Simon Hamilton
Strangford · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I have emphasised to the Member and the House before, that, whilst I accept that those are not good enough — that is why we have been developing the plan — there are alternative technologies in place that can present opportunities for those who just cannot get acceptable speeds.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. There are some initiatives that I believe will help and act as a driver to improve broadband access. One such intervention is the broadband universal service obligation (USO), which is being taken forward by Her Majesty's Government.”
“I thank the Member for his question. However, he is conflating two issues. I wrote to his party leader, and indeed to all Assembly party leaders, before making the announcement that I did last week about wanting to publish the details of the businesses in receipt of the non-domestic RHI scheme. It was my intention to do that tomorrow.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Chancellor, in his autumn statement, made some more funding available for telecommunications, and my Department is studying that and seeking to avail itself of that to the fullest possible extent.”
“In addition, my Department is managing a contract for the delivery of the superfast rollout programme, which, by 31 December, will provide access to superfast broadband with speeds of at least 24 megabits per second to a further 38,000 premises, both business and residential, across Northern Ireland, including in the Newry and Armagh cons…”
“I signalled the intention to do this a few weeks ago. The Member and the House will know that inspections of all installations would have taken place over the 20-year lifetime of the RHI scheme.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,625 lines we hold for Simon Hamilton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 73.
“The Year of Food and Drink 2016 was also a great success, highlighting how far our restaurants and, indeed, our chefs have come over recent years. <BR /> <BR />As we move closer to Northern Ireland's centenary, we do so against a backdrop of increasing tourism industry growth. That growth has seen record visitor levels to Northern Ireland over the last number of years. The most recent statistics indicate further growth in Northern Ireland's tourism industry. As well as local significance, the centenary will have an international significance for the many people living overseas who retain a strong connection with Northern Ireland. The centenary will provide a further opportunity to reflect on Northern Ireland's success.”
“Northern Ireland's centenary in 2021 will be a momentous occasion. Marking the first 100 years of Northern Ireland will be a landmark event and something we will be proud to celebrate. In recent years, we have demonstrated our prowess in showcasing Northern Ireland on the world stage, with events such as the Giro d'Italia, the MTV Music Awards, the World Police and Fire Games and the G8 summit. We have become known around the world for our great ambassadors, whether they be sporting personalities, such as Rory McIlroy, Graeme McDowell and Darren Clarke, musicians like Van Morrison and Phil Coulter, or our football team and its fans, who did so much to promote Northern Ireland's reputation during the 2016 European Championships.”
“There are lots of different reasons for that, which we have discussed many times in the House, but I think the Member makes a very good point about the fact that the playing field is not always an even one between our airports here in Northern Ireland and those in Dublin.”
“That was fairly low. <BR /> <BR />I will reflect on the comments he made, and it might be my last act in office if I was to take the Member up on his recommendation. He is, in his own particular style, making the point I was making in response to Mr Ford, which is that there are many different ways in which that competition really is not a competition. As I said before, we have to accept that Northern Ireland's airports cannot compete directly, and a lot of the routes Dublin is able to secure are probably not going to come to any Northern Ireland airports, but there are routes that could be coming here and many routes where a significant volume of the passengers come from Northern Ireland but are going on flights out of Dublin Airport.”
“That is an interesting idea the Member has. I suppose he is due a good idea.”
“I had hoped to be able to work towards rectifying that, accepting the realities of the situation, and we were, I think, on the way to doing that. Unfortunately now, the efforts I will be able to make in post will be limited, given the circumstances we find ourselves in.”
“I think the International Airport has performed, as, indeed, has the City Airport in Belfast, incredibly well in difficult circumstances. <BR /> <BR />The Member mentioned the competition they have from Dublin Airport. It is a very unfair competition in my view, and I think the playing field is very much slanted towards Dublin. We have to accept that Dublin is a very different proposition and a very different city with a very different airport of a very different scale, but it has huge support because of the nature of its ownership. Through its Government, there is a lot of public support, which I think, ultimately, leads to a fairly uneven and unfair position in competition between Belfast and all the Northern Ireland airports and Dublin.”
“I have not had any direct discussions with the Minister for Infrastructure about that, although I support the improvement of infrastructure to the airport. I think accessibility is key to improving connectivity, and I know there are long-standing issues. I saw Mr Girvan in the House earlier, and colleagues from South Antrim brought a motion not too long to the House ago calling for the reopening of the railway line and some connectivity into the terminal at Belfast International Airport. I know there are proposals to improve road access in that area, too. I think that is critically important to improving connectivity, and business passengers in particular, but also tourists, look for that to have good connectivity between the airport and where they are ultimately going.”
“That has given rise to a number of leads and significant interest from a number of airlines. In the last few weeks, I have been able to sign off and agree a recommendation from officials to offer support to an airline that proposes to offer two direct flights from Belfast International Airport to destinations in the United States of America. That is working its way through the airline's approval process, and I hope that we will see positive news in the not too distant future. As long as I am in post, I will continue to work with the airlines, and particularly with the International Airport and the other airports in Northern Ireland, to try to improve not just our routes to North America but our connectivity on a much broader front.”
“As I said, it is deeply disappointing that United Airlines made its last flight from Belfast International Airport earlier this month. I am on record in the House and elsewhere in stating my belief in the importance of having more direct routes to North America for business and tourism reasons. It is deeply regrettable that the United package did not work out and that it withdrew its flight. <BR /> <BR />Interestingly, something positive came out of that negative story — I am sure that the International Airport could testify to this — in the interest many airlines showed in coming to Northern Ireland, catalysed in part by the fact that they saw a Government here at Stormont who were prepared to roll up their sleeves, get involved and offer support when it was appropriate to do so.”
“<BR /> <BR />In September last year, the Executive announced a £7 million package for the north-west to assist development and growth around City of Derry Airport, which includes up to £2·5 million route development support to assist the airport to launch new routes. My officials are in discussion with representatives from City of Derry Airport and Derry City and Strabane District Council on the mechanism to provide route development support. <BR /> <BR />I have also announced my intention to establish a new air routes task force that will help to identify key routes that Northern Ireland's airports should be targeting as well as identifying possible policy interventions and initiatives to attract new airlines.”
“<BR /> <BR />We have also had a number of positive announcements of new air routes in recent times, including a new Icelandair service to Reykjavik from Belfast City Airport from June this year, as well as the establishment of a Ryanair hub at Belfast International Airport. It was deeply regrettable, however, that, earlier this month, we saw the departure from Belfast International Airport of United Airline's last direct flight to Newark. Along with the International Airport, the Executive had agreed a package of financial support last summer that was aimed at maintaining this important business and tourism route. I continue to work closely with the International Airport to explore other possible air routes to North America, and I remain hopeful that there will be some positive developments in the coming months.”
“It is important that we continue to build our air connectivity so that it is as easy as possible for people all over the world to access Northern Ireland for business and tourism purposes. I am, therefore, encouraged by the latest air passenger statistics, which show that 7·89 million air passengers passed through Northern Ireland’s airports in the year to September 2016. That represents a 9·2% increase in passengers on the previous year, and passenger numbers are at their highest since the pre-recession peak of 8·27 million in 2008. The statistics give a clear indication that growth is returning to the Northern Ireland air travel market.”
“I do not know the answer to the Member's second question, but I will come back to him. In relation to the first question, the Department was there and represented. Representations were made to the court on behalf of the Department.”
“<BR /> <BR />Also critical, as I said previously, is the further bearing down on the cost of the RHI scheme to the Northern Ireland Budget. I think that a combination of more behavioural change and bearing down on cost through inspection, audits and, importantly, enforcement can reduce next year's estimated shortfall of between £2 million and £2·5 million to closer to zero.”
“I signalled the intention to do this a few weeks ago. The Member and the House will know that inspections of all installations would have taken place over the 20-year lifetime of the RHI scheme. Given the circumstances that we find ourselves in, particularly with accusations of fraud and abuse, I do not think that we can leave it that long before inspecting. We need to accelerate that process, which will require resource, and a tender is being drafted. The scale of inspection means that the tender must go Europe-wide, but, even though there is a legal process to go through in that regard, I expect the tender to be awarded in the coming months and the inspections to start in the not-too-distant future. I think that it is incredibly important that we do that. It is part of instilling public confidence, which is lacking.”
“The Member asks the question almost as though it is a bad thing that a special adviser from any Department has a good idea. If the Member had come to me with a good idea, I might have listened to it and taken it forward, but of course he did not. The idea was developed over time before being submitted in regulations to the House last week and passed last night. We should focus not on the origins or genesis of the idea but on the fact that it is legally robust, and, now that the regulations have been passed, it will allow a significant reduction in the budgetary shortfall on the RHI scheme. It reduces the shortfall from an estimated £30 million next year to between £2 million and £2·5 million, and that is before we bear down further on the costs through audit, inspection and enforcement.”
“In light of the judgement made this afternoon, I will look at the range of options that I will have to continue to pursue that goal of transparency.”
“As I said in response to Mr Dickson, we will, given the judgement today, have to reflect on how we can provide the fullest possible transparency. That is what I want to achieve, and, listening to the Member, I think that that is what he wishes to see as well. He said that there are other ways in which information can be made public, and I agree that there is a range of ways in which it could be presented. It would not necessarily be the fullest transparency that not only Members but those outside the House wish to see and which is needed to instil the public confidence that is, unfortunately, lacking at the minute. I wanted it to happen, and we went down the road of a process to allow it to happen. We signalled our intention to do that, but, unfortunately, an injunction was sought and awarded today.”
“<BR /> <BR />We had to run through a process, which the Department undertook in pretty quick time, given the volume of work. I signalled my intention to publish the names, consistent with the process as laid out in section 10 of the Data Protection Act. I deeply regret the injunction that has been sought and awarded this afternoon because that, in and of itself, prevents full transparency. I will take the time to consider what can now be done in the circumstances.”
“I thank the Member for his question. However, he is conflating two issues. I wrote to his party leader, and indeed to all Assembly party leaders, before making the announcement that I did last week about wanting to publish the details of the businesses in receipt of the non-domestic RHI scheme. It was my intention to do that tomorrow. Unfortunately, as the Member says, an injunction has been placed on those who are members of the renewable heat association. I have only just received the news. I have not seen the full judgement yet, and, as the Member and House would expect, I will wish to consider it in full before making any decision. The Member's party leader wrote to me wishing to have the fullest transparency on the names, and that is still my objective. That is what I sought to do by making the announcement that I did last week.”
“We can, and will, make any necessary reasonable corrections when a long-term solution is developed for implementation from 1 April 2018. In putting forward a long-term solution, we will consult and listen to the views of installation owners and other stakeholders.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I will group the answers to questions 1 and 4. <BR /> <BR />The Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017 were approved by the Assembly yesterday. When I brought the regulations before the Assembly, I stated that they were the first steps towards reducing the burden on the Northern Ireland Budget. I also outlined additional action that I was taking on inspection, audit and enforcement. My officials are progressing work to tender for 100% site inspections. The inspection process, coupled with vigorous investigation and enforcement action, will bear down on future costs. The changes in the scheme will have effect for only one year.”
“That time and that place is the public inquiry. The choice today is simple: bring in the cost controls these regulations allow for; or fail to take this final opportunity — indeed, this is the only opportunity — to control the costs of the RHI scheme. <BR /> <BR />The House can support the regulations, or it can permit up to £30 million to be lost to the Northern Ireland Budget next year. I hope Members view the regulations in that context and support them. I commend the regulations to the Assembly.”
“Indeed, I note that today the UUP indicated that Sandra Overend has an aunt and uncle who are recipients of the scheme and that former MLA Neil Somerville is a recipient. I believe when publication happens it will show that it is not just, as some would seek to portray it, DUP members or supporters who are benefiting from the scheme. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, the way in which these regulations have come forward is not ideal. I would far prefer full scrutiny and more time and to take them through the House in the normal way. The imminent dissolution of the Assembly has necessitated the approach I have adopted. I was planning to do it conventionally, but circumstances have dictated otherwise. <BR /> <BR />A lot has been said about various aspects of the RHI scheme, and there will be a time and a place to address and answer all that.”
“I understand the concerns of many recipients, but there is also an overriding public interest in the matter. Last month, I wrote to all non-domestic RHI recipients, indicating my desire to publish details. The Department had to undertake a process that was consistent with section 10 of the Data Protection Act to assess the objections that were received against a public interest test. That work has concluded, and I wrote to all recipients again today indicating that it is the intention of the Department to publish details this Wednesday. I want transparency on the names — on the details, rather — of non-domestic RHI scheme recipients. I imagine that it will reveal members and supporters of — I just caught Mr McCann's eye, so maybe not quite all parties — many parties in the Assembly.”
“Whilst there is no evidence, or none has been produced, I understand the supposition that some will make that, if mistakes have been made in one renewable scheme, that could be the case in others as well. I have ensured that some concerns that have already been brought to my attention have been investigated, but I will formalise that by initiating an audit of all renewable schemes. I have also signalled my intention to establish, in my time left in post, a new strategic energy team in the Department. That will draw on experience from the public and private sectors to strengthen the quality of the advice that the Minister — whoever that is — receives. <BR /> <BR />The details of the businesses in receipt of the non-domestic RHI scheme should be published.”
“Mr Allister and other Members raised the point about compensation. Recipients of the non-domestic RHI scheme are being, and will continue to be, compensated. They will get a return in the range of 12%, as was originally intended. It is not in the region of the supernormal profits that the flaws in the scheme permitted. It is not like taking property off someone and not compensating them. The scheme remains in place, and members of the scheme are compensated as originally intended in terms of the rate of return. <BR /> <BR />It was Mr Aiken, I believe — it was that long ago; I think that it was last week — who mentioned, as he did at the Committee last week, the need for a renewables audit. Whilst the focus of this debate has been on the RHI scheme, some have raised issues or concerns about other schemes.”
“There is a right to property, and the court is much less solicitous about income derived from that property than the taking away of property itself, but, importantly, the same article in the ECHR states:”
“Mr Allister quoted from article 1 of protocol 1 of the ECHR but stopped short. Beyond what he read into the record, the article states:”
“Mr Allister talked about article 1 of protocol 1 of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). My understanding, from the advice that I have received, is that the court has been much less solicitous over the future income loss than taking away currently owned property. There is — the Member did not focus on this in his contribution — a public interest override. I believe that that is clearly the case. In a situation in which we are losing between £20 million and £30 million to the Northern Ireland Budget, there is a clear public interest for the Assembly to act in the way that I am advising this evening. There is a clear imbalance between public and private interests. The Examiner's report deals with this issue in paragraph 16.1.9:”
“Two particular areas have been considered. They were both the focus of Mr Allister's latter contribution. The first was legitimate expectation. <BR /> <BR />The regulations are consistent with the well-stated original intention of the scheme in terms of its rate of return, even if that original intention, in its construction and how it worked through the scheme, was wrong. Excessive returns and supernormal profits, such as those that some are receiving, are not, were not and could not have been a legitimate expectation.”
“However, he will understand and appreciate that, until it is formally approved by the House — clearly, we want Department of Finance approval as well — we cannot proceed to go to the EC formally. We have had informal discussions, and they have been positive. <BR /> <BR />I turn to another area that Mr Allister laboured in his contribution, which is the legalities of the proposals. I have taken extensive legal advice on the regulations, and that supports their robustness. Work started on cost controls some time ago, contrary to what some have suggested or may believe that this has been done only in the last number of weeks. It has been done over the last several months.”
“Rather than turn this into some party political pantomime — we have had enough of that — I will take the Minister of Finance's intervention at face value — some might caution me against doing that — and assume that work is ongoing and that approval will be granted. I regret that that approval is not in place this evening; I see no reason for it not to be in place. It is deeply regrettable that it is not. Clearly, it would be ideal to have that approval in place, which would allow us to go to the EC with some confidence. I welcome the fact that the Member agrees with me — I note the date and time — that it will not have any difficulty in receiving state aid approval.”
“Support being given to businesses is reducing that, so I do not envisage any particular problem.”
“The regulations mean that the initiative will come into effect by 1 April or on the date it receives state aid approval, whichever is the later. The Member will recall that last week, before the Secretary of State announced the date of the election and, therefore, the date of dissolution, one of my concerns was that any delay in passing the regulations would impact on the time frame for getting state aid approval. My understanding from the positive discussions that we had with the EC is that it takes around two months to get approval. I still fully imagine and believe that it will be 1 April when the regulations are enacted. I do not foresee any reason why state aid would be denied, not least because of the point I made at the outset that this is in effect reducing state aid. State aid was sought because it was an incentive.”
“The clear message from informal discussions with the Commission in December was that doing nothing was not an option, and I agree with that. It is important to stress that it is clear in the regulations that they come into effect only if the Commission gives state aid approval.”
“A slight delay in implementation is inevitable, which is why the dates are in the regulations. <BR /> <BR />This is probably an opportune moment to talk a little bit more about state aid approval. I know that I have already addressed it in response to the Minister of Finance. The proposal, as I said, seeks to reduce state aid and better align it with the level that was originally approved. I believe, therefore, that it is compatible with state aid, and all the advice that I have received would suggest that it is. Officials have been working hard with their EC counterparts to ensure that state aid approval is secured. Those discussions have been positive, but, obviously, we will not know for sure until it is submitted.”
“<BR /> <BR />Some have asked why the measures contained in the regulations are not being introduced immediately. I would like to have had an immediate implementation of the regulations, so that we could immediately start to bear down on the cost to the public purse, but there are two practical considerations. First, Ofgem, the current scheme administrators, need some time to make the necessary administrative changes for enacting the new tariffs. Secondly, there is the issue of EC state aid approval. The proposal seeks to reduce state aid and better align it with the level originally intended. Discussions with the European Commission are ongoing and have been positive to date. It is likely to be approximately two months before approval is received. A long-term solution would take longer for state aid approval to be given.”
“The November 2015 tariff was still considered an attractive incentive for many, and over 300, including many in the poultry industry, applied for the tiered-tariff scheme in the three- to four-month period that it was available before the scheme's ultimate closure in early 2016. <BR /> <BR />Whilst the Renewable Heat Association has said much and given evidence to the Committee, it has offered no real solutions beyond the audit and inspection point that I made before, which is, of course, going ahead. They have made no suggestions to tackle overcompensation or the fact that the rate of return is well beyond what was approved in the state aid approval and there are supernormal profits of above 50%. None of us can allow that sort of overgenerous subsidy to continue.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I think that the action he has taken is sensible, and I thank him for doing that. I think that he and, I am sure, most Members, if they reflect on those comments and go away and look at the article, will agree that it is deeply troubling. The implication of the comments is that there was an understanding that there were serious flaws, yet nothing was done to alert the Department to those. <BR /> <BR />Some have argued that the proposals do not stack up economically for those who are on the scheme. That point was raised by the Renewable Heat Association and some Members during last week's debate, if not today. To reiterate the point: the proposed tariff is not new. It is the same as that which was introduced in November 2015. The proposals put all participants on the scheme onto the same regime.”
“I think that there is something seriously wrong if an organisation that helped with over a quarter of applications knew that there were flaws but ploughed on and did not, as far as I am aware, alert the Department. <BR /> <BR />Another argument that has been made is that the proposals do not stack up economically for those who are on the scheme —”
“What we have is an organisation that helped 550 applications and that is now on the public record as saying that it would be:”
“<BR /> <BR />I was troubled by comments made by Michael Doran from Action Renewables in 'The Irish News' on Saturday. When asked by the newspaper why no one in Action Renewables relayed concerns about the operation of the scheme, Mr Doran said:”
“It would have happened as part of the scheme administration over the lifetime of the scheme anyway, but I believe that it needs to be accelerated. <BR /> <BR />Thirdly, no one should expect the sort of supernormal profits that they are getting from the scheme as it is currently constructed — that is, returns of 30%, 40% or 50%-plus. As I said before, over 80% are earning more than a 12% return, which is above what was in the state aid approval, and the average rate of return is 60%. Trevor Lunn made the point about bona fide operators and that was repeated by, I think, Mr Allister. I agree with the comments that they made about bona fide operators. There are many. There are some who are not, but many — indeed, probably the majority — are bona fide. In my view, it is not bona fide to have returns of 50%-plus from the scheme.”
“First, in my view, they are not mutually exclusive and nor should they be. Secondly, audit and inspection are essential if we are to stamp out abuse, which we cannot tolerate. As I said, the PwC inspections have inspected 20% of sites, which is 295 installations in total, and I repeat the point that I made some moments ago that payments to 33 installations have been suspended. Work is advanced on issuing a tender for 100% site inspections. That is much needed to further instil public confidence.”
“As well as turning off the tap of the flow of public funds, the intention of the regulations is to continue to keep the scheme in place and to take the scheme back to the original intention of the scheme living within its annually managed expenditure envelope. Over the 20-year lifetime of the scheme, the Barnett share of the Great Britain scheme is estimated to be £660 million, and the importance of having a scheme continue in place by whatever means that is in the long term is that that will be utilised and will not be lost to Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Some have suggested that we should focus on the audit that I talked about in response to Dr Farry's intervention and said that, to reduce costs, we should focus on audit and inspection rather than tariff reduction. I will make several points in that respect.”
“No. I accept that it is not as low as we would want it to be, but it is significantly lower than the £30 million that the cost overrun will be if nothing is done. If the House does not support the regulations that are before us, the cost will be £30 million, and that will be no laughing matter at all. What is before us is a significant reduction with the potential to have it reduced even further. I am very hopeful that those inspections will root out fraud and abuse and, indeed, save us much more. <BR /> <BR />In her contribution, Claire Hanna — it seems a long time ago; it was last week — talked about Her Majesty's Treasury and the potential loss of the money that comes through annually managed expenditure.”
“I do not believe so. The important point — I will reiterate it for the Member and for the whole House's benefit — is that we have already undertaken significant work on site inspections. As I said, 20% of sites have been inspected, and that has produced some interesting results. As a result of that, some 33 companies on the scheme have had their payments suspended. I caution that you cannot take that 20% and multiply it, because the initial inspections were heavily targeted, but there is substantial work still to be done even on the 20% that have been inspected and on the remaining 80% that will be inspected, and I believe that that will highlight further potential fraud, further abuse and other things that should not be happening in the scheme. We will bear down on that, and that will reduce costs even further from the £2 million.”
“Some Members might not want to hear it, but that is a 92% reduction in the cost to the Northern Ireland Budget. I have said that it is "effectively zero", because I do not believe that that is where it stops. First, I believe that there will be behavioural change. The business case that underpins this has a conservative estimate of the behavioural change that will be caused by the introduction of tiering. I believe that that could go further and, indeed, may already be happening. Secondly — this is the very important point — I believe that the cost of just over £2 million will be reduced significantly further because of the bearing down on fraud and abuse. There will be a further bearing down on fraud and abuse that will produce cost benefits through the 100% site inspections that I referred to in response to the Finance Minister.”