Debate contribution: RHI (Closure of the Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Diana Armstrong on 20 October 2025.

MLA

Ms Diana Armstrong

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

20 October 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

RHI (Closure of the Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5188340

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I support those Members who have sought reassurances and expressed concerns about the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill. The UUP supports the scheme's closure in principle. I share the Chair of the Economy Committee's view that the Bill may prove contentious. Fellow members of the Committee have already outlined some of their worries and concerns. The messaging around the Bill needs to be clear and concise and give the assurances that the public seek. The public and many others will struggle to understand how the Bill can be presented as a scheme closure when the Department admits that payments will continue until 2036, and, in some cases, at an increased rate. If we extend payments for another decade, we will be not closing the scheme but rebranding it. The Bill looks more like a legacy payment scheme than a genuine closure scheme. The Assembly must be honest and transparent with the public, particularly when confidence remains at an all-time low following the legacy of RHI. My question to the Minister is therefore this: are we achieving financial savings, or is it just a case of rebranding and rebadging the scheme? Members will recall that the original RHI scheme collapsed because controls were too weak, oversight was inconsistent and accountability was blurred. Under the Department's current proposal, however, metering will end, quarterly readings will stop and some inspections will even be announced in advance. It feels as though we have not learnt lessons, because that risks setting us up for failure and potentially another scandal. Today, I seek assurance from the Minister that the Department will ensure that sufficient safeguards are in place to guarantee that boilers are genuinely in use, not sitting idle while payments continue. Others have referred to the payment tariffs. Such safeguards include unannounced inspections and independent verification of annual declarations. Good-faith participants should have no objections to that. The Department has said that it does not have the capacity to carry out meter readings, now that, from April 2026, Ofgem will step away, but that is not an acceptable reason for weakening safeguards. Rather, it is an argument for strengthening internal capacity. If, as I asked in Committee last week, we could measure heat output between 2017 and 2019, why can the same mechanism not continue to be used? The technology and the data exist. Without ongoing metering, independent verification and advance notice of inspections, the system risks reverting to the same complacency that led to previous failures. I await the Minister's comment on that. Clause 1(6)(a) allows the Department to alter the scheme "from time to time". That acts as a potential get-out clause, meaning that, after the Bill passes, the Department could continue to adjust payments or conditions without returning to the Assembly to seek a fresh mandate for doing so.

Officials insist that any changes will follow due process, but we have seen how due process can become a tick-box exercise rather than real accountability. If the Bill is to grant such broad regulatory powers, I request that the Minister show how it could also include statutory reporting requirements and Assembly oversight to match.

We cannot overestimate the reputational damage that ongoing RHI payments continue to inflict on public confidence in government in Northern Ireland. As other Members have said, the term "RHI" still provokes public anger and mistrust, and the Department should fully assess the reputational risk of maintaining payments under that name for another decade. It must be stressed that many boiler owners joined the scheme in good faith. Under the leadership of the then Minister, Michelle O'Neill, the Department of Agriculture organised 60 workshops up until the end of 2015 to explain the benefits of the scheme. Indeed, the scheme ensured tangible benefits by producing heating for poultry houses, which improved environmental conditions for chickens, reduced infection and improved performance. Many farming families who were encouraged to attend the workshops were innocent participants, and they are the same farming families who are constantly under the cosh today. We owe it to them to ensure fairness and transparency in bringing the sorry saga to a close. Therefore, I ask the Minister why the Department cannot reconstitute any legacy arrangements under a separate mechanism with a new governance model to help rebuild trust. Before the Assembly grants the Department new powers, we must be satisfied that the lessons of the RHI inquiry have been fully implemented. Were Sir Patrick Coghlin's recommendations fully considered when drafting the Bill? The public deserve assurance that the Department is not simply repeating history. The Department's documentation shows up to a fourfold increase in tariffs for small and medium biomass boilers; for example, a lower medium tier-1 tariff is rising from 2·2p per kilowatt-hour to 6·1p per kilowatt-hour. What justification exists for such significant increases, and how can the Minister assure the Assembly that it will not, once again, deliver excessive rates of return to participants? The target return is 12%, yet there is no clear evidence that it will be achieved consistently or that outliers will not benefit disproportionately. The total projected cost of closure payments up to 2036 is £213 million: £196 million in scheme payments and £17 million for administration. That mirrors the cost of simply keeping the scheme open, so where are the savings? A cost of £17 million for administration, including inspections, compliance and IT systems, is a significant amount for a Department that is still rebuilding public trust after the previous RHI scheme. I ask the Minister what measures will be in place to ensure that the compliance regime delivers value for money and operates independently of those who managed the original scheme. An important consideration is whether, on the basis of this RHI scheme, any future new renewable energy scheme will find difficulties in attracting participants and whether, should there not be enough uptake of such schemes, we will continue giving money back to Westminster. I urge the Department to seriously consider anaerobic digestion as part of the food and energy security debate. I would welcome the Minister's views on anaerobic digestion as a solution for agri by-products and renewable energy targets. The Ulster Unionist Party recognises the need to move on from RHI but will not support a process that simply rebrands it. There must be clear reporting obligations, independent auditing by the Northern Ireland Audit Office and a statutory duty of transparency that requires the Department to publish annual data on payments, inspections and administrative costs. Only then can we say that we have truly learned the lessons of RHI and begun to rebuild the public's confidence in how Northern Ireland manages its energy policy. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the principle of closure but will not support a process that reopens old wounds. The Bill must deliver closure in substance, not just in name. If the Assembly is to pass legislation in the shadow of RHI, that legislation must restore trust. That means openness, accountability and fiscal discipline, not another blank cheque for a Department to manage behind closed doors.

1,174 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification