Debate contribution: RHI (Closure of the Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Kate Nicholl on .
- MLA
- Ms Kate Nicholl
- Party at the time
- Alliance 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 5188350
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Without rehearsing the arguments of the past number of years, it is really important to say at the outset that RHI has been an unmitigated disaster for Northern Ireland. It has been detrimental to our economy, to taxpayers and, ultimately, to faith in our politics and these institutions. It is a buzzword for failure, poor governance and collapse. The damage to public trust is perhaps one of the most enduring legacies of the RHI saga; it continues to plague our discussions around this Bill and the wider effort to close the scheme. It is right and proper that good-faith boiler owners have a fair settlement that ensures that they are not unduly punished for the failures of the scheme as a whole. However, a lot more clarity needs to be provided on the banded nature of the proposed payments. The Department calls the system "a common-sense approach", but, as several Members have set out, there are questions to be asked about the way in which the bands have been broken down. Under the proposed system, when an installation is operated for less than 50% but more than 5% of its historical heat output, the payment would be for 50% of the historical heat output. That means that someone using a boiler for 10% or even 6% of the time could be eligible for payments covering 50% of usage, as my colleague set out. When officials came to brief the Committee on the Bill, I said that my main concern with the process was to do with trust. We all agree that the RHI scheme needs to close, but we need to assure ourselves that there is sufficient trust in the system and the Department to deliver a rational, fair and efficient closure of the scheme. The Bill gives significant power to the Department without much clarity on what exactly it is going to do with that power. My colleague David Honeyford set that out in detail. Without the regulations in front of us, it is difficult to understand how the Department expects us to pass the Bill as it stands. I welcome the reassurance that the regulations will come to the Committee. It is on that basis that I am happy to support the Bill at this stage. We will need the Minister to provide the clarity that we need in the Committee and in the Chamber to give us confidence to move forward. Trust needs to be rebuilt to allow us to vote for this legislation. Although we support the passage of the Second Stage, there remain questions that must be answered at Committee Stage.
436 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.94 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 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.