Debate contribution: Great British Energy Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
Debate contribution by Dr Steve Aiken OBE on .
- MLA
- Dr Steve Aiken OBE
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 11 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Great British Energy Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4793363
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Ulster Unionist Party supports the LCM. I declare an interest, because, when GB Energy was first mooted, I had conversations with the current UK Government about its remit and what it was likely to do. Specifically, we looked at the £8·3 billion of investment that is supposed to be made over time, where it is likely to go and the amount of it that is expected to come to Northern Ireland. The indications were that somewhere in the region of £500 million to £600 million is expected to come to Northern Ireland from GB Energy. The Great British Energy Bill contains some elements that are crucial to Northern Ireland. We have heard about the integrated single electricity market (I-SEM), but we are in a fairly strange situation in that, while our electricity market is part of an all-island regulatory and budgetary framework, it is, in fact, only connected to GB. One of the things that we need to see is whether there will be sufficient investment in the new Lir interconnector that has to go in and whether there have been any developments on the North/South interconnector. Maybe the Minister will address those issues. Quite frankly, at the moment, the I-SEM is only a series of methodologies to transfer funds with no physical linkage. That is a considerable problem for energy security. One of the other issues with GB Energy is its links with the Crown Estate. That is important, because if we are to have a workable offshore wind industry in Northern Ireland, we need to resolve the issue with the Crown Estate and how we can move on. The Minister will be aware — or she should be following her first day brief from her predecessor — that several companies wish to invest in offshore wind in Northern Ireland. There are two main hold-ups to that. The first seems to be the interrelationship with the Crown Estate, which we need to deal with at speed. The second hold-up is due to issues with interconnection. I never really got a satisfactory answer from the Minister's predecessor about what his views were on interconnection. It is vital that we build not only the North/South interconnector at a cost that is reasonable — in that it will not be buried all the way — but a second interconnector that goes east-west to support that. That is critical. The next issue is about hydrogen. GB Energy is key to moving towards green hydrogen. We know that there are ample opportunities in Northern Ireland for the rapid adoption of green hydrogen and for us to be able to take a waste product, particularly from the agriculture sector, and turn it into a useful product. That will need regulatory frameworks, but I note, Minister, that, so far, the only areas in which investment in green hydrogen is going ahead are in the Merseyside region. Maybe the Minister will address why her officials and Department are not engaging directly with GB Energy to ask why significant investment is not also coming to us to try to make green hydrogen. We have talked about offshore wind, but it is important that a significant investment goes into the Celtic Sea for that. The critical point is to make sure that we have appropriate interconnection across these islands — not just this island but these islands. These islands need to be directly linked to the European market, and, again, we need to look at that, because, far from being supportive of that, the I-SEM is anticompetitive. When you are talking about GB Energy and the importance of the LCM, Minister, I would like you to address what we are doing about a review of the I-SEM, which is being anticompetitive and really creating significant problems in how we are looking at our future energy market and in how we get to the decarbonisation of energy by 2030. My final remark is to my friends to my right. I really miss my learned friend Mr Frew, who would normally talk quite a lot about these issues. Minister, I re-emphasise that the Ulster Unionist Party will support the LCM, and I look forward to your remarks.
697 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | 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 | 0.77 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.19 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:57 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.