Debate contribution: Hydrogen Innovation Strategy
Debate contribution by Dr Steve Aiken OBE on .
- MLA
- Dr Steve Aiken OBE
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 25 March 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Hydrogen Innovation Strategy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4866424
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the DUP for tabling the motion. The Ulster Unionist Party will support it. One of the most interesting things about green hydrogen and the move towards green hydrogen is that it shows a definite transition towards net zero. However, one of the issues that we will face in Northern Ireland is that, in fact, we are not being ambitious enough. One of the main challenges, which I have been talking to the industry about, is that it is being done very much in a piecemeal process. However, I understand that some people in industry are quite happy with not having the dead hand of the Department for the Economy on them, because that means that they can be much more innovative.
We should be looking at how we get the maximum leverage from GB Energy and the National Wealth Fund. More than £8·3 billion is available for investments in renewables, and a sizeable proportion of that is to be ring-fenced for green hydrogen. So far, the only people who seem to be availing themselves of that are in some local governments in the north-west of England. One issue that has been put to me by members of industry is that, if we were to go ahead and look towards making Northern Ireland the centre for green hydrogen that it should be, we would not have a sufficient market for the green hydrogen that we would produce. However, there is an opportunity. The Minister will be aware, as will be Members who, like me, believe strongly in the protection of the environment, that the Irish Sea should become a zero-emission zone for shipping. One way to do that, as we have seen from the Baltic Sea and parts of the Mediterranean, is to encourage new shipping to be powered by green hydrogen. Belfast, Larne, Dublin and various other ports are major areas where we could incentivise the shipping industry to shift to being powered by green hydrogen — green hydrogen that is being prepared and produced in Northern Ireland. That answers the question of the North/South dimension, which Mr Honeyford is happy about. More importantly, it also answers the all-islands dimension, which is where most of us should be sitting and looking at how we develop and grow. Minister, there is opportunity now because there are, I believe, conversations ongoing between the UK Minister and GB Energy, which is looking for large-scale projects. I encourage the Minister and her Department to reach out to the UK Minister and say that we in Northern Ireland are looking to grow that industry at scale. The Minister made clear that she was interested in seeing developments in offshore wind. To attach offshore wind to a deliverable system — to turn it into green hydrogen — would need a significant market. If we do the maths, we can see that Northern Ireland could have a unique opportunity to do that. What we need is a bit of ambition. The industry has the ambition; let us support it. Let us talk to companies such as Stena Line, P&O Ferries and Irish Ferries. Talk to them about the opportunities when replacing the ships on their routes when the time comes — they are replaced fairly regularly — and moving to green hydrogen. That would create a huge market for green hydrogen that we could be producing and pushing out as well. This is a great opportunity. It is a good motion. You are not going to get me to say that it is a great motion, but it is a good motion, and we will support it. It is something, Minister, that we should all be getting behind, and you can then talk to Mr Miliband and make it clear to him that Northern Ireland wants its portion of that £8·3 billion fund. What is more, we have something that can deliver for everybody across these islands.
652 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: 0.04 (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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.57 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.41 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:07 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.