Debate contribution: Petroleum Exploration and Licensing (Repeal) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr David Honeyford on .
- MLA
- Mr David Honeyford
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 27 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Petroleum Exploration and Licensing (Repeal) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5508178
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Alliance fully supports the Bill, and I am glad to speak in favour of it. The debate is also an opportunity to highlight the fact that the Department needs to match the ambition of the legislation with the pace of transition to renewables as we go into the future. Repealing petroleum licensing is absolutely the right call, but, in practice, it has already been happening, and it simply brings the legislation up to date with the day-to-day. Removing fossil fuel exploration is one side of the issue of transition, but we urgently need to fill the other side of the space with clean, affordable and home-grown energy. The Bill removes the Department's statutory powers to issue licences for petroleum exploring or extraction, but, as has been said in the Chamber, we need to be honest about this. This is a tidying-up exercise, as licences were not being issued anyway, and it simply brings the legal framework up to date with what has been happening in practice. That is long overdue. Alliance has been calling consistently for that, and we welcome it. We have called for a ban on the licensing of drilling and extraction for years, and I am glad to finally debate the legislation to deliver it. I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill forward, but I hope that it is only the start of what we need to see. Tomorrow, we are debating another piece of legislation, again on transition. However, we are not seeing coming through to the Committee the ambition on energy policy from the Department. We need to see a master plan that takes a plan-led approach to all of the policy areas and gives communities confidence about what is happening in the area. For transition, we urgently need a firm legislative timetable for a renewable electricity price guarantee (REPG) scheme Bill. If the Minister can outline today a timetable for that and can give a categoric commitment on when that full option will be delivered, that would be really useful. We need to bring energy security in Northern Ireland and across this island, working together to deliver for everybody. More home-grown renewable energy means that families and businesses are less exposed to the shocks in global volatility that we have seen in recent weeks. Consumers do not see the difference. They only see their bill going up; they never seem to see it coming down. We do not need the backwards step of moving towards the GB energy market at a time when GB is moving towards Europe. We need to see a sustainable way to drop prices for people and get more renewable generation online quickly in Northern Ireland. We need that plan-led approach from the Department; we need the interconnector built with the South; and we need direct interconnection with Europe and the Celtic interconnector, which is coming online in the next year or so. We need to share on this island and work together in the long term for the people who live on it. Offshore planning needs brought together, and every delay costs households in their pockets. Ending petroleum licensing is the right economic call, but the economic dividend flows only if we accelerate the alternative. Closing one door is progress, but leaving the other door stuck is not good enough. Alliance supports the Bill unreservedly; it is long overdue. I am happy for the Bill to progress, but I want to make the point to the Department that closing the door to petroleum is only a fraction of the job. The work that matters to ordinary people outside the Building is what comes next.
There is a year left in the mandate, and people need to see delivery. We need legislation that improves their lives and that transitions us to using renewable energy. The legislative timetable is tight, but all parties have signed up to at least 80% electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2030 and to the 2050 targets. The same cross-party consensus can ensure that the REPG goes through at the same pace, unlocking investment and delivering energy security.
We have led on renewables before, and the potential is there for us to do so again. We need to get on with delivery and then see it through for people on the ground. I appreciate that it is in the Minister's inbox, but some sort of timetable would be helpful. I am happy to support the Bill's Second Stage.
743 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | 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 | 0.94 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.05 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.