Debate contribution: Net Zero Policies: Cost-benefit Analysis
Debate contribution by Mr David Honeyford on .
- MLA
- Mr David Honeyford
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 14 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Net Zero Policies: Cost-benefit Analysis
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5482612
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I want to talk about the cost-of-living crisis that the motion refers to, and I want to talk about the evidence and the facts that have been spoken about and that we long to hear. People outside the Building are feeling its effects every day when they are heating their home, putting fuel in their car or filling up their supermarket trolley. That is all being driven by one thing: our dependence on fossil fuels — oil and gas — yet the DUP wants to distract. Yes, I want to be honest today and have a conversation about what is actually driving those costs and those spikes. Stop gaslighting people with DUP distraction. It is not climate policy that is costing people; it is a war. It is the DUP's delusional friend Trump. The war in Iran has caused the spike in prices. Everybody outside the Building knows why prices —
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is directly relevant to the cost-of-living crisis. I am speaking to the motion, which mentions the cost of living, so I am sorry; you will not stop me talking about the reasons why —
— I will not, OK?
I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The motion mentions the cost of living. I am talking directly about the cost of living. People outside the Building are feeling it every day of the week, whether they are heating their home, paying for their electricity or putting fuel in their car. Please do not tell me that this is not about the cost-of-living crisis that is happening directly because of the war in the Middle East, and I will not be told not to speak on that issue. I am sorry. I will not; I will continue. This is about the DUP's delusional friend Trump's decisions to allow that war to go on.
Do you want a hand signal?
Sorry, but I am elected by the people of Lagan Valley to speak for them.
I will not be told what I can and cannot say in the Chamber about what they pay for their fuel and the price that they pay for goods. I will talk on this motion. I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker: I am here to speak for the people, not to be directed by a Speaker about what I can and cannot say in the Chamber.
393 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: 0.26 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.80).
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.14 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.42 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.26 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.38 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.26 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.80 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.19 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.93 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.03 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.