Debate contribution: Net Zero Policies: Cost-benefit Analysis
Debate contribution by Mrs Deborah Erskine on .
- MLA
- Mrs Deborah Erskine
- 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 5482645
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member clearly has not read the court judgement. We must ask ourselves a simple question: what is the point of setting targets if they prevent us from delivering the infrastructure on which our citizens depend? On 3 April, the AERA Minister responded to my question for written answer about whether his Department was undertaking a review of climate change legislation and our ability to meet the 2030 targets. The answer showed that the Minister is unwilling to move at all on that, citing that his focus:
"remains firmly on the delivery of our legislative commitments",
yet we know that there is an issue outside the Chamber about that. It is equally troubling that the current legal requirement for minimum spend on active travel is having an impact on getting the investment in our basic road maintenance and repairs. When carbon budgets focus on wasteful spending, I ask those who champion net zero targets to tell that to the driver who is navigating pothole-ridden roads and to my rural constituent who has no viable alternative to the car. I am clear about my position on this, but some in the Chamber are not, including the UUP, which says that one word in the motion would change the party's position, yet it did not table an amendment. I will give way on that, if a UUP Member is willing to provide an answer to what word would have allowed them to support the motion.
I have seen some of the motions that have come from the UUP in the Chamber, so I will not take lectures in that regard. We cannot ask our agriculture sector, which is already the backbone of our rural economy, to carry additional weight without clarity or fairness. We cannot continue to impose policies on households without fully understanding their financial consequences. That is why the call in my party's motion today is reasonable and necessary. We are asking the Minister to withdraw the current draft plan and understand the concerns. The DUP voted against the climate change legislation, with its net zero targets. We warned of the consequences in the Chamber. We are asking for something that should be the foundation of good governance: a robust, transparent cost-benefit analysis of every net zero-related policy in every Department and arm's-length body. If policy cannot demonstrate economic, environmental and social value, it should not proceed unchecked. We cannot allow legislation to undermine our public services, stall infrastructure or place disproportionate —
— burdens on those who are least able to bear them.
424 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: 0.07 (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 (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.95 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 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.