Debate contribution: Energy Security: Renewables
Debate contribution by Ms Sian Mulholland on .
- MLA
- Ms Sian Mulholland
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 24 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Energy Security: Renewables
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5463802
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I have been accused of many things in this place, but pushing a "chimneyless" agenda is a new one. I thank my Alliance colleagues for bringing the motion to the House. It is an important issue at the best of times but, with the rise in global instability at the minute, it is more urgent than ever. I will focus a wee bit on the fuel poverty aspect and what is happening in homes across Northern Ireland. Households were already struggling. We already had a really high level of fuel poverty. Families were being pushed much deeper into poverty than they had ever been before. For many, that pressure is longer-lasting and hitting harder. We know that that is being felt more acutely in rural constituencies such as my own, where oil prices are among the highest. In fact, the Consumer Council said this week that the Causeway Coast and Glens area had the highest oil price in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland remains heavily reliant on heating oil, especially in rural areas. In parts of my constituency, there is a very low level of renewables or gas or alternatives to oil, and that is not something that we would be seen to be cheerleading or fighting for just because we are fighting for extra support. It leaves households directly exposed, as others have said, to global price shocks, and without protection. There is no price cap, no social tariff and no meaningful safety net in how that market operates. People are expected to pay up front. As spokesperson for poverty for my party, I hear daily that the people who are hit hardest are those who cannot afford to fill their tank. They get small amounts of oil more regularly, so they are feeling it more and more. They are being pushed into making those more expensive, smaller purchases, and that is the poverty premium in action. We see it in our most deprived areas. At the same time, rural housing is more likely to be older, less energy efficient and harder to heat. When prices rise, people and households are not only hit with paying more for fuel; they are hit twice because they need more of it just to stay warm. We know the consequences: cold, damp homes damage physical and mental health. We see the pressure that that places on our health service and in excess winter deaths. That is why we have been pushing the Communities Minister on the retrofitting programme for social housing and also to extend that and understand how retrofitting can alleviate some of that pressure. The key point is that the dependence on imported fossil fuels that drives energy insecurity is also what drives fuel poverty. That directly links to comments made earlier in the debate. As long as we remain exposed to those volatile global markets, households will have to pay the price. That is why greater renewable energy is not just a climate issue: for me, it is also a poverty issue. It is the clearest pathway to a more stable and socially just society. We need to see a strengthening of our grid: that is accepted. We need an improvement in our connectivity, including North/South and east-west infrastructure. That is essential, if we are serious about protecting our constituents.
Yes, absolutely.
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Absolutely; I agree with you, Kellie. I see it in my own town and right across North Antrim. I turn to the Sinn Féin amendment and the immediate support announced. I welcome the fact that £17 million has been allocated to Northern Ireland. We will support measures that ensure that the money reaches those who need it most. We have to be honest, though: it is not a huge pot of money when we look at what we face. If that funding is spread too thinly, it will make absolutely no difference whatsoever. It has to be targeted at those who are most at risk, so we are talking about low-income households, families with children, older people and those with disabilities. Those are the households that will feel this more keenly. That requires urgent and transparent delivery from the Department for Communities. Therefore, we want to hear what the Minister for Communities is able and prepared to do. Short-term support is not enough on its own. People are not asking for anything unreasonable. The crux of the motion is that we are asking to live in warm, safe homes, and the socially just way to do that is through renewable energy. If we move forward on energy and security, tackling fuel poverty comes along with that. No household should be colder because it is in a rural community or under more pressure because it does not have as much money in the bank to buy a larger quantity of a fossil fuel. I commend the motion to the House, and I thank my colleagues on the Economy Committee and the Infrastructure Committee and my colleague Kellie Armstrong on the Communities Committee. This issue goes right across all those Departments. It is not just a solo issue for the Economy Minister: I recognise that. If we all work together, we can find a way forward that is more socially just.
877 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 (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.49 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.40 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.07 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:16 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.