Phillip Brett
North Belfast · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Paula has been a diligent Chair who has championed the interests of victims and survivors. I personally thank her for her work on the Bill. I pay tribute to Committee members, who also dedicated their time to the Bill, and to our Committee staff.”
“At the outset, I pay tribute to the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone for her heartfelt and valuable contribution. As you rightly said, Mr Deputy Speaker, her family will be very proud of the contribution that she has just made. <BR /> <BR />Today marks a truly significant moment.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am therefore delighted to report to the House that a U-turn has been secured. This year, the Twelfth has been promoted through Discover Northern Ireland's social media channels.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill will establish a statutory public inquiry alongside a redress scheme, both of which are important. Their establishment recognises that there is a responsibility not only to uncover truth but to acknowledge the profound harm that was caused.”
“I warmly welcome the progress that has been achieved in the promotion of the Twelfth of July and our wider Orange and Ulster-Scots traditions by Tourism Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />Today's debate is not about rewriting history but about confronting history honestly. It is about recognising that vulnerable women and children were failed by institutions, by society and by the state.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,333 lines we hold for Phillip Brett, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 27.
“We have heard a lot of lofty words in the Chamber this afternoon about integrity, accountability and leadership, but let us be honest: that is not what the motion is about. It is about political opportunism but, more importantly, rank hypocrisy from parties who want to hold everyone else to a standard that they will not follow themselves. <BR /> <BR />Let us start with the party opposite. The Assembly unanimously passed a motion of censure against Ministers who, during the COVID pandemic, put a Provo show of strength ahead of a public health message. That party's Members then sign a motion of no confidence in our Minister and think that we will take lectures from them. The only Minister in the history of this state to be found guilty of religious discrimination against a Protestant was a former Sinn Féin Minister.”
“Minister, you might be aware that Chartered Accountants Ireland recently relaunched its campaign for the lowering of corporation tax in Northern Ireland. Have your discussions with the Treasury included the rate of corporation tax?”
“While others talk this country down, these Benches will always turn up, stand up and proudly fly the flag for Northern Ireland.”
“Since taking up her role as Minister for the Economy, she has failed even to meet the ADS Group, which is the very organisation representing our aerospace, defence and security sectors. Instead, she issued a politically charged written ministerial statement that overstepped her authority and risked damaging confidence in the sector. That will come as no surprise because the self-proclaimed "First Minister for all" described recent investment as "incredulous" and, indeed, was unavailable when the Bank of America came to Northern Ireland to announce thousands of new jobs. That is why this party has acted. I pay tribute to the Ulster Unionist Party and the Traditional Unionist Voice, which have ensured that we have secured the 30 signatures required to call in to the Executive the disgraceful decision by the Minister for the Economy.”
“Already employing around 10,000 people and worth over £2 billion to our economy, the sector is set to grow even further, with last week's news of defence contracts being awarded to Northern Ireland and a defence growth deal of £250 million. <BR /> <BR />Those industries are not just about national security; they are engines of economic opportunity. They provide long-term careers for our young people, attract inward investment and sustain local communities. This success is a clear demonstration once again of Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom, giving us access to a national defence programme, shared expertise and a scale of investment not seen anywhere else. Yet, while Invest Northern Ireland's report recognises the importance of the defence sector, the Economy Minister seems intent on undermining it.”
“Last week, the deputy First Minister and I were delighted to host the aerospace, defence and space council in Northern Ireland. It was a vital opportunity for us to showcase the industries that are at the very heart of Northern Ireland's economic strength and innovation. In every corner of Northern Ireland, world-leading companies are designing, manufacturing and maintaining the technology that keeps the United Kingdom and its allies safe. From advanced aircraft companies and cutting-edge defence systems to cybersecurity expertise, Northern Ireland's contribution to that vital sector is something that we should all be proud of.”
“Unlike you, Mr Carroll, I do not read from a prepared script. Just you sit there in the corner and be quiet. We heard enough from you over the weekend. <BR /> <BR />We wish the president-elect well, but she has a difficult task. I am sure that Members on all sides of the House will hold her accountable for her disgraceful support of a tyrannical regime.”
“Not that hypocrisy is something that anyone in the House would engage in, but, in 2018, the Irish president-elect visited Syria at the taxpayer's expense to see her friend Mr Assad. I am sure that People Before Profit's TDs in the Irish Republic will table a motion of no confidence in that office holder, but, given the fact that the people whom she visited were not Jewish, perhaps the views of People Before Profit will not stretch to doing so. We all know People Before Profit's views, because, when 1,200 people were murdered, the Member for West Belfast tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance" —”
“Unionists across Northern Ireland have seen that the so-called new Ireland means that Protestants should be neither seen nor heard and that the treatment of Heather Humphreys reflects how any unionist, Protestant or anyone in Northern Ireland who has any British way of life would be treated in a new Ireland.”
“The election of the Irish head of state is, of course, a matter for those people, but Members on these Benches and the vast majority of the unionist community will not miss Michael D Higgins as he leaves office. The former holder of the Irish presidential office brought that office into disrepute as he entered into unnecessary and unwanted political tirades. His antisemitism, which many in the House share, will be what he is remembered for. <BR /> <BR />This election will be remembered for these issues: how dare a Protestant run for the highest office in the land? How dare Heather Humphreys get above her station and try to be a Protestant woman who wanted to be the head of the Irish state? It was the same old story, and those in the House who continue to campaign to break up this United Kingdom may be sorry for what they have got.”
“Minister, given the clear judgement, will you articulate to the House when you will set out your future policy decisions on reasonable numbers so that we can ensure that there are no further erroneous, politically-motivated court cases, which waste taxpayers' money, to cover up for a terrible Bill that was passed by the Assembly, having been railroaded through by the Alliance Party?”
“Can the Minister say when a decision is likely to be taken, bearing in mind that he will take into consideration all the evidence that is produced before making a final decision?”
“It is a good day, because, once again, it exposes those in the House who have no concern for the genuine issues that HMOs cause across Northern Ireland. It is also a good day for my North Belfast constituency, parts of which are being destroyed by HMOs. Does the Minister agree that working-class communities, particularly those in inner-city areas, bear the brunt of the negative impacts of HMOs and that, had HMOs been erected in the more salubrious areas in which more people in the House seem to be interested, they would soon be knocking on his door about taking action?”
“I appreciate the Member giving way. Will he outline where in my amendment I say that renewables undermine energy security? Does he believe that we will reach those targets? Who is correct on that: me or him?”
“There can be no greater requirement on government than to ensure security of energy supply. Thankfully, the previous crisis, which could have engulfed Northern Ireland, was avoided, but it could be repeated or come back, should Kilroot power station win its court case against the Department of Agriculture. We need strong leadership from the First Minister and deputy First Minister to look again at the targets that have been set by the previous Assembly. It is clear that we will not reach the 2030 targets, and we need to stop kidding the public and ourselves that we will. <BR /> <BR />Today is an opportunity for the House to commit to energy security and supply and to ensure that the focus of the Executive is on providing basic services, not on trying to reach unreachable targets.”
“As I made clear in a debate in the House two weeks ago, the Members who were proposing our climate change targets could not even tell us the current rate of our renewable electricity targets, because they are more interested in climate change extremism than in the reality before us. <BR /> <BR />We need leadership on the issue, and that will not be found in the Minister for the Economy or the AERA Minister. It needs to be taken forward by the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Our amendment calls for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to prioritise above all else energy security and security of supply to the people of Northern Ireland. The duty of any Government is to protect their citizens and ensure the safety of those who live in Northern Ireland.”
“I was just about to go on to that point, Ms Dillon. We have a moral duty to tackle climate change, but that should not be at the expense of being hours away from my constituents — and yours, Ms Dillon — being in a power blackout. We heard the proposer of the motion speak about the importance of ensuring that our schools receive timely notifications. If our schools do not have electricity, they will not receive those notifications. If our hospitals do not receive the power that they need, a result of the storms, Ms Dillon, will be that people will be placed in huge and real danger. That is why the House needs to take serious action and look at the consequences of the energy figures that we are trying to meet.”
“Members across these Benches should have been informed by both the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department for the Economy that we were only hours away from a blackout in Northern Ireland. The reason why that situation was not articulated to Members was that it does not suit the narrative of the current climate change targets. <BR /> <BR />It is clear that the current climate change targets, which were set in place by the previous Assembly, are not achievable and are undermining our energy security of supply. We look forward with anticipation to the report that will be produced by the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) tomorrow in relation to our journey to net —.”
“That resulted in Kilroot power station approaching the point of running out of its permitted hours to provide electricity to Northern Ireland. We required two emergency Executive meetings and a written statement provided by the Minister for the Economy to address the issue. EP UK Investments (EPUKI), which owns the Kilroot power plant, is now involved in a court action against the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). <BR /> <BR />That is the first time that that situation has been outlined and articulated to the House, which is a shame. It took the work of my colleagues on the Economy Committee to interrogate the Department for the Economy and the Utility Regulator in order to find that out.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to propose the amendment in my name and that of my colleagues. I will give some context for why we tabled the amendment. It relates to the importance of ensuring energy security and security of supply. <BR /> <BR />Mr Deputy Speaker, from the way in which some Ministers handled the issue, you may not have known that, less than two to three weeks ago, Northern Ireland was just days away from a blackout. The context for that related to our three power plants. As you may be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, Ballylumford power station was damaged in the recent storm Éowyn and, as a result, has been offline. Coolkeeragh, one of our other power plants, has been down for maintenance.”
“Does the Minister believe that the current eight statutory categories of tourism accommodation are sufficient, or would she support expanding them to include new types of developments, such as glamping pods, which would further cover what Airbnb provides?”
“I appreciate the Minister's giving way and for articulating answers to some of the questions. I want to push on the timeline for the new scheme; let us call it that. Treasury will not engage until a new proposal is on the table, and officials will not fully work up a new proposal until there is certainty. Given that it is likely that the Bill will move into Committee Stage, that can now advance. Can the Minister outline to the House when she expects officials to have a concrete alternative proposal that we can scrutinise and then all get behind and back its going to Treasury for support?”
“Thank you, Minister, for covering those points. I know it is not within the scope of the Bill per se, but I have questions about the underutilised AME. First, can you confirm to the House what that figure is, currently; and, secondly, what work are your officials doing to advance a scheme that can draw down that funding? Obviously, if we are going to close the scheme, and this Bill can pass by March of next year, we need to have a new scheme ready to rock, so I would like to hear some views on that.”
“When officials were before the Committee just a few weeks ago, we were informed that no progress had been made on utilising the remainder of that funding. If the position is that that funding is in place to meet the targets set by the Assembly of 80% by 2030, surely the underutilised AME in this budget will be vital to that. <BR /> <BR />Tomorrow, the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) will pass its judgement on the Department's ability to implement its energy strategy. It is not for me to speculate on what may be in that report but, to date, the performance of the energy section in the Department for the Economy raises serious questions for the House. <BR /> <BR />I support the passage of the Bill to Committee Stage and look forward to the Minister's answers to the questions raised on behalf of the Committee.”
“From a personal point of view, it has been disappointing that it has taken until this time for the Bill to arrive on the Floor of the House. As I articulated on behalf of the Committee, we are now on a very tight timetable to have the Bill passed and the closure arrangements in place before Ofgem withdraws from the scheme on 31 March. Given last year's debacle, it is vital that the Department has engaged with those sectors to ensure that there is widespread support for the new arrangements. <BR /> <BR />In her opening remarks, the Minister said that she was committed to utilising the underutilised AME from the scheme. I am keen to know what work has been done by her officials to bring forward a new scheme.”
“The Committee will be keen to hear evidence from those participants. <BR /> <BR />The fifth and final question that the Committee raised during our initial deliberations was how we can be sure that, once the Bill has passed, the Department has the means to shut down the scheme and that there will be a fair and equitable settlement for those good-faith owners. The Committee has already sought and received some answers. If the Second Stage is passed, it will look at that in more detail. <BR /> <BR />I will now make some personal remarks. I welcome the fact that we now have a Bill before the House. The Committee and, indeed, the House were informed 18 months ago of Ofgem's decision to withdraw from the scheme.”
“In order to avoid that, I ask the Minister to undertake that, when regulations are developed, a meaningful draft is brought to the Committee as soon as possible. That will allow members some time to understand the challenge and the tariff suggested by the Department. <BR /> <BR />There are, of course, two sides to the non-domestic RHI story. On the one side is the UK taxpayer, who does not want to be on the hook for millions of pounds of unnecessary expenditure and those who entered the scheme in good faith. With that in mind, I ask the Minister how we can ensure, under the closure arrangements supported by the Bill, that heat will be generated for useful purposes only. I said that there are two sides, and we also want to ensure that we deliver a fair deal for those who entered the system correctly.”
“Some members indicated that it made no sense to award a 50% payment when the boiler may only have been used for 6% of the time and, indeed, to award a 100% payment when the boiler was in use for just 51% of historical levels. That appears to be a strange arrangement. The cost saving associated with not metering would surely be outweighed by the association of the loss of transparency. <BR /> <BR />The anticipated closure regulations will be subject to draft affirmative resolution, and, as you are aware, it was demonstrated this time last year that the Assembly has the ability to vote down the regulations. The consequences of such actions may be adverse for stakeholders, as was the case for good-faith boiler owners last year.”
“Is it the case that the new arrangements will require renewable energy boilers to be run while also allowing the release by Treasury of approximately £15 million per annum of support for other renewable energy schemes that is presently going unused? Secondly, if running the boilers is important, why abandon metering completely? Why not install RHI smart meters, as the Department will do in every household in Northern Ireland? Those meters could be monitored remotely and likely at low cost. Payments could be made on the basis of the heat that is actually generated, and the Department could do inspections to ensure compliance. Thirdly — to digress slightly — can the Minister explain the reason that underpins the banding of the payments?”
“Officials advised that the new tariffs will generate an internal rate of return of 12% over the 20 years of the scheme and thus are compliant with state aid requirements. <BR /> <BR />The Department assured the Committee that Treasury had agreed to the increase in costs for the scheme. Given the Executive's previous experience of misunderstandings with Treasury over what will and will not be paid for, it is perhaps not surprising that the Bill includes an all-purpose stop button for the RHI scheme. However, the Bill and the proposed regulations generate a lot of questions to which the Committee would like answers, and I hope that the Minister will provide some answers to those questions. First, why do this at all? Why not just continue as we are and let the contractual arrangements with RHI boiler owners run out in 10 years' time?”
“The Department advised that non-compliance may lead to suspension of payments, recovery of previous payments or exclusion from future payments. The cost of the staggered closure appears to be around £196 million in capital AME plus £17 million in resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) over the next 10 years. That means that the annual AME cost of the scheme has likely more than tripled from £5 million to £17 million per year. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was advised that the proposed regulations appear to have been designed following engagement with the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU), the Renewable Heat Association Northern Ireland (RHANI) and the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) and that they align with the cost models devised by Professor David Rooney at Queen's University Belfast.”
“If the boiler is used for less than 50% of its historical usage but more than 5%, the participant will still get a 50% payment equivalent. If the boiler is used for less than 5% of its historical usage, the participant is to get a de minimis payment equivalent to 5% of its historical use. <BR /> <BR />The Department will not take meter readings but will carry out inspections and request evidence of heat production, such as, for example, records of eligible fuel purchased. Inspections will check that installations remain in use, declarations are accurate and participants are complying with scheme regulations and guidance. Participants will be notified in advance if they are selected for inspection. Officials seem to have advised that there may be, on average, one or two inspections per installation in the remaining 10 years of the scheme.”
“The payments will be made annually in arrears, as articulated by the Minister, and will continue until 20 years after the original accreditation, provided that boiler installations continue to be utilised in line with the scheme regulations and subsequent guidance. As new applications to the scheme stopped in February 2016, all those payments will therefore end in 2036. <BR /> <BR />The closure regulations will require participants to make a declaration in respect of whether the boiler continues to be used in its historical mode. If that is the case, participants will receive 100% of their historical payments at the new tariffs. If the boiler is operated at just over 50% of the historical usage, participants will still get 100% of the payment.”
“I will deal briefly with the proposed closure regulations. They would make an annual payment to scheme participants based on records of average historical heat usage from 2017 to 2019. Those records are to be obtained from the energy heat output recorded by Ofgem during that period. The Department seems to have advised that that is in response to the tariff cut in 2019 and the COVID pandemic, which may have led to a distortion of or reduction in boiler usage by operators. The closure regulations will therefore no longer require participants to continue to record and submit quarterly meter readings. However, participants will still have to keep some records of their boiler use. The revised closure tariffs are a lot more generous than the current tariffs and will also be indexed annually to the consumer price index.”
“That will allow its members to gauge the feedback from that consultation before making up their minds on the Bill. I will save any further comments on that for now.”
“Although those regulations are not the subject of today's debate, they give an indication of the Department's intention for how the non-domestic scheme will close. If the Bill passes its Second Stage today, given the retrospective nature of the closure regulations, the Committee will seek an extension to the Committee Stage until the end of February 2026.”
“based on how non-domestic RHI boilers were used in the past. The regulations will be used to determine future closure payments to scheme participants. Such regulations will be subject to draft affirmative resolution, meaning that they will have to be debated and passed by the Assembly. All of that can happen as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. Further to that, the Department advises that regulations flowing from the Bill could be applied retrospectively from 1 April 2026 should the Bill's passage be delayed. The date is key, because, as the Minister outlined, Ofgem will withdraw its administrative support from the RHI scheme at that point. <BR /> <BR />While the Assembly is considering the Bill, the Department is consulting on the related closure regulations, as the Minister mentioned in her speech.”
“Those sums, as the Minister outlined, may be paid as a one-off sum, periodically or in installments. The Bill allows regulations to be made that may, subject to conditions, take into account:”
“I will first speak on behalf of the Committee and then make some remarks in a personal capacity. I anticipate that members of the Committee will set out their views on the principles of the Bill during the debate. As to the next steps, I will await the outcome of the vote in the House this afternoon. <BR /> <BR />The Bill allows the Department to make regulations "to close, partially or completely", the non-domestic RHI scheme, to prevent anyone else from joining the scheme and to restrict or cancel aspects of the scheme, so it is kind of an all-purpose stop button for the RHI scheme. That is to be achieved through regulation-making powers, including powers to make regulations to vary the sums payable by the Department to scheme participants until the scheme is completely closed.”
“We on these Benches will look very closely at how the Ulster Boxing Council responds and will ensure that our Minister makes comments in the coming days that ensure that Protestants have the same rights as anyone else.”
“It will mean that Protestant voices are finally heard and respected. Let me be clear: the report is a turning point. The days of looking the other way are over. The culture of exclusion of Protestant boxers is over.”
“<BR /> <BR />I pay tribute to Daryl for his courage in standing up and saying, "This is not right". It has paved the way for change that will benefit generations to come. Daryl's fight should just have been in the ring; instead, it was for respect, fairness and equal treatment for every young boxer, regardless of their religion or identity. <BR /> <BR />The Equality Commission's findings are clear and uncompromising. It calls for a transparent and merit-based selection process for the Commonwealth Games; demands the creation of an independent oversight panel to ensure that those reforms are no longer delayed and a code of conduct to which all clubs must sign up; and finds that, for far too long, Protestants have been denied a space on Ulster Boxing Council governance committees.”
“The report not only disproves them but shames them for the remarks that they made in the Chamber. It shines a light on the painful truth that young Protestant men like Daryl Clarke and others before him, such as Lewis Crocker, were denied opportunities and subjected to treatment that no athlete should ever endure. It was not because of their talent or ability but because of their background. The report lays bare what many have whispered for years: that, in local boxing, anti-Protestant bias has been allowed to fester. It tells us that the structures that govern the sport have not been fair, transparent or inclusive. While boxing has long been hailed as a sport that unites people, the report shows that boxing has been used to divide our communities.”
“One year ago, I rose in the House to raise the case of my constituent Mr Daryl Clarke, who was excluded from the Commonwealth Games because he is a Protestant. I vowed then to fight that case. Today, I welcome the 24-page report by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, which justifies every single word that I said in the Chamber. The review of the Ulster Boxing Council is not merely another report; it is a damning, but necessary, mirror held up to the structures that have, for far too long, failed the Protestant boxing community in Belfast and beyond. <BR /> <BR />Some Members in the Chamber claimed that anti-Protestant sectarianism did not exist in boxing, some tried to make me shut up on the issue, and others believed that it would go away.”
“Does the Minister agree that one of the strongest messages that we could send to ensure that we remove the two-child cap would be for the questioner to contact his sister party in the UK Parliament, with which his party leader sits?”
“I have two points to make. First, you do know that the York Street interchange is an Executive flagship project, unless you have not read the Programme for Government that you came to the House to criticise. Perhaps you did not read it before criticising it. Secondly, when the Northern Ireland Football Fund was launched, your party colleague was the first one to jump up and down about it.”
“supported their objections. There is no mention of the fact that Casement Park has not been delivered because of the actions of those in the party opposite. Once again, the SDLP tries to blame the big, bad unionists. We see that for what it is, which is nonsense. We oppose the motion.”
“Former SDLP MLA Alex Attwood, who, as Environment Minister, had the Casement Park project on his desk until he was replaced by his party colleague Mark Durkan, said of the court case that blocked Casement Park:”
“<BR /> <BR />On waste water infrastructure, Members from the party opposite have held the position of Minister for Infrastructure for longer than anyone on these Benches. Where was the rationale for what was or was not delivered by previous Ministers? Members on these Benches will therefore take no lectures from the party opposite. <BR /> <BR />In the motion, there has been an attempt to single out the lack of an investment strategy as the reason that Casement Park has not been delivered. That myth continues to be pushed by Members on all sides of the House to try to blame this party for not moving the project forward. I did a bit of research before I came here this morning in order to find some Members' comments on Casement Park.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the cherry-picking of flagship projects, we, as a party, are very clear that all flagship projects that the Executive agreed must be delivered, not just ones that the leader of the Opposition wants to see delivered. There is no mention of the Northern Ireland Football Fund (NIFF), the Union connectivity review report or the York Street interchange in the leader of the Opposition's motion. I wonder why the York Street interchange, which is an Executive flagship project in my constituency, is not included in the motion? Is it perhaps because, when the party opposite held the Ministry in the Department for Infrastructure, it delayed that project? It failed to deliver that vital investment. It failed to build what the people of North Belfast and Northern Ireland want to see.”