RHI regulations to be laid before the Assembly on Monday…

Looks like its going to be a very busy day on Monday. As well as sorting out the bedroom tax, the Assembly’s business committee is meeting at 5.30 to hear a proposal to lay legislation to make changes in the regulation of the RHI scheme.

The Finance Minister has seen this proposed legislation and its business case a priori, so he should have some idea of his response. Julian O’Neill reports:

The BBC understands the plan involves a two-staged approach. First, it would reduce the tariffs paid to around 1,800 people who got into the scheme before November 2015.

This would require an Assembly vote to change the tariffs from the new financial year starting in April.

Secondly, there would be a public consultation on a longer-term solution. But there remains an acceptance within the Department for the Economy that any moves on tariffs could face a legal challenge.

Opposition MLAs have not yet seen the draft.

  • Jag

    The RHI scheme apparently allows the beneficiaries to be publicly identified, but Simon Hamilton is dragging his feet, much to the surprise of fellow politicians who have been clamouring for the names to be made public.

    Hamilton has also refused to provide a geographical breakdown of the beneficiaries (I don’t think there’ll be many surprises there!)

    The DUP plainly isn’t interested in addressing this scandal, about which they’ve known for several years, amidst credible allegations of sleaze and corruption (unconvincingly denied by the DUP). As for tearing up contracts, Hamilton is indeed in cloud cuckooland. Roll on #AE17.

  • J D

    One would think the speaker issue alone would derail any scheduled business.

    Or the executive turning into a pumpkin at 5pm on Monday when the 7 days for SF to renominate a dFM elapses.

    Starting to feel like the season three finale of Black Sails around here 🙂

  • Stephen Lewis

    Must be a lawyer on here – Is this really possible? Just change the terms of a contract unilaterally? Surely only one thran farmer would have to challenge it, probably win, and cost us £Xm in legal costs and still have the scheme. The vague ‘inappropriate’ clause can weed out the crooks, but everyone else seems to have signed a perfectly clear contract in ‘good faith’ – even without the chancers, this is still an huge overrun in costs and still one enormous cock up in their commercial/contracts division (and therefore departmental minister)

  • file

    Any further news on the fire in the fermanagh shed with eight of these boilers in it? And why are comments closed there, Mick? Scared of lawyers? Or of speculation that it was arson?


    Ruth D Edwards writing today informs us that Sinn Fein ignored the issue
    until the Spotlight programme..Just under 2000 benefited from the scheme.
    She tells us that there is evidence swirling around supporters both of the D.U.P. and Sinn Fein are cleaning up. If the election is called the electorate
    deserved to be told who the beneficiaries are..