Debate contribution: Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
Debate contribution by Mr David Honeyford on .
- MLA
- Mr David Honeyford
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 11 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5349484
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Minister for moving the LCM. On behalf of the Alliance Party, I am pleased to support it. It is about three things: decarbonising aviation; backing innovation and creating jobs and skills; and making sure that this region is not left on the sidelines while the rest of these islands move ahead. The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill sets up a UK-wide system for sustainable aviation fuel. After the Bill is passed, our focus must be on how we make the most of it and grow our economy. We need to provide investors with confidence to base themselves in Northern Ireland, grow our economy and create jobs here for local people. It may be a small area — a niche area, if you like — but Alliance still sees the opportunity for growth, innovation and clean industry. That is exactly the kind of industry and space that we want this place to lead in. We are well placed to take advantage of it, and we already have work on it going on, with a world-class agri-food sector, a heritage of innovation that is core to the people here and innovation and technology companies. Excellent research is already being done throughout our universities; our airports and ports are well located; and, uniquely, for us, there is dual market access to the UK internal market and the EU single market. With the right framework, this can bring us another opportunity to turn waste and landfill gas into high-value jet fuel instead of into more methane emissions and could create skilled jobs in engineering, logistics and operations that are based here in the emerging industry. The independent analysis of the UK Government shows that a mature SAF and low-carbon fuel sector could supply thousands of jobs and billions of pounds to UK GVA by 2050. We have to make sure that we have more than our fair share of that and do not watch it happen elsewhere while we miss out. It fits directly with our Climate Change Act, green growth strategy and Alliance's long-standing belief that climate, energy security and economic growth go hand in hand. Finally, we have to be honest and highlight this point: we in Northern Ireland were forgotten about from the start. That is not acceptable — absolutely not acceptable — and needs to be put on the record. The UK Government's failure to properly follow protocol and notify the Executive on a devolved issue cannot be allowed to become a habit. From now on and as we move forward, cross-departmental working should be done, alongside work in the Economy Committee. I appreciate the Minister's work with the AERA Minister and the Justice Minister to bring the matter to the House today. We are where we are, but it has to be noted that that failure cannot become a habit. Alliance supports the LCM in order to provide green investment, jobs, skills and connectivity. We will always choose opportunity alongside climate responsibility.
495 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 (0.71).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.10 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.71 | 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 | 0.55 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.44 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:38 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.