Debate contribution: Petroleum Exploration and Licensing (Repeal) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 27 April 2026.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

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 5508196

Read the official Assembly record

Text

That would have been a more sensible way forward. If you have a problem with fracking, you should look at it solely. However, what we have today is a blanket ban, which will mean that, in future, if evidence is produced that we have a natural resource that we can utilise and would help to secure our energy future, this place took the decision in 2026 that it knew best. It could see into the future and did not want to utilise any of that because it would have meant setting aside our green ideology. The tentacles of this place come up now and again that it knows best. If it is anything to do with climate change, we can have nothing to do with it. That is why the blanket ban is coming in, because this place thinks that it knows better and is trying to ensure that nobody has the opportunity to do further exploration in the future. Go back to the 1964 Act. Why did we have those provisions? They were introduced to permit the Department to grant licences for the exploration and production of oil and gas. The Bill removes the legal ability for Northern Ireland even to consider developing our oil and gas resources. All we have to do is look around at what is happening in the world today. We have talked about the cost of living and debated what is happening in Iran. If we could play our part — if we were to discover such natural resources in Northern Ireland — why would this place move to a point at which that could not even be explored? We have that position in the North Sea. The British Government will not drill — they will not utilise that — but they are happy to go to Norway, which drills the oil from the North Sea, to get it and bring it to Northern Ireland. It just does not make sense.

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will respond briefly to Mr Buckley. As we have seen, it is a cert that using renewable energy will drive our energy costs up, because everybody in Northern Ireland will have to pay for the infrastructure. The purpose of the Bill is not to regulate, to control or to restrict but to abolish the opportunity for us to do further exploration. Why? Is it because of economics or evidence? We have already heard that there are gaps in the evidence. Not a bit of it. Paragraph 5 of the explanatory and financial memorandum makes it clear that the policy is driven by the need to align climate change commitments and the transition to net zero. My goodness, that is what it is: the ideology of constantly going after green targets and the foolish lunacy of net zero. Paragraph 6 plainly states that petroleum exploration is considered to be incompatible with those climate objectives — the same climate objectives set by this place. Those climate objectives mean that we cannot even build the A5, but that is what the Bill is founded on. It is based on flawed decisions taken in this place that have been found to stifle much-needed infrastructure safety upgrades. This Bill is not being advanced because the resources are not there or because they have been fully explored and found to be inadequate; it is being advanced because the Executive have decided, because of the green ideology, that those resources must never be developed. That is despite the fact that paragraph 5 of the memorandum admits that there would be economic benefit to Northern Ireland. Yes, it says that that would not be significant, but that is hardly grounds for bringing in what is before the House today and banning any further exploration of the possibilities. It may come as a surprise to some in the House, but it is not unknown for Departments to get things wrong. All that we have to do is look at the Department that is advancing the Bill today. What if the House had legislated in such a way as to make it impossible to change the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme? The Bill seeks not to regulate but to permanently shut the door on oil and gas exploration in Northern Ireland. There is not much thought in the Bill for the energy security of tomorrow. Paragraph 4 of the memorandum acknowledges the wider energy context that resulted in licences being introduced in the 1960s. Yes, the last licence was handed back in 2020, but who is to say that new discoveries will not be made in the future? The licences were introduced because, as paragraph 4 tells us:

"Petroleum licensing policy was driven by economic considerations such as wanting a secure ... local source of energy".

We will not get that —

— with wind or solar, because they change, whereas oil and gas are reliable; they can be depended on. I am happy to give way.

The Member has completely missed the point that I was making. What mess would we be in now if a law had come in that meant that RHI could not be changed? Yet today we are being asked to put through to the Committee a Bill that would mean that the door would be entirely shut and that fresh legislation would be required for such measures to come back in. Why on earth would someone looking at the world today think that we would want to remove the possibility of servicing and securing our energy market in Northern Ireland? At paragraph 7, the Department relies on consultation responses, noting that a large majority of people supported a ban. My goodness, public consultation is not a substitute for strategic responsibility. Leadership is not about simply counting responses and legislating accordingly, because of the views of organised and motivated green activists. What about the long-term consequences of the Bill? They are clear: the Bill will create a permanent legislative barrier to accessing resources that may lie beneath our feet. That is not to say that those resources are there; it is about leaving the door open so that, if we were to explore and find something, we could utilise it. The Bill firmly shuts that door, and fresh primary legislation would be required to reverse its consequences. We are witnessing something wider than petroleum policy. We are seeing the continued embedding of the climate-driven approach that we have taken to legislation here, whereby entire sectors are ruled out, regardless of our needs or of potential future opportunities. The Bill does not future-proof; it takes the green ideology that has already resulted in the A5 being torpedoed and other road infrastructure projects being put back. It builds on that lunacy —

— and shuts the door on an entire sector. That will put at risk, rather than positively impact on, future exploration in Northern Ireland. Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

1,161 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:28 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