Debate contribution: Petroleum Exploration and Licensing (Repeal) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .
- MLA
- Dr Caoimhe Archibald
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 27 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Petroleum Exploration and Licensing (Repeal) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5508150
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
The Petroleum Exploration and Licensing (Repeal) Bill has a very clear objective, which is to bring a permanent end to onshore oil and gas exploration and production in the North of Ireland. The House previously agreed to the direction that we are travelling in. Through the Climate Change Act 2022, we are legally committed to achieving net zero by 2050. The Bill simply ensures that our petroleum licensing framework is consistent with that commitment. For decades, the Department held powers under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1964 to license oil and gas exploration. Exploration took place, but, despite multiple licences being issued over many years, no commercially viable oil or gas was found. The last licence was relinquished in 2020. Since then, the context has changed significantly. Climate obligations have tightened, public expectations have shifted and the economic case for onshore petroleum in the region is not supported by the available evidence. In 2020, my Department began a full review of the existing licensing regime. Independent research was commissioned to assess the economic, social and environmental impacts. Its conclusions were clear: onshore petroleum exploration and extraction are unlikely to deliver significant economic benefits, would not enhance our energy security and would not reduce energy prices. Public views were equally clear. A full public consultation was carried out in 2024, and there was strong support for a moratorium followed by a legislative ban. Respondents pointed to our climate commitments and raised concerns about environmental and community impacts. There was also a strong and consistent message about priorities, which was that we should focus our efforts on renewables, not fossil fuel development. Taken together, the evidence, the consultation outcomes and our legal obligations point consistently in the same direction. That is why, in December 2024, the Executive agreed a clear policy position, which was to have a temporary moratorium followed by legislation to put a permanent ban in place. The Bill gives effect to that decision. It removes the Department's power to issue petroleum licences; it removes the right to search and bore for and get petroleum under the 1964 Act; and it closes the door on all forms of onshore oil and gas exploration and production, including fracking. The Bill is consistent with the Climate Change Act, the Executive's energy strategy and the evidence. Continuing to allow for petroleum licensing would create uncertainty for communities and send the wrong signal about the future direction of our energy system. The Bill removes that uncertainty and allows us to focus fully on building a clean, secure and sustainable energy future. I therefore commend the Bill to the Assembly.
445 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: 0.02 (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 (0.88).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.68 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.32 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:27 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.