Debate contribution: Energy Security: Renewables
Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 24 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Energy Security: Renewables
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5463851
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will reflect on the comments that have been made around the House. Kate Nicholl spoke of the need to be ambitious in setting targets. Phillip Brett outlined the need for our amendment.
He talked about the need to get on with grid connection policy and said that, if there is a possibility of reaching the targets, we need the east-west interconnector. I am quite new to the Economy Committee, and, when it comes to the dispatch down issue, I find it flabbergasting that there is such a drive for increased renewables, yet, when the energy is created, there is no capacity to fully take it and do something with it. We really need a proper policy in place. Phillip also outlined the need to be honest with the public about how the 2030 targets are not achievable, and he challenged the contradictions in the Alliance policies and positions on that. He also highlighted the Audit Office report on energy and how it has shown no impact from the legislation to date. He also highlighted the importance of continuing with fossil fuels alongside managing our way towards increased renewables.
Colm Gildernew was followed later by Cathy Mason with her bizarre criticism of the DUP Communities Minister, who moved at pace within hours of the announcement of £17 million by standing up his officials, unlike other Ministers, who took months to take action publicly on other measures. Diana Armstrong spoke about how renewables alone cannot meet the needs of Northern Ireland, especially not in the short term. She said that the statutory milestones are repeatedly missed, as are our targets, and that we need to be realistic about that. She also spoke about the need for the east-west interconnector. Mark Durkan and Pádraig Delargy spoke about Northern Ireland's specific vulnerability and susceptibility to price increases, how significant that is in rural areas and the real impact of that. Paul Frew highlighted issues around wind fuel. He said that, even if 100% was wind fuel, we would still need a power plant powered by fossil fuels to distribute it. Jonny Buckley highlighted the need for consumer choice. Sian Mulholland rightly highlighted fuel poverty and its real impact on many families across Northern Ireland. Declan Kearney talked about the need for a whole-of-government and whole-of-society response, which, I am sure, everyone agrees with. In her response, the Minister firmly committed to the statutory targets, and I welcome her support for moving forward with the east-west interconnector. She seemed to agree with the content of our amendment, as she talked about the need to manage where we are with fossil fuels while having a detailed and realistic plan to reduce our dependence on them as we move forward on renewables. She talked about strategic interventions and the significant investment in the grid of over £2 billion. She shared our concerns about dispatch down. To me, it feels like most people around the House have not disagreed with the content or themes of our amendment. We recognise that, as we move towards renewables, we will not click our fingers and achieve it overnight. I do not feel that anybody has disagreed with that in substance. We need to recognise the essential role that fossil fuels play here and how susceptible we are to sharp moves in the market. However, using renewables alone is not possible for us here, and we need to see honesty in our politics.
578 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: 0.05 (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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.10 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.03 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.96 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.