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

Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on 20 October 2025.

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 5188356

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I thank Members for their consideration of the Bill. Whilst the Bill does not make any changes to the scheme directly, it is an important step towards fulfilling the New Decade, New Approach commitment, which was endorsed by the current Executive, to close the scheme.

It provides the Department with the powers that will be needed to bring forward regulations under the draft affirmative process, setting out arrangements for closure. As I said in my opening speech, those arrangements remain under development. The public consultation is currently seeking views on the proposals to ensure that closure is implemented in a way that achieves fairness to participants and, more widely, to the taxpayer.

I will try to respond to the various points that Members made in the debate, and I will start with the Committee Chair. If I do not cover all your points, feel free to come in. Why not allow the scheme to continue as it currently is at the level that it currently is? The Member will be aware of previous court proceedings, where the judge indicated that the tariff needed to be amended. We have worked alongside industry experts to develop the proposed tariffs. Those have been modelled and described by departmental officials and Professor David Rooney to ensure that where we are proposing to go with the tariffs is the correct way forward. As for metering, if we continue to meter, we are not effectively closing the scheme: we are not giving certainty to what the payments will be on an annual basis. Certainty on what the payments will be annually is key to unlocking the AME. That brings me to another of the Committee Chair's points: why are we taking this approach? It is because we want to ensure that we finally deal with the RHI scheme in a way that is fair to participants and taxpayers and will also give us the ability to access AME funding that we are currently unable to access and to put it to good use. As for the regulations, I am happy to commit to the Committee Chair that, when we have those, we will share them with the Committee so that it has the opportunity to scrutinise them appropriately. Obviously, the Bill that we are debating today gives the Department the power to develop regulations, but those regulations are still subject to the scrutiny of both the Committee and this Chamber. There is an opportunity for the Chamber to do as it did last year and vote the regulations down because a draft affirmative process is in place for the regulations that are to be developed. How we will monitor the use of the meters has been described, both in the consultation and when the officials attended the Committee. There is an intention to have an inspection process in place. Those will be physical inspections, and the participants will be required to sign an annual declaration and provide information that confirms that the installations continue to be used for useful purposes. I think that I have dealt with the Committee Chair's questions, but if he wants to intervene, I am happy to take his intervention. Go ahead, Phillip.

Yes, I thank the Member for reminding me of that question. Mr Honeyford raised a similar question in relation to the AME. We have to have the RHI scheme closed and certainty on the way forward for it in order to engage with Treasury about the AME that will then be accessible. Treasury is aware that that is what we intend to do and is content to engage with us on using that AME for a purpose that is in line with the original intent of the scheme: renewable heat. The Department will bring forward proposals on how we will make use of that. Emma and Sinéad were both broadly supportive of the direction of travel, although I do note Sinéad's caveat in her comments. I know that Sinéad will scrutinise the legislation as it goes through Committee. I dealt with some of David's points in response to the Committee Chair on the question of why we are keeping the payments going.

Yes.

On what Treasury has agreed to so far, it is aware of what was proposed in the business case and is content with that. We will have to re-engage with Treasury about accessing the AME that will be freed up. Treasury knows that it is our intention to do so. I am sure that the Member and all other Members will know that, when you deal with Treasury, it wants to know what your exact proposals are before it will give you a commitment about whether or not you can access the funding. We need to be in a position to know what amount of funding will be utilised out of the existing AME. That is why it is important that we have certainty on what the annual payments will be. The process that we are setting out on "deemed" heat as the way of calculating the payments allows us to have that confirmation of what the required funding envelope will be. That gives us the ability to know what excess AME we will have to access to introduce an additional scheme in line with similar principles. The Member raised some questions around why, on the one hand, we were continuing to pay participants over a number of years but how, on the other hand, we can make sure that they are using the heat for useful purposes. If we did a one-off payment, there would be no ability to ensure that the heat is being generated for useful purposes — that the appropriate safeguards are in place. That is one of the reasons why we are taking the approach that we are taking — to have such an inspection regime in place; to have the declaration; and to have the requirement for records to be shared annually — to releasing the payment. We are trying to strike a balance where we give certainty about the funding that will be required to allow us access to the AME and where we are fair to both participants and taxpayers about what we are doing.

As I set out, Treasury has advised that it will need to review the detail of any future proposals to ensure that they are in line with the original policy intention, which, obviously, as I mentioned, was renewable heat. Heat pumps, for example, were part of the original RHI, so that will be consistent with the work that the Department is progressing and in line with the original policy intention. I imagine that a new support scheme will need to be consulted on. We hope to do that in 2026 and be in a position to spend in the 2026-27 financial year. Mr Honeyford also asked why we have introduced the Bill at this point. Obviously, we had to get Executive approval for our proposals. A lot of work has been done by officials and participants' representatives over the past number of months to get us to the position where we have a set of proposals that has the broad endorsement of those who will be in receipt of the payments. That was important work for us to do in order to get the Bill to this point. We then had to engage with the Executive on agreeing a way forward. Thankfully, Executive colleagues have endorsed a way forward. Once we have consulted on the regulations, we will return to the Executive to seek final approval. I will respond to Mr Gaston's comments, albeit some have already been dealt with in my responding to other Members'. He mentioned participants having the ability to appeal and asked whether there will be enforcement. The regulations will include both elements, and they are currently being consulted on. He also raised the issue of cost. The projected cost of £196 million is the maximum cost and is based on all participants taking up the offer of payments. That applies certainty to the amount that the proposed scheme is going to cost. As I said previously, it also gives us the certainty to be able to engage with Treasury about utilising the unused AME. I am grateful to all those who contributed —.

Go ahead.

I thank the Member for his intervention. As I said, tariffs to be paid to participants have been developed based on the period that was deemed to be most fair. The Member will be well aware of the trajectory of the cost of fuel post COVID and beyond. The 2017-19 period therefore represents what is considered to be the best period for fair usage. It is after the time at which the unfair tariffs that resulted in overpayments had been corrected, and it represents a time at which there was a fair price. That is why that period has been used to predict the way forward with payments. The payment that will be made will cover the production of heat, but maintenance and the cost of fuel will also be taken into account. As I said to other Members, there will be an inspection regime, a declaration and a requirement to provide information and records annually in order to ensure that the heat that is being generated is being used for useful purposes. I ask Members for their support to agree the Bill's Second Stage so that it can be referred to the Committee for the Economy for more detailed scrutiny. I am sure that officials will be happy to engage on the questions that Members posed throughout the debate. I assure the House that my Department will provide whatever support the Committee requires in order to complete the Bill's Committee Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.

1,643 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