Debate contribution: The draft Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024
Debate contribution by Mr Patsy McGlone on .
- MLA
- Mr Patsy McGlone
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 21 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- The draft Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4603662
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member very much indeed for giving way. I was on the Enterprise Committee when the RHI scheme was brought through, and I sat across the way for a good part of the inquiry. Members have talked about documents being inaccurate and misleading, consultations not being available to them, evidence being hidden, full details not being presented to them, and, as you have just mentioned, major inadequacies in what was presented to the Committee. Is this déjà vu, or Groundhog Day? Seriously, what has been learned? Very little, it appears.
92 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: 0.04 (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).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.33 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:25 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.