Emma Pengelly
South Belfast · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“This week, I will travel to France to pay my respects to all those who fought and the many who fell at the Battle of the Somme as we mark its 110th anniversary. <BR /> <BR />From across Northern Ireland, generations have served their country.”
“One of the men who fought was James Sandford, my great-grandfather. He fought, he survived, he went on to fight again, and he was seriously injured in another battle. I am deeply proud of him, and I am proud of all those who stepped forward with such honour in the face of the horror of that war.”
“When I stand there this week, looking at the gravestones of so many who made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedom, I will also remember — we must always remember — the responsibility that we carry forward. Remembrance is not only about honouring the past; it is about shaping the future.”
“Last night, people in north Belfast witnessed horrific scenes that have absolutely sickened and appalled people across Northern Ireland. It was a shocking and barbaric act of violence that has left a victim fighting the consequences of a truly savage attack.”
“Every person has the right to walk their streets, live in their community and feel safe in their own neighbourhood. This type of brutality has no place in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />This morning, I spoke with the Chief Constable and the Justice Minister.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have also been in contact with the Prime Minister, because the PSNI has confirmed that the 30-year-old male who has been arrested is believed to be of Somalian heritage.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,234 lines we hold for Emma Pengelly, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 38 of 45.
“I think we need to rise above that, we need to be objective, we need to look at the evidence and we need to be fair. I think that, if we do those things, every single party across the Chamber should support the regulations today and we should ensure, as far as we can, that the taxpayer and public purse in Northern Ireland do not pay out anything more than they have to through the opportunity that is being provided to us today. As we move forward, regardless of whether I come back here, I am committed to working to build a better and a shared Northern Ireland. I will continue to do that in whatever role I play, but I hope that everybody in the Chamber commits to that and works together today and moving forward to try to ensure that we build a better Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />Before I finish, I want to say that I have been an MLA for just over a year. Seven months ago I was hugely humbled to be elected to serve the people of South Belfast. I made some reference to the fact that there will be many people around the Chamber who will not be coming back to serve their constituents and the people of Northern Ireland. I remain absolutely committed to doing what is right for Northern Ireland, to working as hard as I can, which I will continue to do right up until the election, and to giving my support in all this to try to find the right solutions for everybody. I am saddened that, at times and reflecting over this, there has been a lot of party politics played. I think that is not good for the people of Northern Ireland.”
“I will not ponder that point for too long, but there are a series of issues that have come up. Where they are relevant to the regulations is that this is what we need to do whenever we face challenges and difficulties. We need to bring forward solutions through policy, we need to address the issue, we need to protect public funds and we need to do what is right for people in Northern Ireland. There have been a number of hurdles and a number of scandals on all sides about some issues that have subsequently been investigated while others have been left out there. I do not believe that any one party is coming to the electorate with clean hands and able to say certain things, which Sinn Féin is trying to, while throwing a lot of dirt before an inquiry has been heard. I think that is absolutely critical.”
“The inquiry will look at all that, and once it does and conclusions are drawn, that will be the time for action, but to prematurely bring down these institutions and fling around words such as "corruption" is wrong and unjustified. <BR /> <BR />All that is set beside the incredible position of Sinn Féin. Gerry Adams just last week put up a video on the upcoming election in which he said that it is about "accountability in public life". I find that absolutely astounding from a party, members of which have yet to apologise for the murder and maiming of thousands — yes, that extends to Sinn Féin, because I look across to those Benches week in and week out and see people with convictions in relation to those issues, and we have yet to hear an apology for that.”
“I do not believe that Sinn Féin is justified in doing what it has done, without a Budget and any contingency planning or preparation, in bringing down these institutions and the people serving in the Chamber who were democratically elected just seven months ago. There were a number of different ways this could have been approached. Sinn Féin argues that this election is about arrogance and corruption, but the inquiry has not yet happened. There have been no findings of incompetence or corruption. The evidence of officials counters any allegations of wrongdoing, never mind corruption, and to quote from and reference the permanent secretary of DETI in his evidence to the PAC, in his view, Arlene Foster did nothing wrong.”
“We needed a mature, calm and appropriate approach that required two things. First, as soon as possible, we need an independent and robust inquiry capable of getting to the truth of what went wrong, and I welcome that that is happening. That inquiry must and will report as soon as possible. Secondly, we need regulations to be brought forward to reduce to zero, as far as possible, any cost to the Northern Ireland public purse. I welcome that that is the other critical step that is happening today. <BR /> <BR />I strongly do not believe that the stepping-aside issue should have brought about the situation in which we find ourselves.”
“<BR /> <BR />I also outlined last week that I was saddened — I remain saddened — that this policy issue and the associated mistakes have brought us to this point. I said very clearly that — I think that all of us accept that this is true — mistakes happen. Our processes, teams and Committees are made up of fallible human beings. However, the design of our processes are as they are to try to pick those up. Our processes are designed to identify and refine policy and to examine it from every angle. However, when the safeguards failed — there is no doubt that they failed to pick up the issue in this case — we needed calm heads and a sensible approach to rectifying this.”
“I think that all of us would have liked to have seen the issues being dealt with more swiftly, but I welcome the fact that — this is absolutely essential, as was previously outlined — this went through a process of official and legal examination, which informed the recommendations that were given to the Minister. <BR /> <BR />It is worth very clearly putting on record that, as I previously mentioned, the DUP aim in all of this — I would like to think that this is the aim of all of us in looking at these regulations, which is why I hope that they get the support of everybody around the Chamber — is to reduce to zero any cost to the Northern Ireland Budget. These measures are a critical step in that, sitting alongside the increased fraud and fair-usage investigations, which the Minister has outlined will happen.”
“Presumably, advice will be sought from the same place that advised the Minister and the Department. That legal advice is informing the process; we heard in the Minister's opening comments that this will be a robust and defensible set of regulations. <BR /> <BR />I also welcome that the Minister outlined clearly that it is not the case that no action has been taken up to this point. It is not the case that the regulations were just created over the course of the last number of days or weeks. He outlined a wide range of actions, including increased audit and investigation, and I think that all of us look forward to seeing the results of that; the changed scheme being implemented and then closed to new applicants; and the now recalibrated cost-control proposals contained in the regulations.”
“The legal advice very clearly here appears to be that there is a strong defensible case to break the contracts in that way and put a variation in them to ensure that there is still a return. This is absolutely important: there will still be a return for people of, as the Minister outlined, 12%. That still represents an incentive. <BR /> <BR />If, over the next 12 months, there are cases, quirks or issues of some form of unfairness that emerge from businesses that have partaken in the scheme, those can, because this is only a 12-month scheme, be fed into the design process for the longer-term or permanent arrangements. That is the right thing to do. <BR /> <BR />I am disappointed that the business case is not yet through, but I remain confident that it will be. The biggest issue is the legality of the variation of contracts.”
“It is disappointing that the business case has not yet been cleared. That is not unusual. I am sure that all of us on Committees have looked at these processes. The leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, having been Chair of the OFMDFM Committee, will have questioned officials about the business case process on many issues. It can be frustrating how slow that process is. However, the business case process has been looked at by officials in the Civil Service. I suspect very strongly that if they are taking legal advice about this, they will be taking it from the Departmental Solicitor's Office. I assume — perhaps the Minister will confirm this for me in due course — that the Department for the Economy is taking advice from that same team of lawyers, so I would like to think that, in that situation, the legal advice will be consistent.”
“He has received legal advice that, although there may be a risk of legal challenge, this — in the view of the Minister, which he has outlined, and in my view from looking at it — gives us the strongest possible legal defensible position in terms of breaking those contracts.”
“There will be people who will challenge anything worth doing in the public interest on this matter. There is no predicting what a judge may do: we have seen cases in recent years where a judge has perhaps gone in a direction not predicted by legal advisers, not least in relation to roads and infrastructure when the Ulster Unionist Party held the DRD post, and there has been a surprising outcome. <BR />There is a risk of challenge; you cannot predict what a judge will do in that situation, but I welcome that the Minister outlined that his legal team has scrutinised this in great detail.”
“I want to respond to your initial question first. It is rarely possible to design something in such a way as to fully eliminate the risk of legal challenge. If you try to do something different or bring forward something new, often people will say, "There is a risk of legal challenge". In this case, it is particularly challenging; there is no doubt about that. A contract is in place. We must all remember that contracts can be broken, but only where that is fair and proportionate. I would argue very strongly that in this case it is fair, proportionate and, most importantly, clearly in the public interest. In my view, yes, there will always be the risk of legal challenge, but the more important question is this: what is the risk of successful legal challenge? People can take a case.”
“I thank the Members for their interventions. It is rarely possible —”
“We have sought to assure people that, yes, that is contractually committed; however, we will do all in our power to bring it down as close as possible to no liability to the Northern Ireland taxpayer. That money has not been spent. That is the critical issue: the money can be mitigated; it can be prevented from going out the door in a way that is fair and in the public interest.”
“This is bringing the scheme back to the original policy intention to ensure that there is an incentive, but that it is fair and proportionate and that the use of funds is in the public interest. That is the right approach. It is only for 12 months. I am sure that the Minister will speak to this in due course in relation to a review, which will inform the process and the further roll-out. <BR /> <BR />The aim of this is not only to be fair but to bring down, insofar as possible, through these regulations and the further steps — I welcome that the Minister has been very confident about this — the cost of RHI to the Northern Ireland taxpayer to as close as possible to 0%. There is a great deal of concern out there about the figures of £400 million to £500 million of public funds.”
“At the heart of the regulations is the principle of fairness. I welcome the proposals. The Minister confirmed that they have been scrutinised legally. They attempt to ensure fairness and to bring the scheme back to the original policy intention. That is clearly in the public interest. I welcome the time-limited nature of the regulations; that allows some time for analysis to ensure that the proposed 12% return is indeed fair. <BR /> <BR />We have heard over the last week concerns expressed — legitimately, one assumes, in terms of the RHI scheme — about a reduction in the tariff. That is why it is important to emphasise, as the Minister has done, that at the very heart of this is fairness. It is not that there will be no incentive.”
“What process was subsequently followed? What information did the Minister get about that? Those are all additional questions that an inquiry will have to look at. An inquiry must examine all the issues. That is the other part of the essential work that needs to happen here, alongside these regulations and the roll-out of the policy.”
“I thank the Member for my promotion; I am not the Minister in relation to this. I will come to that, and I will come back to speak about the regulations. I just wanted to set out the context. I will refer to that in due course. If the Member wants to make a specific intervention at that point, I will be happy to take it. <BR /> <BR />I have outlined the process that got us to the original policy proposal. Objectively — I say this absolutely honestly — it is in the interests of everybody around the Chamber to find out what happened. An inquiry will do that, and lessons must be learned about that, but there are additional issues. On what has been discussed, we need to find out what happened with the emails from the whistle-blower. We have to find out what procedure was activated. Did officials take it seriously? What follow-up did they do?”
“<BR /> <BR />I want to be very clear that this is not a case of blaming officials entirely for this. I have indicated that there is a whole chain and a process, and those flaws were not identified by any of us as an issue throughout that chain and process.”
“Certainly. We had an emergency meeting of the Finance Committee last week, and also the scheduled meeting on Wednesday. Particularly in relation to the budget issue, we emphasised to the permanent secretary of the Finance Department that there must be a risk register and that that risk register must identify all risks. It is clear from the evidence to the PAC that there was not a risk register in this case. The responsibility for that risk register, in terms of project management, lies with what is referred to as an SRO. For project management and development, an SRO is always an official. Questions need to be asked about why that did not happen, and I am sure that those issues are being reviewed by the Civil Service and the leadership within the Civil Service.”
“I am answering you absolutely honestly about this. In policy development within Departments, it is very rare. In fact, I know of very few, if any, examples of Ministers sitting on project boards for policy development or programme boards. A team of officials are put in place, a senior responsible owner (SRO) is identified and the risk register comes back to that project or programme board. In some cases, depending on the issue, a Minister might sit on a board, but, in my experience, the vast majority of project or programme boards do not include Ministers. It is very much part of the process of policy development to develop the policy, which is then put as recommendations to the Minister.”
“You raised a very interesting point. Risk registers, single responsible owners and project management are not matters, to be honest, for the Executive or Ministers. Those are very much the part and process of departmental —”
“If we cannot rely on and have credible advice and recommendations coming forward, then we have to question why those people are there in the first place. There has been a problem with the process and we need to identify why. Blaming one person will not solve that. Sorry, Jenny.”
“Over the last number of months, there has been a campaign to blame this all on one person when all the evidence is patently, absolutely patently, to the contrary and suggests that this was a failure of process. There are a number of ex-Ministers around the Chamber who know the way the process works, and if you have policy experts, an official energy team, a business case cleared and a set of recommendations that come to you as Minister, then Ministers need to be able to rely on that advice. Yes, question it, but we have a whole system in place to safeguard and question. If we cannot rely —”
“There is also a safeguard that that recommendation is questioned and interrogated by the House, by the Committee and by the processes that we have set up. It is not about excuses. It is about being objective and honest. Do you know what? I may not be back. Eighteen people across the Chamber will not be back to the Assembly. Regardless of that, regardless of the party politics and regardless of my personal role, there are important lessons for us all to learn above and beyond party politics. We need and want good policy in Northern Ireland and we need and want good initiatives in Northern Ireland, and that must require good processes and the best people, in terms of experts, being able to feed through the right recommendations for us to take.”
“If you are right, Jim, and one person is removed, that would not change the fact that the team of officials failed to recommend a tariff, that the business case process failed to identify this and that the Committee, on listening to the evidence, failed to pick this up. This is not just about one individual and, if we think it is, we are destined to make the same mistakes again. We are all human. Everybody is capable of making a mistake and everybody is capable of following the recommendations of officials and experts because that is what we are told we should do.”
“Thank you for your comment. I had hoped that you would have listened to what I said. I think that this has to go above and beyond party politics. We have to step back and look objectively at the evidence before us, the evidence that was in front of the PAC and the evidence that we have all heard. This was not a failing of a single individual. The permanent secretary of the Department went to the PAC last week and highlighted that the recommendation to the Minister clearly did not have the tariff issue involved in it and that the tariff was not recommended to the Minister. We have to ask why.”
“All the parties across the House supported the original flawed scheme.”
“They do the figures on the business cases. They work out the sums and try to identify flaws. That process did not identify the tariff issue. That was a failure in the business case process, and we all need to know why, because we all want good policies and good initiatives that meet the outcomes that are set down for them. <BR /> <BR />It did not stop there. After the policy proposal was cleared by officials, after it went to the Committee, where evidence was heard and a recommendation to support went back to the Department, and after it went through the business case process, it came to the House. Jim has indicated that the scrutiny and legislative processes of the House were good. I have no doubt that a research pack was completed and made available to all Members and that they read that and looked at the regulations and proposals.”
“The Committee, in line with its statutory duty to help to formulate Government policy and to help the Minister, under the chairmanship of the SDLP and with representatives of all the parties across the Chamber with the exception of the Alliance Party, recommended the original design. That scrutiny did not work, but it did not stop there. <BR /> <BR />The policy proposal went through the business case process with experts in our system, including economists, specialists and civil servants. I have had the opportunity to serve as a special adviser and a Minister, and I know how challenging and difficult it can be to get policy through a business case process. That is the process in which all these questions are asked. Furthermore, it is not just about policy; it is about economics. Trained, professional economists look at this.”
“<BR /> <BR />Just last week, Jim Allister said in the Chamber that the Executive had failed but, on the whole, the scrutiny and legislative process of the Northern Ireland Assembly had worked. All of us and every party around the Chamber have to be honest about this. The policy design and proposal went to the Executive, and the entire Executive agreed those. The policy design and proposals went to the Committee. Unlike the Minister, the Committee had the capability and took the opportunity to call evidence from people who were impacted by the scheme, the experts on the scheme and the officials who gave technical advice. That Committee, on questioning all that evidence and listening to the key stakeholders at first hand, looked at the original flawed design and said, "We agree that this is a good design".”
“It is absolutely clear in the legislation that the statutory duty of Committees is not just to scrutinise but to help Ministers in the development and formulation of policy. That is a critical difference. It is a difference that means that all of us, all the parties that sat on those Committees, cannot brush off responsibility for that policy development. <BR /> <BR />This is important because all of us are human and capable of making mistakes. That is why we have the safeguards in place. If people did not make mistakes, if policy design did not have flaws, and if all these issues could be identified by just one person, why would we have scrutiny? Why would we set up these safeguards? The very reason why they are there is to protect against that happening, but all of that failed in this case.”
“The design process by officials and consultants failed. The business case scrutiny process did not identify the problems. All the evidence given to the Committee did not inform its recommendation. Remember that the Committee recommended this design. This is a very interesting aspect to note. There has been discussion across the Chamber thus far on the role of the Committee. I say this not to blame others for the mistakes that were made but to highlight that mistakes were made by everybody in this process. The Committees of the Northern Ireland Assembly, set up under the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, have a very different role from some Committees in other Assemblies and Parliaments. The Committees of the Northern Ireland Assembly were to have a collaborative role. They were to work together on policy design.”
“I know that we all want to have good policy design. For good policy design and good policies, we need to make sure that that process is right.”
“Regardless of your view — I have heard many different views across all the parties — on ministerial responsibility and the clear desire constantly articulated by many in the Chamber to blame just one person, I would respectfully and strongly say that this will not solve the issue. It is clear from the evidence to the PAC, the evidence to the Committee and the discussions so far that this was a failure in process. Blaming just one person for that will not resolve the failings in that process.”
“There is much to be considered and many questions to be asked. How did this happen? Why was the tariff removed by officials? Why did officials recommend a policy design without the tariff? Did this issue come up during Committee evidence, and was it raised by those who were called before the Committee? Why did the safeguards and scrutiny mechanisms fail to identify the tariff issue at the time when the policy design was agreed? These are important and critical issues for all of us here. <BR /> <BR />The evidence to the PAC on Wednesday clearly highlighted that this was not a failing by just one person.”
“I welcome the Economy Minister's proposals today. As I said last week, I welcome the acknowledgement in his statement of regret and the acknowledgement that serious mistakes led to the perverse incentives to overuse heat. This was clearly not the intention. As I also said last week, good policy development and design are absolutely essential to changing outcomes for the better and for good government policies and interventions. The process for good policy design failed in this case, with the tariff issue not being identified at the time as necessary. An inquiry will find out why this process failed and what lessons must be learned. <BR /> <BR />These regulations will, hopefully, reduce any Northern Ireland liability for additional cost as soon as possible. However, it is only one part of the issue.”
“Does the Member also accept that, in the evidence from the officials to the Committee, they clearly indicated that their recommendation to Minister Foster at that time was that the safeguards were not in place? It was not that Minister Foster, when she was economy Minister, removed them; it was the recommendation from officials that they were absent.”
“I remain, as I know my colleagues in the DUP remain, fully committed to building a better and shared future for all in Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />There have been very many nasty allegations thrown around the Chamber over the last number of weeks and months. Let me say this very clearly: I am not corrupt, and I am not arrogant. I honestly believe that my colleagues and the colleagues who serve in the Chamber are not arrogant or corrupt either. I got involved in politics to serve the people, to do my utmost to use all and any ability I have to do what is right, to be an advocate and to deliver for the people of South Belfast and Northern Ireland. I am saddened that the hunt of one person and stepping aside have been used in a way that is now threatening the very institutions. I do not think that is justified, and, in fact, it will serve only to delay the very necessary inquiry even further.”
“If we are to move to a truly normalised political landscape here, and I believe that is very much what the people of Northern Ireland want, it will require political maturity. The era of throwing tantrums and the toys out of the pram must be left in the past. Mistakes will happen. Our processes are made up of people, and people are fallible, but we need to work collectively — that is our responsibility — not only to prevent mistakes but to find solutions when mistakes happen. We needed calm heads and clear thoughts. The Assembly became fixated on the stepping-aside issue, and we, in my view, should have focused on two things. First, how did this happen? Secondly, how can it be fixed? That is our duty, and it is a duty on all of us.”
“I am sorry; I have only five minutes, unfortunately. If we are to move —”
“As Chairperson of the Finance Committee, my role is in high-quality and prudent guardianship of public funds. That did not happen in this case; mistakes were made. Good policy development and design is critical to ensuring government policies deliver on their intended outcomes. Likewise, we need effective scrutiny to ensure that, if and when mistakes are made in the design, these are picked up and addressed. We all need to step back on this issue and look at it objectively. Yes, there was a failure in policy design but also a failure of scrutiny. The safeguards that we put in place did not deliver. The original scheme got Executive approval, Committee scrutiny and agreement and Assembly scrutiny and agreement, and all of that failed to pick up this flaw in the initial design stage. We need to know why.”
“I rise to speak on the motion and outline my full support for an independent judge-led inquiry. Inquiries can take many forms — statutory, judicial or under the Inquiries Act. However, the forum must include full independence, public confidence and sufficient robustness to get to the truth. This must happen as soon as possible. <BR /> <BR />There have been many allegations and much politicking on this issue across all parties. First, I want to put it clearly on the record that I welcome the acknowledgement of regret by Arlene Foster, by senior officials in their evidence to the Committee and just yesterday, by the Economy Minister. Make no mistake, I clearly understand — we all clearly understand — the significant concern of the public on this issue.”
“Sadly, what we have heard here today is a Minister of Health reading off a Sinn Féin election cue card rather than caring about the many, many thousands of people who will be impacted by the lack of a budget. The Health Department will start this financial year without a budget or planning, and that will impact on those most at need. The responsibility lies with you as Minister of the Department. You cannot duck the responsibility to ensure that there is a budget in place and to make representations to your colleagues to that end. What contingencies have you put in place, Minister, to ensure that public services in health are not impacted detrimentally?”
“The Minister will be aware that the Finance Committee met this morning in an emergency meeting to discuss the disgraceful situation facing Departments and public services at this time of having no Budget for 2017-18. The Minister is very good at running around and telling other Ministers and people what they should and should not be doing, but I put it to you that your number one duty as Finance Minister is to produce a Budget. We are facing a situation, due to the resignation of the deputy First Minister, where there will be no Budget. That will have a profound impact on the Department of Health, for example. What contingencies have you, as Minister, in place to prevent that detrimental impact on public services?”
“I thank the Minister for that answer. I am sure he will understand the significant pressure that this puts on local residents who have to deal with it weekend in and weekend out, and many of them have repeatedly raised their concerns with me. Will the Minister consider including a review of the HMO Act as part of the review that his Department is doing? Although it is relatively recent legislation, there are clearly some issues with its enforcement against rogue landlords and those who will not take control of the situation.”
“I have been speaking to some people about some very exciting proposals for capital investment. Given that we are anticipating a four-year multi-year Budget tomorrow in the Chancellor's statement, will the Minister outline the time frame for the much-needed investment fund?”