Debate contribution: Great British Energy Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .
- MLA
- Dr Caoimhe Archibald
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 11 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Great British Energy Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4793371
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I thank Members for their contributions and welcome the interest that has been shown in this important issue.
As I set out in my opening remarks, it is not yet clear how GB Energy will operate in practice. Indications from the British Government are that it will drive clean energy development, create employment opportunities and boost energy independence. Importantly, my Department has been assured that GB Energy will work with local businesses with expertise in the area of energy and decarbonisation, investing in supply chains and promoting local growth. I will pick up on a couple of points for clarity. If the LCM is not approved, GB Energy will still be established as a company and will still operate here, but we will have no ability to input or engage, whereas, following the intervention of my predecessor, the GB Energy Bill will now properly take account of devolution. It will allow us to feed into and shape that strategic direction and the local policy plans once GB Energy is established. Importantly, it requires the consent of the Assembly and the Scottish and Welsh Governments in respect of that. The company will have to operate in our regulatory environment. Therefore, we have the opportunity to shape what will be taken forward.
The Member will, of course, appreciate that I am in the job only a week. However, my understanding is that officials have had significant engagement with DESNZ over that time, most importantly to ensure that the amendments that we now see were brought forward and that we got the assurances that we now have that we will be able to shape the strategic direction of GB Energy once it is established. That is really important. It will allow us to engage collaboratively and to coordinate on the issue, which is clearly challenging not just for us as an Assembly but for Governments across the world, regarding our ambitions and the necessity to decarbonise. Obviously, the schemes are still being developed, so there is significant work still to be done there. Officials are very engaged in that process and are working with DESNZ. Again, on the funding issues that were raised, we are still getting clarity on how exactly that will flow and how those schemes will be developed. We have been given assurances that that will be done in partnership with local businesses and those who have expertise in the field to ensure that what is being developed very much respects our priorities and takes account of them in what is being taken forward.
431 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 (0.84).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.84 | 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 | 0.62 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.22 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.16 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.