Debate contribution: The draft Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- 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 4604115
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In the midst of all the scandal that swirled around the RHI scheme, it is easy to forget that there were many genuine farmers who applied to it on the basis of a guaranteed return for 20 years. Those folk were not out to make a quick buck or take advantage of the flaws in the scheme, for which they cannot be held responsible. There were applicants who took at face value what Stormont offered them: the promise of grandfathering and letters from the then Minister, now Baroness Foster, to banks that encouraged lending to applicants to the scheme. It was not the fault of the genuine applicants to the scheme that the GB scheme was amended to impose a cap on subsidy payments. Let us not forget that it was that flaw that allowed the serious abuse of the scheme, where the more heat you generated, the greater the subsidy you were paid.
Consequently, many farmers invested heavily on the back of the promise of a 12% per annum return. They then found that the Assembly, in its desire to wash its hands of RHI, had decided to reduce the tariffs to a level below that which was sustainable and below that which exists in Great Britain and the Republic, leaving many on the brink of financial ruin. Some of those people are my constituents, and they have not been treated fairly. Meanwhile, the Department was annually receiving money from the Treasury for the scheme, which it did not spend and returned each year. A five-month uplift does not resolve the disaster that was the RHI scheme. Rather, it compounds the problems and opens up another scandal around how any decision taken today by the Minister will impact on ordinary hard-working people. We hear much chat about a settlement figure. I trust that the Minister, in his response, will provide clarity on what my constituents want to know: what percentage payment will be given per boiler, what is that payment including the cost to install the infrastructure, and is that what the settlement figure contains? The Minister needs to be very clear. Is the settlement figure at the end of this a percentage per boiler, a percentage per boiler plus the cost to install the infrastructure or a percentage of the total cost to the applicant to install an RHI boiler on their premises? As we have heard today, the Committee is frustrated and has not been given all the requested information in a timely manner, which points me to the fact that Stormont and the Minister have not learned the lessons from RHI. While the proposal today will increase allowances in the interim, the important point is that it is another step towards the closure of the scheme. For that reason, I will oppose the proposal. It is time for the Finance Minister to come back to the House with a proposal that recognises the damage that Stormont's handling of the RHI scheme has done to the industry and to the mental health of many of the participants who took up the offer on the basis of what they were being sold by Stormont.
526 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).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| 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 | 0.72 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.25 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.