David Honeyford
Lagan Valley · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“Ten years ago, the UK voted to leave the EU, and Northern Ireland was removed from the EU against its will. People will have voted for many reasons, but people were lied to.”
“Many families have spent the past decade worse off, and the loudest supporters of Brexit have punished them, while we have the likes of Farage appearing to be prospering personally. <BR /> <BR />Ten years on, the question is not whether Brexit was right or wrong, because the evidence is clear for everyone to see.”
“<BR /> <BR />The biggest cost of Brexit has been instability, which scares off investment. Since the Brexit referendum, the UK has had seven Prime Ministers, and we have had the Assembly collapse twice. Political uncertainty has become normal. However, when politics becomes unstable, ordinary people pay the price.”
“We need to see more happening, because east-west collaboration is already happening. We need more collaboration to grow our economy further, but talk is cheap. People say such lines on the news but then come to the Chamber and vote against collaboration.”
“Two and a half years into the term of this Executive, much of that remains missing. The same applies to waste water infrastructure and planning reform, with delays continuing to block growth and investment. We should do much more to collaborate North/South, as we do east-west, to improve people's lives.”
“The Executive are failing to provide certainty and follow-up on their commitments. My colleague Andrew Muir having had his green growth strategy blocked for over a year is just one example.”
The complete record
Every one of 868 lines we hold for David Honeyford, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 18.
“We have a community of world-class engineers and expertise, and we have an opportunity to create hundreds and thousands of skilled jobs in clean energy, retrofitting, biomethane and hydrogen. Our North-South interconnector, energy storage and renewable projects can all deliver not only environmental benefits but real economic growth, reducing people's costs. Crucially, we have an entrepreneurial business community to deliver that. It just needs the support, direction and will of the House to give it confidence that we are serious. <BR /> <BR />My message today is one not of blame but of urgency to seize the opportunities that are in front of us. Now is the time for us to close the gap, build public trust and deliver an energy system that is secure, affordable and sustainable for every household in Northern Ireland.”
“Every family in Northern Ireland has felt the shock of rising energy costs. Every family continues to pay the cost of that every month. Since 2022, bills have more than doubled, and the long-term answer is cheaper, cleaner, home-grown energy that we can control and that protects us from volatile global energy markets. Energy security, affordability and climate targets go hand in hand. I continue to call for that master development plan to sit alongside the overarching councils' local development plans, giving direction that will stop people literally paying the price for this. <BR /> <BR />However, there are positives, and we should build on them. We have the potential to lead on the issue.”
“Today's Audit Office report on energy strategy is a timely wake-up call for us all and sets it out in stark terms that, while the ambition is really strong, we are failing to deliver. Today's report highlights what I have been calling for and what Alliance has been consistently raising, which is that progress towards the 2030 target remains far too slow and we need to use it as a stepping stone to the wider 2050 targets. Our goal is to reach 80% renewable electricity by 2030 and, importantly, to reduce overall energy use by 25%, yet there is no clear line of sight between those targets and the action that has been taken to achieve them. <BR /> <BR />Anyone wanting to remove the targets, give up or peddle a right-wing Trump/Farage anti-net-zero narrative should remember that this is about people's lives and livelihoods here.”
“To say that we ignored the experts is some stretch, to be absolutely frank. We have just had a weekend of rain, yet there is complete denial that the climate is changing. What I said is absolutely correct: when it comes to climate, energy and net zero in here, there are not many lights on. We need to stop causing division and uncertainty and using any excuse —”
“<BR /> <BR />It is really disappointing but not entirely surprising that a misinformed amendment has been tabled. I am surprised, however, that Phillip was the person from the DUP to deliver it, because we work really well together on this. I am not shocked that the DUP is burying its head in the sand, is allergic to change and cannot see the effects of climate change that are around it. You can see from the amendment and from what has been said here that, when it comes to climate and energy, in the DUP there are not too many lights on. Alliance cannot support the amendment, because we fully believe that Northern Ireland's future energy system must be clean, secure and planned.”
“The system has been designed to ensure that, when we are connected across the island, we will need only one power station to function at a time in Northern Ireland. That needs to happen. I ask the Minister for the Economy to commit unreservedly to delivering the interconnector as planned. <BR /> <BR />The North/South interconnector is essential to allow us to bring in more wind and solar power and all the other renewables without curtailing generation. Connection to Scotland is also important, as are the connections between Dublin and Wales and between the South and France. We need all of it. Yes, we want energy security, but let us be really clear: that will be achieved through a master plan, interconnection and investments in renewables, not by scaremongering about net zero and clean energy.”
“Energy security depends on a strategic, whole-system approach rather than piecemeal decisions. <BR /> <BR />Critical to the delivery of all of that is the North/South interconnector. When we met the Utility Regulator, we were told that that is at the heart of the issue. Delivery is key to our overall system. The interconnector will finally give us that all-island system. We have an all-island market, but it is made up of two smaller systems that sit side by side and are not fully connected. The interconnector will change that. It will unite the two systems and allow electricity to flow between the North and the South, creating the all-island system that has been promised for so long and reducing costs for consumers. It will also remove the risk of a single point of failure by providing flexibility.”
“The Member spoke about net zero being the basis for the amendment. What is said in the first bit of the amendment about energy security is fair, and I said that at the start. The implication is in what is said in the next part. <BR /> <BR />We need to have security of energy supply here, but that needs a whole-system design. The issue that I have is that we are still too developer-led. We leave the power on renewables with developers and people who own power stations. We do not have an overall plan. I have raised that many times here. We need a master plan, led by the Department, that sets out how renewables, storage and interconnection fit together. We need a central approach that gives us a clear direction and a final design that we can work towards.”
“Alongside the cost, renewables are important in meeting those climate obligations. Achieving structural change in our energy production needs targets to aim for. We should not oppose goals or create doubt. Everyone needs targets to work towards.”
“Every household has seen its energy costs more than double in the past couple of years since the onset of the Ukraine war, when fossil fuel costs rose sharply.”
“I will just speak on energy security, the line taken by the DUP and what has been said in the Chamber. <BR /> <BR />The line on energy security is fair. We all want a reliable, resilient energy system. However, the amendment veers right off the road when it tries to insinuate that renewables are actually the cause of the risk. Recently, the issues were with Ballylumford and Coolkeeragh, not renewables. That view is, at best, misinformed. <BR /> <BR />Diversifying our sources of energy by hitting 80 by 30 renewable targets is not a risk to our energy security; it is the route to it. Clean, renewable energy that is homegrown and produced here gives us control over future security. It reduces costs for hard-working families in the long term.”
“I thank the Minister for her response. From her response, I am sure that she will agree that it is unacceptable that such an important service is facing uncertainty five months from now, given how vital business support schemes are to economic development. Can the Minister tell us about any work that the Department is doing to prepare for a scenario in which that business support ends in 2026?”
“Thank you, First Minister, for your response. Regardless of Brexit, our relationship with the rest of Europe has become more complex and difficult. As citizens and businesses, it is essential that we engage positively and productively with our European neighbours. Will you commit to advancing a strategy so that there is something concrete in place before end of the mandate?”
“I want to clarify that. You are saying that participants will run at either 100% or 50%. Is Treasury happy that somebody who runs at 60%, say, will get full payment — that they will get paid for heat that is not generated? Can I clarify that, once this moves forward, we will be able to access the funds for the rest of the renewables sector?”
“Legislate properly and openly, and let us finally bring that sorry chapter to an end in a way that commands the respect of everyone in the House.”
“We will not endorse a process that risks repeating the failures that caused the scandal in the first place. We cannot end one scandal yet create the conditions for the next one. I look forward to hearing the Minister answer the questions that have been raised and to having her reassure the House that the Department is in control and has the ability to deliver what it says that it will. <BR /> <BR />In moving forward, our constituents from across the region deserve to know that the lessons from the mistakes of RHI have been learnt and that a process is in place to make sure that they are never repeated. Our constituents also deserve a Department that does not live under a cloud because of the ghost of RHI by progressing a Bill that is simply a quiet extension of the scheme under a different name.”
“We are being asked to trust a Department that designed, oversaw and defended the original RHI scheme. Such trust must be earned, but it has not been. The Department has done little to change that opinion and given little reassurance that it is on top of this. <BR /> <BR />Alliance supports the principle of the scheme's closure, but it must be done in the right way. I am disappointed at how the Bill has been rushed, thus limiting Committee and Assembly time to debate it. Given that we had a similar debate a year ago, during which we were told that the Bill would be introduced in the new year, the measure should not be hidden behind departmental regulations and definitely should not come at the expense of fairness and transparency. We will not give the Department a blank cheque.”
“If that is the case, it will be a new low and another push against the trust that the Committee has built up, working together to deliver better for people.”
“Technically, officials answered correctly — it is still 2025 — but, by goodness, introducing the Bill at the end of October, almost a year later, is stretching the understanding of what was said. Stretching that understanding stretches the trust that we have in the Department, so I look for things that the Department is hiding. If the Department could have brought forward tariff adjustments or closure arrangements any time sooner, I am left wondering why it did not. Why did it take 18 months of behind-the-scenes work to consult with just three groups and arrive at a proposal that leaves many unanswered questions? That leaves me with a feeling that introduction may have been deliberately left to the last minute to try to bypass Committee Stage and force through the Bill regardless of anyone's opinion.”
“We have been told that closing the RHI scheme is urgent, yet we have had years in which to do so. If it is urgent today, it was urgent years ago. The Minister could have introduced the Bill at any time. Given that it is two and a half pages long, no Member will believe that it has not been drafted for some time. If it has been, why was it not introduced before now? We cannot wait until the process has almost timed out. The consultation was launched only at the end of last month and will close at the end of November, yet the Bill is before us today. This time last year, I asked a question about the Bill at Committee and was told that it would be introduced in the new year. Everybody in the room was pretty clear that "new year" meant January or February. Technically, nobody misled the Committee.”
“If you think that through, you realise that, if a boiler is checked next year, the owner can be pretty confident that it will not be checked again for the entire 10 years of the scheme. How will that work in practice? Why should we believe that the control this time will be different from the first scheme's control, which failed so comprehensively? Moreover, we have seen no evidence that the Department has resourced the necessary inspection regime to ensure that the boilers are still in genuine use or that the heat generated is being used for the purpose for which the boilers were installed. Previously, the headline was "Cash for ash": we must be absolutely confident that we do not see a repeat of that. <BR /> <BR />Today is 20 October. Why is this being done now?”
“I hope that the Minister will give us a clear answer to that. Surely there are now digital solutions, as Phillip mentioned — simple solutions that can easily monitor usage in real time and would cost less than creating a new inspection regime to make visits. The entire RHI scandal was caused by a lack of proper monitoring and oversight. If we remove even the few checks that remain, how can we be confident that the fraud will not creep back in? We have been told that there will be a new fraud policy, so I would like the Department to spell out clearly what that will look like. <BR /> <BR />At the Committee a while back, we heard that every boiler will be visited once over the next 10 years.”
“Those who invested in good faith deserve fairness, not a fudge, but fairness cannot mean overpaying for boilers that are not running to the percentage for which payment is being made or are not even running. The Department cannot claim that lessons have been learned if the new model still rewards inefficiency and penalises integrity. The rate has obviously been too low for some time: is backdating payments to pay for heat that has not been generated the way to go? <BR /> <BR />When it comes to oversight, fraud and inspection, the Department says that it will remove the need for quarterly meter readings and will rely instead on an annual declaration and occasional inspections. Given the advancement of technology since the RHI scheme came in, why are we moving backwards? Why did the Department go for fewer checks?”
“I hope that the Minister will give a reassurance that the environmental benefits that come from the scheme will not be lost; that we will not have another decade of delay dressed up as delivery, which we cannot afford; and that the Bill will ensure fairness for all those who participated in good faith but will not allow others to take advantage. <BR /> <BR />The proposed payment model also raises plenty of questions. Paying for heat that is not generated is not reform; it is repetition of previous mistakes. If I produce 51% output but get 100% payment, or if I produce 6% output but get 50% payment, how does that deliver value for money to the public purse? That is not policy; it is paying for inactivity. How can the public have faith in a system that rewards outputs that do not exist?”
“Can she confirm that it will enable the Assembly to, at last, access central funding for other renewable schemes that has been denied to us over the past years? It is critical that we hear the answers to those questions and that we can actually move forward. <BR /> <BR />We need to a clear explanation of how the Bill delivers value for money and how it delivers on our climate objectives. Confidence in renewables starts with confidence in governance. Frankly, we cannot build tomorrow's energy on yesterday's mistakes.”
“We are told that the level of payment at that time was fair, but why, then, has the number of users halved since then? How can the data from nearly a decade ago accurately reflect the current usage, the current technology or our environmental targets? If the Department truly intends to close the scheme, why does it propose that it will continue payments for another 10 years, running out the original 20-year term from 2012? Surely, that is an extension of RHI rather than an end to it. That does not sound like closure; it sounds like running down the clock on a flawed system. <BR /> <BR />Can the Minister confirm absolutely, today, that the Treasury has signed off on the plan and that it agrees with the regulations that are to come and with the approach that the Department has taken?”
“Effectively, we are being asked to sign a blank cheque to the Department that originally delivered the RHI scheme and to trust that, this time, the detail will be right. That is not good enough for me, and it is certainly not good enough for those who expect us to have learnt lessons. We need a Bill that brings confidence that bringing this to a close enables learning and allows us to move forward with confidence, free from the shackles of RHI. <BR /> <BR />On the subject of the proposed regulations and fairness, the Department's consultation proposes that payments will be based on the figures for historical generation, from 2017-19. There is a question over why those years were chosen. The Minister addressed that today, and we were also given an explanation at Committee.”
“It now passes to us all — it is our collective responsibility — to bring RHI and this chapter to an end and to do so in an orderly, transparent and fair way. This should have been sorted out years ago. The fact that we are talking about it today illustrates the failure of successive Economy Ministers, alongside stop-start government, to bring this to an end and deal with it. That is a disgrace. This action has been forced by Ofgem: the timeline is being controlled by Ofgem, not by the Minister or the Department. The Ofgem deadline has created the circumstances that have brought us here today. <BR /> <BR />I will tease out my core concerns. The Bill is short. It grants the Department the power to make regulations, without any of us or the public being able to scrutinise those regulations in their final form.”
“<BR /> <BR />I sit on the Public Accounts Committee, where, all the time, I can see, from various Departments, although most pointedly from the Department for the Economy, that RHI single-handedly further destroyed Civil Service confidence in taking any decisions, limiting creativity within the Departments and thus holding us back from entrepreneurship or creative ideas to tackle today's problems. By continuing to do the same thing over and over again, we continue to deliver the same outcomes. <BR /> <BR />We in the Chamber have to be honest: it was the DUP Minister of the day who oversaw and brought us RHI. The damage to politics in Northern Ireland that followed was a direct result of their political negligence.”
“That approach led to reckless decisions that cost our public finances dearly. More importantly, however, as is often emphasised, it shattered public confidence in the institutions and continues to cast a shadow over the Department. We see and hear that every time the Department comes before the Committee. It has massively delayed progress towards net zero targets and energy security. In dealing with renewable energy, it has caused there to be caution in moving towards any new scheme to secure the future energy of the island — they come at a snail's pace, although we need them in place yesterday — whether utilising wind, solar, biogas or hydrogen.”
“It was a textbook example of greed enabled by government failure. That happened under the DUP's watch. They were, apparently, under the belief that, "Treasury will pick up the Bill, so what does it matter?", so here we are today.”
“I will be clear from the start: we in Alliance support the principle of completely closing down the RHI scheme and bringing that sorry chapter to an end. RHI has been an absolute disaster from the beginning. It effectively collapsed the Assembly, because it was conceived and implemented without oversight and managed with arrogance.”
“I want to ask the Member one simple question. Amendment No 1 talks about joining Ofgem. Do the Ulster Unionists seriously believe that we would be better served by going to the regulator in London, which looks at England, than having our own people look after us?”
“<BR /> <BR />This is not only about retrofitting existing homes but about designing for the future by building every social home to the required standards. On the Public Accounts Committee, we recently heard about the Strule campus in Omagh. We are building schools — we have not even started to build some of them — that already need to be retrofitted. That is bonkers. Tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money will be wasted because we allow things to proceed without their having that as its basis. My time is up, however.”
“The motion is to the Minister for Communities. That is the problem, and I raised it yesterday in the Chamber. Every issue that we deal with cuts across multiple Departments, and they all need to work together if we are to deliver any of this. That is a fundamental problem with the Assembly. We have one Minister in front of us, and I thank him for being here, but he is not in control of the energy side. A fundamental problem is that Committees cannot scrutinise all the issues. We have to listen to the science on where we are going, but we also have to look at the economic issues and be on the right side of them in order to deliver better and cheaper energy for everyone. We have constantly called for such reform, and that has to be the way forward if we are to allow change to happen and for issues to be scrutinised and delivered on.”
“I am expecting him to declare an interest. <BR /> <BR />The interconnector was not referenced at all. In fact, you have made it about having a Scottish one instead, when one would not be quicker than the other. This is about creating better for people. It is about delivering better stability and cheaper prices. Everywhere in Europe is connected, yet we seem to have a problem here. It is utterly ridiculous. <BR /> <BR />On the DUP amendment, I say that we cannot support moving away from the ambition contained in the climate targets. To move forward, turning back the clock is not the answer. We need to make up the time that has been lost, and the Department for the Economy needs to act with urgency in order to deliver on renewables.”
“I will come on to the amendment, because that is factually not true. How confidently you speak. Last week, you told us, very confidently, that it takes seven hours to go to Dublin to get an aeroplane. That is nonsense as well. This is not a battle between linking with GB and linking with the South. The Ulster Unionists have a tendency to do that in every debate. We need an interconnector to Scotland, and we also need an interconnector to the South. The key difference is that the interconnector to Scotland, as we were told by the experts, will not give us stability on our network. We will still need power stations. To have stability on our network, we need the North/South interconnector to be delivered. We need to have that connection not only to save money but to make us more resilient and to give capacity and stability to our network.”
“As we on the Economy Committee discussed with the Utility Regulator, the biggest single reason is the failure to deliver the North/South interconnector, which would connect the two markets. Every year, that delay costs every household in Northern Ireland around £100 in its bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />Only last week, as has been referenced, members of the Economy Committee met the Utility Regulator, which told us just how close Northern Ireland came to an energy blackout very similar to the one that hit Spain and Portugal. That should be a wake-up call for us all. At present, we are dangerously reliant on two out of three of our power stations operating at any one time to keep the lights on. When faults occur, as they have recently, a commercially owned generator can effectively hold the public and the system to ransom. That is not resilience, and it is not security. Why has that happened? One of the biggest issues was not referenced at all by Steve earlier, and I will come on to the Ulster Unionist Party's amendment in a second.”
“Energy security is one of the defining issues that we need to deal with. Families across Northern Ireland feel the cost of energy in their pockets every single day of the week. That is one the biggest pressures that households face, and it becomes even more acute in low-income households. As an Assembly, we have a responsibility to act to deliver lower costs in order to help hard-earned money stay where it belongs, which is in people's pockets, and to insulate our economy from global shocks. We have seen the price of electricity, gas and everything else, whether it comes from America, Russia or China, rise recently.”
“There is no shrine. There never was a shrine, and there never will be a shrine. Why can we not get on with opening the place up for everyone?”
“I believe completely in a shared future. I believe in a shared island economy. Providing opportunities for everyone is fundamental to what Alliance wants to see, but that has to work everywhere, not just in Belfast and Derry.”
“Investment is part of it, but I am talking about having an overall plan in which we see the A5 upgraded and all the other bits of major infrastructure that we need plotted. In the west, you cannot ask for health reform if you do not allow people to access hospitals quickly and simply via road or rail networks. That has to happen. Regional balance cannot be about winners and losers. It cannot be about Belfast versus Derry. Rather, it has to be about fairness for every community, from the largest city to the smallest village. We owe it to every young person, family and business to create an economy in which prosperity is genuinely shared.”
“Part of achieving regional balance is having the ability to move stuff to where business is looking to position itself. I have been calling for ages for a Northern Ireland-wide development plan — a master plan, if you like — to sit above councils' individual local development plans (LDPs). Such a plan would shape our economy, give us locations for energy and renewables sites and plot the major infrastructure that we need, such as the A5 and the implementation of the all-island rail review. Without such a plan, we cannot deliver regional balance. If we do not have the infrastructure, such as the A5 and rail networks, we cannot deliver it. Without the road network —.”
“It simply means Derry, not anywhere else. I absolutely agree that regional balance has to include Derry, but it also has to include everywhere else. <BR /> <BR />Lagan Valley is, wrongly in my view, included in the Minister's definition of the Belfast metropolitan area. Invest NI has zero land in my area to bring jobs to or for companies to expand, however. The DUP continues to block Maze/Long Kesh development, which leaves us with nothing, and with no way in which to bring new jobs to the area. We are located in the M1/A1 corridor, yet my constituents are left without any hope of jobs or opportunities being expanded locally. The M1 continues to be a car park into Belfast in the morning. I am being let down by Invest NI and by the Minister's definition.”
“Everything has to be considered if adult reoffending to be addressed, but our Committee structure is based on scrutinising one Minister's Department, with Committees powerless to scrutinise wider issues, which makes delivery slow and difficult to achieve. Looking at that is a major part of the reform that the Assembly needs to undertake. <BR /> <BR />We need to achieve regional balance in order to make sure that every community in every town and village across Northern Ireland sees the benefits of prosperity and economic growth. We must raise the value of the money in everyone's pocket, not just in the pockets of those in the wealthy suburbs of Belfast or in my constituency of Lagan Valley. I agree with the need to have regional balance, but, with all due respect, what I struggle with is what the SDLP often means by "regional balance".”
“I sit on the Public Accounts Committee. It does my head in, and I will keep raising this point, that, although there is barely an issue that we deal with that does not cut across multiple Departments to deliver on, we have only one Minister to scrutinise what we want taken forward. The Department of Health is probably the only Department in which issues are self-contained. Most issues are not, however. Skills cuts across the Department of Education and the Department for the Economy. Adult reoffending, at which the PAC looked recently, cuts across the Department for Communities and the Department of Education. Jobs and mental health are also factors involved.”
“That, however, has to mean much more than numbers on a map and be about more than a binary argument that pitches Belfast against Derry. For Alliance, regional balance must mean that every person, whether they live in Derry, Coleraine, Enniskillen, Omagh, Lisburn, Dromore, Newry or Belfast, has the same chance to succeed. As the proposer referenced, some of the most deprived areas are in the constituencies of North Belfast and West Belfast. For us, prosperity must be shared. The wealth gap between the rich and the poor must be reduced in order to bring about a shared society. All of that requires government to work together across Departments, not in silos. None of the issues that we are dealing with fits neatly into just one Department. <BR /> <BR />The motion calls on the Minister:”
“I thank the proposer of the motion, Sinéad McLaughlin. It is an important issue that we need to discuss honestly. Alliance believes that economic regional balance means that every person, no matter what their postcode, will have equal access to skills training, jobs and opportunities.”
“It is £2·5 billion. Can you give me a concrete example of where that IT system allows you to realign resources and take away back-office stuff and put more doctors, nurses, consultants and front-line staff in to address waiting lists and the needs of our constituents?”