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

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 20 October 2025.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

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 5188352

Read the official Assembly record

Text

When considering the closure of the RHI, one must remember that there were and are many legitimate participants who signed up to the scheme in good faith and with the correct motivations. Legitimate boiler owners have been left high and dry, including the owners of the 304 accredited systems in North Antrim. Instead of bringing clarity, the Bill raises more questions than it answers. Like many other Members, I am concerned that the Bill risks repeating the very mistakes that led to the RHI scandal in the first place. Recently, those flaws were spelt out in an article by someone who literally wrote a book on RHI: Sam McBride of the 'Belfast Telegraph'. We are being asked to pass a Bill that empowers the very same Department that helped to make that mess to make the regulations to close the scheme. Clause 1(7) gives the Department powers to determine how closure payments are calculated. We know that the tariffs are currently out for consultation. However, the Bill does not specify any methodology, leaving it entirely to the Department to decide whether payments are based on actual usage, estimates or some other approach. Ofgem's stepping away offers no excuses for us to step away from actual meter readings. Will the Minister confirm what safeguards will be included in the regulations to prevent overpayments or abuse? We have heard from the Chairman of the Committee that it will look at banding for payments. Why then do the regulations not require actual meter readings? From what I have heard today, payments will be based on guesses, as Sam McBride has warned. The Bill allows for periodic payments until the scheme is completely closed under clause 1(6)(a). Clause 1(7) gives the Minister erroneous discretion. Does that mean that participants could continue to receive large payments for years to come while the public are told that the scheme is closed? The Department's consultation suggests that closure payments may be based on historical output from 2017 to 2019. Will you confirm, Minister, the rationale for that period being chosen? It is not realistic when compared with the actual usage by the boiler owners today. Will participants be allowed to challenge those calculations, if they believe that the baseline is inaccurate? Then, there is the question of oversight and anti-fraud measures. Clause 1(8) and clause 1(9) allow the Department to enter into agreements and make administrative arrangements, but there is no requirement for meaningful inspections or enforcement. Will the Minister assure the House that she will not simply rely on the light-touch oversight that, history tells us, is woefully inadequate for the scheme? How many inspections will there be, and how will they verify that the boiler owners are using the boilers to produce heat rather than to generate profits from subsidies? Does the banding of payments not encourage boiler owners to do that? We also need to see the Bill giving retrospective effect to payments or obligations under clause 1(10). Will the Minister confirm that no regulation will penalise participants for actions taken in good faith under the existing scheme? Will there be explicit protections for those who acted responsibly? Finally, there is the question of fiscal control. The consultation and, indeed, the media coverage suggested a potential cost of £196 million, but the Bill gives no statutory cap. How can the Minister guarantee that public money will be spent efficiently and not rise further, given the Department's record on the scheme to date? Minister, I ask you for clarity on each of those points so that Members can be confident that the Bill delivers real closure and not another decade of mismanagement. Until that assurance is given, I will remain deeply concerned about the Bill and the regulations that it will enable.

627 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