Debate contribution: Utility Regulator (Support for Decarbonisation Preparation) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr David Honeyford on 28 April 2026.

MLA

Mr David Honeyford

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

28 April 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Utility Regulator (Support for Decarbonisation Preparation) Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5509774

Read the official Assembly record

Text

We have had two pieces of energy legislation in two days. I thank the Minister for bringing this forward. I rise to support the Bill at its Second Stage. Alliance supports its proceeding to Committee Stage. However, I will spend some time to make my remarks, because supporting the Bill moving to the next stage is not the same as endorsing the pace, ambition or vision that has brought us to this point. The Bill has two clauses. We have to be honest about what those are there to do. I will take my time, because energy is too important to have legislation on it rushed through the House. Europe, collectively, is actively recalibrating towards home-grown energy security. That provides green jobs, skills and opportunities. I met the Canadian high commissioner last week. Canada is in a similar place to us. We need to be, and should be, at the front and centre of the curve for energy security, which reduces costs for households, and not be held hostage to world oil prices. To achieve that, we need a plan that sets out a legislative pathway to delivery. I have talked many times in the House about the economy. It is our role to create the conditions and the platform — the pitch, if you like — for others to play on. We do not deliver any of this — it is the people in business who provide the outworking. We need to provide the platform and pitch for research and development, skills and opportunities to flourish and drive down costs for people and businesses. Look at what the Bill does. Clause 1(1) states that:

"The Utility Regulator may provide advice".

The word "may" is pretty ambiguous. Clause 1(2) states that:

"The Utility Regulator must, so far as reasonably practicable, comply with".

Again, I question that wording and what it means, in practice. That is it; that is the entire Bill. I draw the Assembly's attention to something that the Department acknowledged at the Committee back in November 2024. Some respondents argued that the Bill was not necessary and that article 12(5)(c) of the Energy (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 already provided the Utility Regulator with adequate cover to give advice to the Department on energy-related obligations in the Climate Change Act. The word "may", in clause 1(1), does not compel anyone to do anything: it does not direct; set targets; give the Utility Regulator any new enforcement powers; or update the regulator's statutory duties, which, as has been said, are decades old. We are, in essence, therefore, legislating for a conversation. Four years on from passing the Climate Change Act, we are legislating for a conversation.

Let us look at the timeline and put it on the record. In December 2021, the energy strategy was published. In June 2022, we had the Climate Change Act, which compelled every Department. I agree with Sinéad and Phillip: this is compelling only one Department. We then had two years of DUP collapse, so nothing happened. Take that as a gap. We returned in February 2024. In May 2024, the Executive agreed the draft Bill to go to public consultation, and that was completed in August 2024. In November 2024, officials briefed the Economy Committee and told us that the intention was to introduce the Bill before the summer recess in 2025. We need clarity on why we are here. It will be May 2026 later this week. Why did that not happen? I am not trying to score points; I am not interested in any of that. I genuinely want to push the transition faster. I am trying to get answers from the Department, because we do not get answers from the Department at Committee. What caused that additional delay? With a 2030 renewable electricity target bearing down on us — it is four years away — we cannot afford to waste time, and, from where I sit, that is exactly what has been happening. Recently, we have seen movement but not in the years before. When officials briefed the Committee in 2024, they were asked directly whether the Bill should go further. I will quote what was said:

"I would not like anyone to think that this Bill is the entirety of the request from the Utility Regulator, because it is not. There is a range of stuff coming forward."

"A range of stuff", in November 2024, was the assurance to the Committee. When pressed on what that range would look like, it was said that the "range of stuff" was:

"about how far down the road we get on that and how settled policies are".

We are almost 18 months later. I asked that same question last week in Committee. I asked what the next step was, and I am still waiting for an answer. There were words, but there was absolutely no answer about a timetable, a commitment or a plan. They talked about steps but could not tell us what the next step was. That needs to go on the record, because we do not get answers at Committee from the energy section of the Department. In 2024, I asked the Department directly whether there was a master plan for energy, and the answer was an outright no. We talked about this yesterday in the Chamber. We were told that we are working towards a midterm review of an energy strategy — not a plan but a review of a strategy that is already five years old. That was 18 months ago, and when we are four years — I stress: four years — from an 80% renewable electricity target, we need a plan on how to get there. There is a difference between a review and a decision; a strategy and a plan; a "range of stuff coming forward" and an actual legislative programme. We do not have those. I want to put that in context, because we deserve to have what other jurisdictions have. In GB, Ofgem was given statutory net zero duties under the Energy Act 2023. There is now an explicit legal obligation to support the Government in meeting their net zero targets. It delivers renewable energy schemes worth more than £10 billion a year and is actively involved in the National Energy System Operator. It is delivering a clean power plan. In the South, the Commission for Regulation of Utilities has a dedicated decarbonisation division. It has developed offshore grid policies, reviewed large energy user connections and actively aligned its regulatory framework with the climate action plan. Here, John French, our Utility Regulator, has publicly said that he does not have a statutory duty to support the Government in meeting their legal duties on net zero. The Bill will go some way towards that, but it does not come close to what other jurisdictions have. That is the gap. What does the Bill do to close that gap? Very little. It gives the Utility Regulator the permission to give advice if asked. That is the distance between where we are and where Ofgem and the CRU are. I really fear that we are missing out on huge potential and opportunity that will cost every household in their pocket every year into the future. The current framework was not designed for net zero. Even hydrogen does not fall within the definition of "gas" under the Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.The regulator cannot act on hydrogen because the law does not even recognise it. The regulator has identified specific areas where it needs proper legislative cover, but the Bill addresses none of them directly. It simply enables the regulator to talk to the Department about those things without legal risk. If we are to become energy secure on this island, we must move away from fossil fuels. That requires infrastructural investment, building grid capacity ahead of demand and a stop to reacting to things. It requires regulatory certainty so that businesses can plan. It requires consumer protection so that households can transition. It requires offshore development, interconnections, heat decarbonisation, new technologies and storage units all moving in parallel and all requiring legislative underpinning. It requires smart meters so that consumers can benefit from flexibility in pricing, rather than dispatch rates rising or staying steady with that waste of energy. Rural communities need assurance that areas of environmental sensitivity are given protection. However, we have no timeline, no visibility and no certainty on what is coming forward or whether it is coming forward at all. None of that can happen without a plan: not a strategy document or a mid-term review but an actual master plan with milestones, accountability and a legislative programme attached so that it tells investors, the regulator, the consumers and the Assembly what is coming and when in order to give confidence, certainty and function to what the energy Department delivers. Energy is at the heart of everything that the Assembly is trying to do. It is central to our economic competitiveness, our cost-of-living crisis and our climate obligations and to working together in sharing this island through the North/South interconnector, the single energy market and the shared ambition for offshore wind. Yet, when we look at the Department for the Economy and what it has delivered over the past decade, we see that it is unbelievably slow, which is really concerning. The Bills that were promised have not appeared. Timetables do not get met. When you ask the same questions two years later, you get the answers that you got two years ago. I do not say that to be difficult. I do not want to be difficult. I want to work for a transition, but I make the point that people whom we represent are paying the consequences for that drift. We are paying the price for being tied to fossil fuels and world oil and gas prices, literally every week. Yesterday, we heard from Members in the Chamber — they are not here at the minute — who champion Trump's ideology and challenge transition away from oil and gas. They challenge costs, yet they champion oil companies that are making billions of pounds of additional profit. Meanwhile, families here have to heat their homes and go to the BPs of this world to fill their cars, and we do not have a plan from the Department for the Economy to get us off fossil fuels and to make that transition. That is what I want to see. We need a delivery of energy transition, but there seems to be a complete lack of vision coming through from the Department and a culture in that energy section that needs to change. The Bill is not the programme that we need, but it is a step forward. I acknowledge that, and I support its going to the Committee Stage. However, the Utility Regulator needs real powers, not permission slips. We are running out of time in the mandate. We will work in the Committee to do whatever we can to make sure that the Bill is strengthened to be what the people here need. Energy and the transition is the defining challenge of this generation. We need to get on with delivering it.

1,871 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification