Debate contribution: Storm Resilience and Infrastructure Preparedness

Debate contribution by Mr David Honeyford on 20 October 2025.

MLA

Mr David Honeyford

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

20 October 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Storm Resilience and Infrastructure Preparedness

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5188980

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I will just speak on energy security, the line taken by the DUP and what has been said in the Chamber. The line on energy security is fair. We all want a reliable, resilient energy system. However, the amendment veers right off the road when it tries to insinuate that renewables are actually the cause of the risk. Recently, the issues were with Ballylumford and Coolkeeragh, not renewables. That view is, at best, misinformed. Diversifying our sources of energy by hitting 80 by 30 renewable targets is not a risk to our energy security; it is the route to it. Clean, renewable energy that is homegrown and produced here gives us control over future security. It reduces costs for hard-working families in the long term. Every household has seen its energy costs more than double in the past couple of years since the onset of the Ukraine war, when fossil fuel costs rose sharply.

Alongside the cost, renewables are important in meeting those climate obligations. Achieving structural change in our energy production needs targets to aim for. We should not oppose goals or create doubt. Everyone needs targets to work towards.

The Member spoke about net zero being the basis for the amendment. What is said in the first bit of the amendment about energy security is fair, and I said that at the start. The implication is in what is said in the next part. We need to have security of energy supply here, but that needs a whole-system design. The issue that I have is that we are still too developer-led. We leave the power on renewables with developers and people who own power stations. We do not have an overall plan. I have raised that many times here. We need a master plan, led by the Department, that sets out how renewables, storage and interconnection fit together. We need a central approach that gives us a clear direction and a final design that we can work towards. Energy security depends on a strategic, whole-system approach rather than piecemeal decisions. Critical to the delivery of all of that is the North/South interconnector. When we met the Utility Regulator, we were told that that is at the heart of the issue. Delivery is key to our overall system. The interconnector will finally give us that all-island system. We have an all-island market, but it is made up of two smaller systems that sit side by side and are not fully connected. The interconnector will change that. It will unite the two systems and allow electricity to flow between the North and the South, creating the all-island system that has been promised for so long and reducing costs for consumers. It will also remove the risk of a single point of failure by providing flexibility. The system has been designed to ensure that, when we are connected across the island, we will need only one power station to function at a time in Northern Ireland. That needs to happen. I ask the Minister for the Economy to commit unreservedly to delivering the interconnector as planned. The North/South interconnector is essential to allow us to bring in more wind and solar power and all the other renewables without curtailing generation. Connection to Scotland is also important, as are the connections between Dublin and Wales and between the South and France. We need all of it. Yes, we want energy security, but let us be really clear: that will be achieved through a master plan, interconnection and investments in renewables, not by scaremongering about net zero and clean energy. It is really disappointing but not entirely surprising that a misinformed amendment has been tabled. I am surprised, however, that Phillip was the person from the DUP to deliver it, because we work really well together on this. I am not shocked that the DUP is burying its head in the sand, is allergic to change and cannot see the effects of climate change that are around it. You can see from the amendment and from what has been said here that, when it comes to climate and energy, in the DUP there are not too many lights on. Alliance cannot support the amendment, because we fully believe that Northern Ireland's future energy system must be clean, secure and planned.

I am about to finish, but go for it.

To say that we ignored the experts is some stretch, to be absolutely frank. We have just had a weekend of rain, yet there is complete denial that the climate is changing. What I said is absolutely correct: when it comes to climate, energy and net zero in here, there are not many lights on. We need to stop causing division and uncertainty and using any excuse —

794 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:35 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.

Challenge this classification