Paul Frew
North Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for that intervention. Nevertheless, there are concerns that I want to address. The Minister and the departmental officials will know that, even from the range of questions that I have asked. We need to make sure that we get the balance correct.”
“In the written and oral evidence received then, the Committee was advised of potential amendments that the Minister may table at Consideration Stage, including an amendment to remove the commissioner that is being considered in liaison with OLC.”
“That in itself causes some victims and witnesses bother, because they are in a system that they are not part of, which means that they do not get the support that they require. That can sometimes leave them feeling retraumatised, as though they have been put through the wringer again.”
“The Bill makes provision to offer those protections and provide clarity to victims that they do not have to face their perpetrator in court. <BR /> <BR />Members asked questions about a range of matters, including the independence of the office, the ability to review the performance of any future commissioner, the costs of establishing th…”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. She was absolutely right to take that action, as it means that victims' voices are right at the heart of the matters under discussion. It is now obvious to us that that should have been done years ago, but it is good that it is being done now.”
“Officials explained that the Bill would legislate on the disclosure regime not to prevent an application for disclosure but to set out a process whereby the defence would have to show the relevance of the information that it was requesting. That is an important protection.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,736 lines we hold for Paul Frew, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 64 of 75.
“Both gentlemen make very good points. My colleague Christopher Stalford makes the most salient point that these businesses cannot trust the media. Look at the media over the last two months. Look at how businesses have been ridiculed, slammed and smeared. That is what has happened out there. I tell you now: the media have a lot to answer for in this regard. These are businesses that are doing good work in Northern Ireland. They are creating profit, jobs and investment, and now they are going to be slammed. <BR /> <BR />I take the other Member's point, but if businesses come out now, will that help them? I simply point to the honourable action that Jim Wells took this week. How will the media play that out? I will tell you something: it will not be played out in a good way.”
“I will make this point and then I will give way. Politicians do not create jobs; businesses do. Politicians only create the runway for businesses to take off; that is what our job is. An incentive scheme does exactly that.”
“We have been pushing this. We have been encouraging our businesses to grow and to put more broiler houses on their sites. What are you going to use when you build a broiler house? You are going to use the technology that is there and that is easily incentivised; that is what you are going to use. There are so many businesses here that have done so much good work. Profit is not a bad word; that is what business is. They have also employed people; that is what businesses do. Politicians do not employ —”
“<BR /> <BR />When you are out there in the media, please do not talk about an incentive scheme as if it is a bad thing. I might think that it is a bad thing because I just do not like incentive schemes, but this is spread across the Western World and it is how people incentivise their energies. Do not bad-mouth an incentive scheme when so many good businesses picked this up and ran with it and converted to the very scheme that we tried to push on them. They have been growing their broiler houses. The leader of the Alliance Party made an intervention about Moy Park earlier — I am sure that her East Belfast constituency is flooded with chicken farmers — and she made a very good point. We have been pushing these companies to grow. Going for Growth is the title of our policy around this, on both the ETI and Agriculture sides of things.”
“OK. We have all witnessed the attacks on some of our members and on our leader. We will let the public decide whether "harass" is one of the words that can be used to describe what has happened over the last number of weeks. <BR /> <BR />I have looked at the scheme and studied it. Whilst it is not perfect — I do not think that the Minister would argue with that — it is what now has to happen to reduce the burden on the Northern Ireland block. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the action that is proposed today. It is an approach that will address the excesses that have led to clear public concern, move the regime back towards its original policy goals and move towards zero the cost pressures that the scheme placed on the Northern Ireland block grant.”
“Then we have to look at a long-term solution to the problem. <BR /> <BR />What annoys me, however, is the white noise from some people, I may say, who do not have a clue about incentive schemes or even about renewable energy but who will use this situation as an opportunity to take a scalp. They will say, "We are the Opposition, and it is our job to scrutinise and harass and argue the other side of any argument." I get that; if that is what you are there for, I get that. Remember, however, that we have to be responsible.”
“That is something that we have to deal with. This happened over a period of weeks and maybe months, and the Minister at the time decided to change the regulations in November 2015 and was right to do so. He decided to close the scheme in February 2016, which he was also right to do, even though most of the Opposition parties voted against it at that time. It was the right thing to do at that time. <BR /> <BR />Here we are now with this House about to fall in two days' time, and we have a Minister who needs to act fast. By putting these measures in to introduce tariffs and cost controls, he will bring the cost of the scheme down. Instead of people making a 60% return, it will be brought down to 12%, which is probably reasonable enough for an incentive scheme. I support the Minister in that regard. It has to be done.”
“However, I believe that that caused concern in the industry that the scheme was not viable; it was not here for ever and could close early. I believe that businesses then decided that instead of replacing their boiler in five years' time, they would do it while the RHI scheme was open because it might close the following year along with ROCs. ROCs, of course, applied to wind power, solar power and other technologies. There was also tidal power and biomass. I suspect that that was one of the reasons why a run was created. <BR /> <BR />There were 900 applicants in the scheme before that — a scheme that was under-subscribed and underspent. The Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive were being criticised by Westminster because the scheme was underspent. Then there was the run, which created the overspend.”
“It is quite simply this: there is a world of renewable energy. We all know about it, and we have all met the people who installed the boilers and the wind farms and everything else for the ROC scheme. <BR /> <BR />Amber Rudd in Westminster closed the ROC scheme a year early. When she did that, Northern Ireland had a decision to make, and Northern Ireland made that decision. What that did was generate interest and debate in this topic. RHI installers and influencers were going round telling businesses — rightly so; I am not saying that there was anything wrong with that — that if the ROC scheme can close early, so can the RHI scheme. Of course, there was a longer lead-in period for RHI — many more years.”
“I would also like to add something to my colleague Emma Little Pengelly's point. She was right, of course, that Committees have a scrutiny and support role. I sat on the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee and know its worth. I also know that that Committee saved electricity bill payers £700 million over 20 years. How did we do that? We did it because the Minister at the time was going to bring in a Northern Ireland-only ROC scheme. That would have cost bill payers £700 million over 20 years, and the Committee blocked it. It did so four times, in May, June, July and September 2015. The run in RHI that was created happened that autumn. Why did the run take place? Should we then blame everyone who was involved in that run? Are these the people who we think are scamming the scheme? No, they are not.”
“The House can then either pass them or disagree with them and the thing falls, just like when other Ministers brought the incentive scheme to the House on the first occasion in 2012 and on the other occasions in 2015 and 2016 when decisions were made in the House.”
“The Member raises very good points. Of course, he talks about compensation: the incentive scheme is a compensation scheme. That is what an incentive scheme is. On his point, when the scheme was closed, there was an Audit Office investigation. There was a PAC investigation after that. The Ministers would have got around, seen the context and the depth of the problem and then acted out what they were going to do. That takes time because, first of all, you have to measure and inspect the problem, and, to date, there have been 300-odd inspections. These are things that have been going on; they do not happen overnight. You do not want the Minister to come to the House in a knee-jerk fashion; you want him to come here with proper regulations that he can put to the House.”
“Yes, I will. I am not a Minister, Jim — not yet.”
“When people realised what was going on, they closed the scheme and then investigations kicked in, first with the Audit Office. That is how long this has been going on — not since late autumn. If people think that this started in late autumn, they have not been reading it at all and do not know what they are talking about. That is what really annoys me at times on incentive schemes. Where is the Finance Minister today?”
“I congratulate the man on his optimism. I wish that I shared it, I really do. I have seen the sea change — the change in stance and even in the demeanour of members of Sinn Féin in the House in the last week — and I do not see this place coming back any time soon, even after an election. So, again, our chances have been shot. <BR /> <BR />We have a Minister now wanting to bring in regulations that will protect the burden placed on the Northern Ireland block grant, even when he is not in position after the election. That is commendable and is the right thing to do, and I think that he has moved in that way. But to think that the Minister has done something in a knee-jerk way is utter nonsense. The crisis did not start in an episode of a show or on a media outlet or the front page of a paper; it started last year when the scheme was closed.”
“The Member mentioned at the end of her contribution the time that we have had to scrutinise the legislation, and she is absolutely correct in that. There are legislative stages to go through, and we need to scrutinise these matters and the regulations carefully, but the facts are that we do not have that time. We wish we did, but, because of the position of Sinn Féin and the actions that it has taken, this is it, folks. This is it — it is coming down. We need to get things in fast. Sinéad Bradley, my colleague across the way, was quite right too —”
“It is not an option now; we are putting in cost controls that will bring the costs down. That will mean that they are not as burdensome on our block grant as they would have been if we had allowed the scheme to go on. We are also finding, day in and day out, that there are people who are acting fraudulently and not in the nature of the incentive scheme itself and, as your colleague rightly says, burning the pellets in a boiler that is situated in an empty shed. That is totally and utterly wrong, and it has to stop. Having listened to this the whole way through since 2012 and considered incentive schemes throughout the Western World, I want a Minister who will fix it. I want a Minister who will bring legislation to the House to fix it, and that is what the Minister is doing today.”
“I think she was trying to say — I will give way if she wishes — that you stop the scheme straight away and then investigate: that is not an option. That is not an option for businesses that have forked out £70,000 or £80,000 on a new boiler for a broiler house that they have been building because the Government have told them and inspired them to do so. Remember Going for Growth? What was it all about? It was about incentivising growth in our farming industry. I listened to the point that the leader of the —”
“She rightly tried to pin Sinn Féin down, because it has a lot to answer for on its current stance. Why are they not in the Chamber now, when they were here for the first part of the debate? It is a very important regulation that needs to be passed. Sinéad Bradley talked about facts. She corrected herself in the second half of her contribution. The scheme was amended for new entrants in November 2015, and, in February 2016, it was closed. Of course, we all know how people voted at that time on whether to keep it open or to close it when it needed to be closed. At the start, she talked about her house being on fire. She used the illustration of her house being on fire and asked, "Is it not better to put the fire out before you investigate?".”
“The Member is absolutely right. We will get to controls now, if I am allowed. <BR /> <BR />Whilst Sinéad Bradley let me in during the second half of her contribution — after half-time — she did not let me in at the start. There are facts around this, and then there is hyperbole, sensationalism, loose language, insincere language and, in some ways, dangerous and reckless language being used here in these debates. It is all about the political stances and political games that we all play. I understand all of that, but, at the hub of the matter, the people need to know what is taking place here. Since the debate started way back in 2012, I have known that there has been too much noise around this — too much noise that is not actually fact. That is the truth. <BR /> <BR />Sinéad Bradley talked about facts.”
“I did not suggest that, Mr Speaker. I am basically trying to lay down the laws and policies of an incentive scheme, why they even exist and why we are discussing incentive schemes for renewable technology. That is what we have been about for the past 20 years. That is why we have set targets for renewable technologies, wind energy, solar farms and all of that in our Programmes for Government. That is why we are here.”
“There absolutely is, and that is where we will talk about the abuse of any given scheme. I completely qualify that; I quantify that. You are exactly right: if unuseful heat has been generated, that is an abuse; it is a complete fraud. That is not what the scheme was designed for.”
“I will finish the point. That has been the case right across the Western World. That is what we are talking about. It alarms me that, when we talk in this place about a scheme of this nature, sometimes, there is a lack of knowledge on these subjects. That really gets at, and grates at, my heart. I will give way.”
“I hear what the Member says. Does she not realise that we are moving an incentive scheme from what could be a 60% profit to a 12% return. However, it is still a return; and it is exactly the same with wind, solar, biomass or tidal energy. Name any incentive scheme for renewable technology, and it will come down to pounds, pence and profit. That is an undeniable truth; it is what we are talking about here. We are talking about assisting businesses and households to go to a certain place that we want them to go to. Some of us might not, necessarily, want them all to go that way, but that is the case, and it has been the case —”
“I thank the Member for her intervention. She is exactly right, but let me tell her and the House this: all incentive schemes are about profit. When you have a renewables obligation certificate (ROC) scheme in place, you get money to generate electricity to the point at which it is free. That is a profit; there is no other way of dressing that up. That is what an incentive scheme is and was, and it has spread right across western Europe.”
“You are channelling them and causing an effect by the incentive that you give. That is what an incentive scheme is.”
“As always, I speak on energy matters with enthusiasm and passion. This is where I come from; it is my background. I sat on the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee for so long, and I like this stuff; I actually do. I have found the whole debate or debacle — call it what you will — fascinating and historic. I have not yet made up my mind on incentive schemes. My colleague Steven Agnew, who is sitting across the way in the corner, knows my stance on this, as we have attended many an Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee together. Not only have I not made up my mind about incentive schemes but we must ask this question: how, and at what level, do you fund an incentive scheme? An incentive scheme, by its nature, incentivises businesses and households to do something that you want them to do.”
“Will the Member agree that one of the people who knew well what was happening with the scheme was none other than the Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, her party colleague? Has she studied what Mr McGlone — I have a lot of respect for him, and he did a lot of work on the Committee with me — said in that debate?”
“Sorry. On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will the Member allow me to intervene?”
“Of course, Members across the Chamber will know how they voted or did not vote on closing the scheme. To say that we were not aware is completely untrue. If people came to this only in late autumn, that says more about them than it does about the Assembly.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. On the point that the other Member raised, does the Member not realise that it was brought up last year in this very House, when the then Minister, Jonathan Bell, came here to close the scheme? He would have been fully aware at that time of why the scheme had to be closed, because the then Minister, Jonathan Bell, talked about that very thing.”
“I thank the Member for his patience and his indulgence. I hear what he says, and I agree with the sentiments. Will he also agree with me that businesses have already been tarnished in the media in connection with the scheme when they should not have been? When that has been highlighted, it has been called "scandalous" and "sensational", but, as he well knows, when there has to be a retraction in the media, whether in print or on TV, it is a small section with an apology. Will he acknowledge that?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I ask him to curb his language and maybe the reckless tone. He talks about money being "burnt off". There are many, many credible businesses using the scheme legitimately. Many of them are in his constituency, as there are in mine and everyone else's, and they are using the incentive scheme for legitimate environmental purposes. They bought into it in good faith.”
“That is a very important point. It is reckless for the message to go out here today that there was some sort of frenzy by people trying to get onto this scheme for any reason other than that they wanted to be part of the incentive scheme. These are reputable businesses that decided to go forward with the scheme because they were maybe advised to do so by suppliers or other businesses or accountants. It is very dangerous and reckless to say here today that those people tied up in that spike were doing anything other than carrying on their business.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. There was one question posed by Sinéad Bradley and Robin Swann, neither of whom is in the Chamber. They have had to go out; maybe they are as busy as me — I do not know. The question that they asked was this: "What about the 880 applications created during the run in the autumn?", as if there were some sort of sinister plot. It could have been something as simple as Amber Rudd closing the renewables obligation certificates (ROCs) scheme a year early creating a run on the RHI scheme, because people were concerned that it too would close early. Of course, the Minister at that time was Jonathan Bell, and he knows all about the ROC issue at that time.”
“— you cannot have a Budget? In July, that will cost this country £600 million in one year — £600 million in one year.”
“It is scared because, for the first time, it has a socialist left flank, and it does not know how to deal with it. It is looking at a new SDLP leader, and it does not really know how to deal with it. Let us face it and say it as it is. <BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin's actions have created the inability of the House to finish a Public Accounts Committee inquiry. It cannot be finished, because of the Sinn Féin resignation. Let me just say at the end that we must put this in context. This is a projected spend of £480 million over 20 years; a projected spend that could be fixed. What about all the politicking on welfare reform last year that cost our people £173 million? It was the SDLP and Sinn Féin that created that. What about the very fact that, when you resign —”
“No, I cannot; I am sorry. <BR /> <BR />We are here to serve our people and, when mistakes happen, to fix them. Members called on Arlene Foster to come to the Chamber to explain. She came to the Chamber to explain, and you walked out. You walked out, and you hurt the credibility of this place even further. You called for Arlene to go to the PAC. Unprecedentedly, Arlene Foster agreed, but the goalposts were moved yet again. Sinn Féin was receiving pressure from its nationalist competitors. It got itself on a hook and could not get itself off the hook. Sinn Féin is very mindful. It comes in here very confident, but it is going through something of a crisis. There is a bit of a meltdown, and it goes right into the very heartlands.”
“No, I am going to run out of time. I am really sorry. I would have if I had more time. <BR /> <BR />Look at what has happened over the last couple of months. There has been a drip feed of sensationalism by our media, and some of our politicians in this very House have been caught up in a blood fest and a feeding frenzy, wanting someone's head on a platter. We are here —”
“That is the point that I was going to make; thank you for making it. It is not the public inquiry that anyone fears. It is the sensationalism of some sections of our media on this issue that can be very damaging. We have already had one good business, which happens to sell a trademark car, dragged through the mud unfairly. That will continue in a drip-feed fashion. <BR /> <BR />There has to be responsibility in the House for mistakes that are made, but look at what has happened —”
“I thank the Member for his contribution, but it is not —”
“Businesses that rely on their good name, good faith, reputation and credibility could now be caught up in a sensationalist media storm over the head of this and all the hyperbole that has been created. Let us try to get something done in a timely fashion. That is what the Minister brought forward yesterday.”
“We have also had an ongoing Public Accounts Committee investigation, which the Chair has eloquently spoken about — not about the investigation but about his understanding of the issue. We had the Audit Office report before that, so it is unfair and untrue to suggest that politicians or Ministers were not doing something about the issue. If some Members realised it only in late autumn, that says more about them than anyone else. It is vital that we put in place measures to manage the unintended pressure that the scheme is creating and will continue to create, if it is not fixed. <BR /> <BR />Many who legitimately entered the scheme in good faith may well now be caught up in a media storm.”
“I rise to talk about this issue, as we have done on many occasions over the last number of months. I have watched this with quite a lot of interest. Something I am passionate about is energy policy — throughout the world, not just here in Northern Ireland — so I have watched with intrigue and interest. I have also been distraught at the white noise, sensationalism and bloodletting that have been created because all of that has ensured that we will not get this resolved in a timely fashion. <BR /> <BR />What has been going on since it was discovered that there was an issue with RHI? There have been independent inspections. Up to now, there have been about 300, I think. The Ministers have had a detailed assessment of legal advice on what they can do to fix it.”
“I echo everything that the Minister and Alex Easton, who moved the motion, said. I commend the motion to the House.”
“I thank the Member for making that contribution. I hope that it was not anything to do with her driving as opposed to the campaign. It was a very good campaign; she is absolutely right to raise that. It made a difference — people were talking about it. Although I did not get breathalysed, I was stopped at a checkpoint. You are absolutely right. <BR /> <BR />Paula Bradshaw mentioned the One Punch campaign. I have a friend who has had health issues for the last 20 years because he was the victim of a one-punch attack. The violent conduct on that night was drink-induced.”
“It is not just pounds and pence; it is lives. <BR /> <BR />I was struck by something in Doug Beattie's contribution. He was a soldier in a former life. He, like me, will know the practices in our armed forces with regard to drink: all the lads go out when they can get R & R and everything else. It is an issue not only in the army but across society. We have to tackle that. We have to educate people, and we have to be responsible about it.”
“He rightly focused on the spectre of drink-driving — it is something that I have not mentioned yet — and how people think that it is acceptable to jump into a car intoxicated and drive somewhere, when they are not able to make an informed decision in that regard. That is completely unbelievable. He is right. Every time that happens there is a risk of one death or more. That is something that we should be looking at seriously. I do press release after press release about speed on our roads, a bad bend, driver behaviour and how roads are dangerous. Roads are not really dangerous; it is the people on the roads and how they drive. That is something that we need to get through. We need to get education and awareness into the very hearts and souls of our people and tell them that, whilst this is mainstream, this is how much it is costing.”
“I launched the consultation today on bringing accident and emergency workers into line with those services to make sentencing for assaulting them tougher. The amount of abuse that our accident and emergency staff take and the number of assaults in our accident and emergency rooms because people have too much to drink is woeful. It is a disgrace to our society. It is a tarnish to our name. We need to do something about that, and now we cannot. It is an absolute shame that here tonight we are talking and we do not really have any power — none of us. We can say what we like, but we cannot have any effect. We cannot cause something to become better. Our chances are gone. <BR /> <BR />To sum up: Doug Beattie raised a lot of issues.”
“Now this Justice Minister will not be able to move forward with her plans and her legislation on this very issue. Is that not a shame? It is a shame for the people of Northern Ireland who need our help — for the people who have a drink problem, the people who have a problem with drink, which is different, and the family members and people in society out there who suffer because of drink. <BR /> <BR />Think of the assaults on police officers, firefighters and ambulance workers because of drink. Think of people out doing a duty — a day or a night's work — and the way that they are treated because people take too much to drink and do not make the right decisions. I have a private Member's Bill sitting ready to go.”