Debate contribution: RHI (Closure of the Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .
- MLA
- Dr Caoimhe Archibald
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 20 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- RHI (Closure of the Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5188309
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
I apologise in advance: I might have a coughing fit in the middle of my speech, as I am getting over a bad dose. On 22 September 2025, I provided the House with an update on the work towards the closure of the non-domestic renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme, in line with the New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) agreement and the Executive's agreement that the scheme should be closed. With your indulgence, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle,
I will speak briefly to that, as it sets the context for today's debate on the RHI (Closure of the Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill. My Department recently launched a public consultation on the closure arrangements. The consultation is seeking views on the proposed approach to closure of the scheme, which will be set out in regulations. With closure, Ofgem will no longer administer the scheme or take quarterly readings. Participants are, however, entitled to a closure payment. My Department completed a review of tariff levels and payments over the lifetime of the scheme. The period 2017 to 2019 represents the least distorted and fairest time frame of historical usage that is in line with the support scheme's policy intention. Payments are therefore to be based on that period. That model has been independently validated by Professor David Rooney. My officials have made themselves available to any Member who wants to go through the calculations in more detail. Once the methodology for closure payments is decided on, the next question is whether to provide a one-off payment or to stagger the payment until the end of each participant's original 20-year accreditation period. Staggering the payment has two benefits. First, it would allow us to use the unutilised annually managed expenditure (AME) sooner. Secondly, it would allow us to check that the boilers are still in use. I have therefore opted for staggered payments. My Department is working urgently to introduce a set of regulations ahead of the coming winter period to apply the same tariff rate that will be used to calculate the closure payments. The proposals are out for public consultation from 29 September to 24 November and best balance the three objectives of closing the scheme, of fairness for legitimate participants and of fairness for the taxpayer. Indeed, no party has put forward alternative proposals. The immediate matter at hand is the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill. The Bill is short and technical in nature and does not directly amend any aspect of the scheme. Rather, it will provide my Department with powers to make regulations that will formally close the scheme and establish a new framework for legacy payments. The Department's existing powers for the RHI scheme are set out in sections 113 and 114 of the Energy Act 2011. Section 113 enables the Department to establish:
"a scheme to facilitate and encourage renewable generation of heat".
The two sections do not, however, provide the Department with the powers to close the scheme. That is why the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill is needed. Without it, my Department is not in a position to deliver on the NDNA commitment or to implement the Executive's agreement to close the scheme. I therefore commend the Bill to the Assembly.
539 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: 0.02 (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 (0.82).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.82 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.63 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.35 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:31 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.