Debate contribution: RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill: Final Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Diana Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Diana Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 12 May 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill: Final Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5528296
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the Final Stage of the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill and thank the Minister and the Department for bringing us to this important stage in the process. It is important, however, to set out clearly how we arrived at this point and why the process is now the only credible path forward. The original non-domestic RHI scheme was introduced with the intention of stimulating renewable heat generation, but, as Members know and as we have heard in the Chamber, the design flaws were significant. The absence of tiered tariffs, the lack of cost controls and the failure to link payments to fuel efficiency created a perverse incentive structure. The result was a scheme that grew far beyond its budget and far beyond its policy intent. Let us not forget the impact that the scheme had on boiler owners who participated in good faith and were penalised and misaligned. To them, I say this: I trust that the effort that the Committee and its members have made to recognise the need for restitution for you is acceptable. The Economy Committee has had to intervene in an attempt to regulate the scheme. Tiered tariffs, banded thresholds and annual payment caps have been introduced to prevent further overspend. Cost control regulations, technical audits and revised accreditation rules have been implemented. Each measure has been necessary to stabilise a scheme that had become financially unsustainable and reputationally damaging. Even with those corrective steps, however, the scheme has never fully recovered public confidence. The reality is that, in its current form, the non-domestic RHI scheme cannot deliver the strategic outcomes that Northern Ireland needs. Accepting closure is not an admission of defeat; it is an acceptance of reality and an opportunity to move forward. Closure of the scheme opens the way for the development of the renewable energy price guarantee (REPG) scheme, which must be designed with proper scrutiny, robust modelling and transparent governance. If the Department for the Economy gets the REPG scheme right, it can provide the certainty that investors need, the stability that businesses require and the environmental outcomes that our climate commitments demand. However, a new scheme alone will not be enough. Northern Ireland urgently needs a credible renewable energy policy framework that matches the scale of global competition. Investors are already looking to jurisdictions with clear pathways for great capacity expansion, offshore wind deployment and long-term renewable integration. If we do not act quickly, those investors will go elsewhere. We need a grid capable of supporting large-scale renewable generation and a planning system aligned with our energy ambitions. We also need an offshore policy that signals to the market that Northern Ireland is serious about becoming a leader in, not a slow adopter of, clean energy. Closing the RHI scheme is a necessary step, but it must be the first step in a much larger journey. The REPG scheme, combined with urgent action on grid capacity and offshore wind, can finally position Northern Ireland as a competitive, modern and sustainable energy region. Let us ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated and that the opportunities of the future are not missed. I welcome the Final Stage of the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill and the chance to put the scheme behind us once and for all.
553 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 (0.92).
- 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 | 0.92 | 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 | 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 15:33 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.