Debate contribution: Net Zero Policies: Cost-benefit Analysis

Debate contribution by Miss Michelle McIlveen on 14 April 2026.

MLA

Miss Michelle McIlveen

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

14 April 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Net Zero Policies: Cost-benefit Analysis

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5482452

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to propose the motion, which speaks directly to the everyday concerns of constituents across Northern Ireland. It is about why a number of parties in the Chamber took the decision to hamstring functionality in the race to virtue-signal and still seem determined to limp on instead of addressing the problem. The DUP supports environmentally responsible policies and recognises the UK's long-term ambition to reduce emissions. We believe in a fair — not a fast — path to net zero. Fairness means ensuring that climate ambition does not come at the expense of working families, rural communities or the infrastructure that underpins our economy. It is abundantly clear that the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 has created precisely that imbalance. The legislation was a political compromise in response to an even more extreme proposal, and, while amendments secured by the DUP helped to protect agriculture and taxpayers, it ultimately embedded a net zero by 2050 target that we had consistently opposed. We did so not out of ideology but because independent scientific advice indicated that such a target for Northern Ireland was neither necessary nor deliverable. I very much welcome the UUP's recent Damascene conversion in recognising the folly of the net zero by 2050 target, but I note that it co-sponsored a Member's Bill that was intended to mandate a net zero by 2045 target. The consequences of the legislation have become painfully clear. The recent court ruling on the A5 western transport corridor laid bare the stark reality. Mr Justice McAlinden warned that, if the road is to be built while emissions targets are being met:

"Other infrastructure projects may have to go by the wayside and other sectors may have to be squeezed".

We should take a moment to think about that: a road designed to save lives and support economic growth is being jeopardised by targets that largely exist on paper. When climate policy begins to block life-saving infrastructure, it is time to ask whether we have lost sight of common sense. The implications do not end with the A5. The A4 Enniskillen bypass and other vital projects now hang in the balance. Communities in the west should not be told that their safety and prosperity are negotiable because of unworkable emissions targets. Climate ambition should not come at the cost of connectivity and safety. The motion highlights the statutory requirement to allocate a minimum of 10% of transport budgets to active travel. Investment in walking and cycling should be made where it is appropriate and beneficial, but imposing a rigid spending quota regardless of local need is simply poor governance.

Across Northern Ireland, our roads are deteriorating. Potholes are no longer an inconvenience but a hazard, and motorists are left to foot the bill for vehicle damage. When families are dodging potholes on their way to work, it is hard to justify the ring-fencing of funding for projects that do not address the most urgent needs. Flexibility, not inflexibility, should guide our investment decisions.

Central to the motion is the call for the withdrawal of the draft climate action plan 2023-27. The DUP engaged constructively with the consultation process, and our conclusion is clear: the draft plan is built on shaky foundations. It is estimated that it will cost over £1 billion between now and 2027, yet a significant number of the policies to reduce emissions across nine sectors are not quantified at all. Assessments of the likely impact on emissions of measures such as the sustainable agriculture programme (SAP), the shift policy for reducing vehicle emissions and changes to building regulations are lacking. In any other area of government, proposing billion-pound spending without clear evidence would be considered unacceptable. Why should climate policy be any different? Furthermore, the quantification report acknowledges that Departments use varying methodologies to estimate emissions reductions, with some relying on external scientific expertise and others conducting in-house analysis. That inconsistency raises serious questions about the reliability of the data underpinning the plan. If the numbers cannot be compared, how can they be trusted? There is a glaring absence of a level playing field. We have noted that to be the case, time and again, with policies coming from and approaches taken by the Department. While the agriculture sector faces extensive obligations, Northern Ireland Water, which is one of the region's largest landowners, is not associated with any specific policies or proposals. Farmers are being asked to shoulder the burden while other major sectors appear to escape scrutiny. That is neither fair nor sustainable. Agriculture is not just an economic sector but a way of life. It is vital to the nation's food security. The draft plan estimates that there will be a £70 million capital cost for measures affecting the sector, but it provides little clarity on who will bear the costs. Even more concerning are the assumptions that the proposals could lead to a reduction of 81,000 beef cattle and 25,000 dairy cattle by 2027. For many farming families, those are not abstract figures but representative of their livelihoods and the future of rural communities. Proposals such as methane-suppressing feed additives, alternative fertilisers and changes to livestock management may have merit, but they must be economically viable and evidence-based. A sustainable future for Northern Ireland cannot be built by making family farms unsustainable. Of the estimated £718 million of capital expenditure that underpins the draft climate action plan, almost 47% is allocated to transport. That is largely predicated on the rapid phasing out of petrol and diesel vehicles. A transition to cleaner transport is desirable, but it must be realistic. In other jurisdictions, it has been accepted that such a timescale is not realistic. In addition, electric vehicle infrastructure remains inadequate, particularly in rural areas. Encouraging a modal shift to public transport is the right thing to do, but measures associated with achieving that are largely unquantified. Setting overly ambitious targets without having the infrastructure to support them is not leadership but wishful thinking. The DUP believes that it was premature to advance the draft plan without first establishing the just transition commission and the just transition fund for agriculture, both of which are legislative commitments. A just transition cannot be an afterthought. Rather, it must be the foundation on which climate policy is built. We cannot ask people to make sacrifices without first providing them with the support to help them adapt. In the overarching financial, social and economic impact assessment, it is claimed that the draft plan will be financially neutral, but it is also acknowledged in that assessment that implementing the plan will require trade-offs that will potentially crowd out investments in other priorities. The A5 legal judgement provides a clear illustration of that risk. If left unamended, the Climate Change Act could require Departments to divert funding away from front-line services such as roads, schools and hospitals in order to meet emissions targets. When climate policy begins to compete with patient care or classroom provision, we should pause and reassess our approach. The current net zero target is unworkable for Northern Ireland. There needs to be transparent and evidence-based policymaking, and when I say "transparent", I also mean honest. By tasking:

"every Department and arm’s-length body with conducting a cost-benefit analysis of all net zero-related climate policies",

we can ensure that decisions are grounded in evidence and deliver genuine value for money. Good intentions alone do not make good policy; evidence and accountability do. The question for Members is straightforward: are they prepared to support transparency, or are they content to proceed on the basis of unquantified assumptions? Supporting the motion is not about abandoning environmental responsibility; it is about ensuring that climate action is fair, realistic and deliverable. The debate is not about choosing between the environment and the economy; it is about ensuring that we strike the right balance between environmental ambition and the practical needs of our people. The motion calls for a recognition that aspirational climate targets are impeding the delivery of essential infrastructure and public services, the withdrawal of the current draft climate action plan 2023-27 until its proposals are fully quantified and properly assessed and a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of all net zero-related climate policies across every Department and arm's-length body. It is a sensible, transparent and, importantly, honest approach to the issue. There needs to be demonstrable commitment to responsible governance, fiscal prudence and a truly fair transition that protects households, businesses and the agri-food sector while still enabling progress towards environmental sustainability. This is not a sixth-form debating club where our decisions do not mean anything; what we decide impacts on every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland. We need to restore common sense to government. Climate ambition should not come at the expense of economic stability, public safety and the well-being of the people whom we are elected to serve.

1,487 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:18 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