Debate contribution: Household Energy Costs
Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 7 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Household Energy Costs
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5165175
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I gave you your opportunity, Ms Armstrong. You did not take it. The Alliance Party is now saying in this motion today that we are going to get to 80% in less than five years. What is the great solution that the Alliance Party is putting forward to achieve that? It is going to redesign future social homes. Ms Armstrong went on to articulate how we are going to do that, and it is by putting a battery in the roof of those homes. Therefore, the Alliance Party's action as to how we are going to double our production of renewable energy is to change building regulations, which do not even come under the remit of the Minister whom it is attacking today, and put a few batteries in the roof of homes. That is not a sustainable position, and the party needs to be honest with the —.
I wholeheartedly agree with the points that you make in relation to the grid connection here in Northern Ireland and the ability to draw that down, but your motion does not mention any of that, because that falls under the Department for the Economy. I am not a climate change denier, but I am going to set out why we are not going to meet the targets. It is because our energy policy in Northern Ireland is an absolute basket case. We have no renewable energy support scheme. It was promised that the legislation would be introduced this year and that the auction would take place. That has been delayed. We have no long-term storage policy for energy, which the Member has articulated the need for but does not mention in the motion. We have no grid connection policy, so, even if we do produce that energy, it cannot be drawn down. We have no socialisation policy, which was promised last year, and that means that, even if we do try to build those new homes, they could not even benefit or connect to it. Let us deal in facts. This was a perfect opportunity. Mr Honeyford gets this issue, and he had a really good opportunity to bring forward a cross-cutting motion that we could all have supported that called for the Minister for Communities to play his role, the Minister of Finance to play his role in relation to regulations, and the Minister for the Economy. Mr Honeyford and I bang our heads off the wall at Committee week after week. This is a complex issue. Dr Aiken gets criticised by Members in the House, but he gets it. Putting a battery in a roof or changing the future design of houses is not going to meet this target. When we do not meet these targets in 2030, it will not be this party that lied to the public.
On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Can you outline who I accused of lying? I said that this party did not lie. I did not accuse anyone of lying, so I ask you to withdraw that remark.
510 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 (0.90).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:23 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.