Debate contribution: The draft Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024
Debate contribution by Mr Conor Murphy on .
- MLA
- Mr Conor Murphy
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 21 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- The draft Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4604123
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I thank Members for their contributions to today's debate and thank the Economy Committee for its engagement with officials. There seems to be a strong view in the House that the regulations should not go ahead, and so be it. The uplifted tariff was an attempt to give some recompense to people over the winter.
The proposition, which the Executive have agreed, is that we close the scheme in line with the New Decade, New Approach commitment and, as an interim step — not as part of the closure or the future of the scheme — attempt to increase the tariff for a number of the boiler operators over the winter. It appears, however, that that has not found favour with Members. That, of course, is the nature of the democracy that we live in, and that is fair enough.
I am a bit bemused by the DUP's position. This is your mess that I am trying to clean up. You had two or, I think, three Economy Ministers in the previous Executive, and you did not take any steps to bring the scheme to a close, yet now you are advising me on what needs to be done urgently to do that. We sat through the previous Executive, asking your Ministers to bring forward papers on RHI, but we never received any. We have the position now that I am trying to clean up that mess. It was the "Fill your boots" philosophy that has landed us in the mess: every issue with this has flowed from that initial decision of your party. Nonetheless, I will clean up the mess, and I will do so with the backing of the Executive and the Assembly in the time ahead. Backdated pay was mentioned by Sinéad McLaughlin. Given the fuel price volatility that is expected over a 20-year period, the intended internal rate of return will be higher in some years and lower in others. It is important to note that the Department did not seek any clawback of payments at times when it was necessary to reduce tariffs, and we are confident that the revised tariff uplift would provide participants with a fair return that could be in place for the coming winter. Questions were asked and a number of points were made about the level of information and the consultation. I am glad that at least some Members acknowledged that officials were with the Committee twice, that there was further engagement and that, at every stage, we endeavoured to provide information, including by my writing to people in recent days to give them the information that they were seeking. That is Members' entitlement, of course, and the particular entitlement of members of the Committee. Whether the information was clear enough or whether people fully understood it is one issue; the volume of information is another. There is an issue that has been misunderstood or, in some cases, wilfully misrepresented. The consultation exercise relates to the future of the scheme — its closure — not to the tariff uplift, which is a temporary measure in the move towards that. The consultation document would be brought forward. A summary of the consultation document was provided to people, and that document will form part of the eventual move to close the scheme. A detailed summary of the responses was provided. An overview was also provided of the tariff calculation methodology, including information on the change to the main variable, which is the fuel price differential. Detail was also provided on the Great Britain tariff by way of a link to the GB tariffs, which are in the public domain. There is no single GB tariff: they range from 11·13p to 3·3p. The uplift that we proposed was higher than that. There has been an attempt to provide people with information. If they still feel that they have insufficient information, that is unfortunate. On timing, a number of Members have said, "Bring this back urgently" and, "Come back, and let us see what we can do with this". Tomorrow is the last sitting day before 1 November, and another paper will not be brought back before tomorrow. There will therefore be no tariff uplift over the winter. Those who decide, for whatever reason, to vote against the measure, while complaining about the hardship that people face, are effectively deciding to give people no tariff uplift over the winter; that is the upshot of today's vote. If that is what people choose to do, they should do so with their eyes wide open, and they should explain that to people who anticipated an uplift in the tariff over the winter. There is no time to bring this back and fix it for this winter. The last point, made by Gerry Carroll, was about the loss in the intervening years as people have sat on their hands — others are coming forward now to try to clear up the mess — of what would have been available for environmentally sound schemes that would contribute to our carbon reduction targets. We cannot access that until we have brought the RHI debacle — the scheme that was put forward all those years ago — to a conclusion. In anticipation of this not going through today, I will ask officials to move to closure. We will develop propositions and sufficient information to go to the Committee and close the scheme. Today's proposition was an interim step to give an uplift to people over the winter, but it seems that that is not going to be possible. Those who vote against the regulations should understand that it will not be possible to pay anyone that increase. We will move with all haste towards closure and ensure that the Committee is served with whatever information it feels it requires and that we get to a space where the Assembly can ratify the decision in principle taken by the Executive.
996 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.10 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.82).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.18 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.82 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.62 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.32 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.04 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.