Debate contribution: Net Zero Policies: Cost-benefit Analysis

Debate contribution by Ms Aoife Finnegan on 14 April 2026.

MLA

Ms Aoife Finnegan

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

14 April 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Net Zero Policies: Cost-benefit Analysis

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5482568

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Not at this early stage. That same party's Minister introduced the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill. It hailed it as groundbreaking legislation and voted for it, but now, suddenly, we are told that climate targets are the problem. Which is it? Were the targets right then, or are they right now? The DUP cannot have it both ways. It cannot introduce and vote for legislation and then come into the Chamber and pretend that that legislation is the root cause of every challenge that we face. Let us talk about the so-called concern for farmers. Just a few weeks ago, the DUP opposed a Sinn Féin Bill to deliver payments to the most disadvantaged farmers in areas of natural constraint.

I will, yes.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for his intervention; I could not agree more. Today, what we are hearing is faux concern. Again, I ask the DUP this: which is it? I ask that because the motion smacks of the usual U-turns, gaslighting and total hypocrisy from a party that sheds its skin to suit the narrative of the day. That is not leadership. Rather, it is a U-turn, plain and simple. The public deserve better and deserve to be shown a bit of respect. Let us deal with what the motion is trying to do. It is trying to create the impression that climate action is somehow at odds with supporting people and that it is a burden rather than a benefit, but that simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Climate action, when done properly, is about making homes warmer, reducing energy bills and protecting communities from the very real impacts of climate change. It is not an abstract issue, as people's lives are already being affected. We have also heard the concern about the cost of living. Again, let us be honest with people: energy price rises were not because of climate action but because of global instability and war. Prices rose as a direct result of international invasions that were orchestrated by the US and Israel. Let us not forget that, a few weeks ago, Members opposite could not wait to jump into a selfie with Trump, yet today, they bring to the House a motion —.

Yes.

Today, the DUP brings to the House a motion that has the audacity to blame fuel costs on climate legislation. To repeat what my colleague said yesterday, you must think that people are stupid. I assure you that they are not. They see beyond the U-turns, the gaslighting and the inconsistencies. We need to cut through the narrative that is being pushed here today about farmers. Farmers are not the problem or the barrier to progress. They are central to the solution. They manage our land, produce our food, sustain rural communities and are the backbone of everyday life. What they need is support, investment and clarity about the future. What they do not need is to be used as a political shield in an argument that offers them no real answers. The motion talks about "conducting a cost-benefit analysis", but it looks at only one side of the equation. What about the cost of doing nothing? What about the cost of flooding, of extreme weather and of damage to homes, land and infrastructure? What about the cost of continued energy insecurity? Those are real costs, and people are already paying for them. We then have the call in the motion:

"to withdraw the current draft climate action plan".

What exactly would that achieve? Would doing that lower bills, provide certainty or support workers and farmers? No. All that it would do is create uncertainty and delay progress. It would send a message that we are stepping back instead of stepping up. Finally, on the A5, let us be clear: the delay is not just as a result of a current judicial review; it is because of a long-running crusade of objections. My party colleague Minister Liz Kimmins is focused on winning the appeal and moving forward positively. The reality is this: we do not have to choose between supporting people today and protecting our future. We do not have to choose between economic progress and climate responsibility. We can, and we must, do both. The motion offers no real answers. It shifts the blame, and it avoids responsibility. Let us be honest: it is not serious politics; it is blame shifting —

— from a party that does not want to own the consequences of its decisions.

756 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