister talked about it — is how applications are put into the system and the importance of them being tidied up before they go through. However, we have heard in the Committee from global companies and groups that have put in carbon-copy submissions for the likes of wind turbine applications and have been told that they are not up to standard. They are being processed elsewhere within a couple of weeks, but, in Northern Ireland, they can take up to 60 weeks to get through the system. I was informed of one that has been in the system since 2019. We have to grapple with that. Despite the challenges, we cannot be despondent. There are great examples of businesses in the private sector doing their bit to create a greener economy, such as Encirc in my constituency. It has pioneered the use of biofuels in its furnaces, which reduces the carbon footprint of production by 90%. Its example points to what my colleague Gary Middleton said about the public sector. It has a crucial role to play, which is sometimes overlooked, with regard to green growth potential in Northern Ireland. Quickly and briefly, I want to move on to some Members' comments. I thank John Stewart for talking with his infrastructure lens. He talked about the same thing around investors pulling out of Northern Ireland because of the elongated planning system. Quite a few Members referenced the LDPs and our frustration with that. I know it is talked about a lot in the Infrastructure Committee. I am running out of time.
Thank you, Members, for a good debate today.
659 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 | 0.97 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:12 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.