Debate contribution: The draft Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024
Debate contribution by Mr David Honeyford on .
- MLA
- Mr David Honeyford
- Party at the time
- Alliance 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 4604109
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was about to say that this place works best when we all work together. Moving on, it is important to put everything out there and work our way through the process. I raised my concerns again in the Economy Committee last week, on 16 October. We are being asked to make a decision but not being given the details to do that. Since Wednesday, I and other Alliance colleagues have had further meetings with officials from the Department for the Economy to further draw out answers to our questions. In recent weeks, we have also discussed with and listened to representatives of the Renewable Heat Association for Northern Ireland and the Ulster Farmers' Union. Further to that meeting with officials, I wrote to the Minister for further clarification and understanding. I thank the Minister for his response, which I received on Friday, and its explanation in respect of some of our questions. However, the process to get information and answers should not be so difficult. The answers should be made readily available at the Committee. The answers that officials give back to us as evidence should be consistent. I welcome the Minister's clarification on tariff tiering, compatibility with the scheme's legislative basis and state aid approval. However, I do not understand why that information was not clearly communicated when officials were in front of the Economy Committee. It is essential that, in any new scheme or anything that we do in this field, we give confidence to investors that the Assembly will not leave people stuck or cut loose. The credibility of any future renewables scheme is absolutely critical, and, ultimately, that is what we are discussing. It goes much wider than just this rate: it is about the credibility of everything moving forward. We must look forward and provide the necessary basis for delivery of any new scheme. We must also look after those who have been badly treated and under-compensated for several years. The basis for moving forward must be recommendations that have previously been made. In a recent legal appeal judgement, Madam Justice Keegan said that there needed to be "a consensual solution" where the Department would meet and discuss with owners. Unfortunately, that has not happened. The public consultation has been withheld from us. How can we, or the public, have confidence about proper scrutiny when details are being withheld? I urge the Minister to make all that evidence available. The principle of closure is clear, as I have stated already. Alliance's position is clear: we want to see the scheme closed down in an orderly fashion. It is unfortunate that we are debating an uplift that, in principle, is what the boiler owners need.
I, and the Alliance Party, ask the Minister to create space and time to allow full confidence to be brought to the issue and to provide us with all the evidence that we need to make a decision. I also ask that the Department engage with representatives and participants to work through a solution so that the full information can be brought forward and we can have full scrutiny and have confidence in what we are voting on. I ask the Minister to do that as soon as possible. Until that happens, I cannot support the motion.
552 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: 0.03 (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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.95 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.