Philip Smith
Strangford · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I welcome this public inquiry and thank the Minister for his consultation on the process. Unfortunately, this is yet another failure of this dysfunctional Executive — that the Northern Ireland electorate will go to the polls without an output from this inquiry, due to the failure to set up an inquiry well over a month ago when we first ca…”
“Why has the Minister not insisted on a preliminary report so that the Northern Ireland electorate can go to the polls with some relevant information on the scandal? Why has he not confirmed a timeline for publication and outlined a process for the independent appointment of the two panel members referred to in the report?”
“I have to say, though, that, in most people's eyes now, having the fingerprints of a SpAd on anything will not be seen as much of an endorsement. <BR /> <BR />I have questions that, I hope, the Minister will reflect on and address when he gets an opportunity to make his comments on the regulations.”
“First, why did it need the threat of an election to generate a response to mitigate the impact of the scheme on the public purse? The Minister, as we all know, has had the Northern Ireland Audit Office report since July. Lack of action to date has already cost taxpayers over £16 million since then.”
“Have we not learned the hard lessons from the failures of the scheme?The question is raised in the report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules of whether this instrument is intra vires under section 24 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 because of its incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically article 1 of prot…”
“Like Mr Bell, I sincerely hope that these proposals end the £85,000 per day cost of the RHI scheme, but the proposals must be more than a pre-election panic measure in the hope that the public will forget the incompetence and the arrogant response to the scandal.”
The complete record
Every one of 185 lines we hold for Philip Smith, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister, during his remarks, bandied around the word "interference" like confetti. Can I clarify that we were here to discuss the terms of reference, or are they deemed to be "interference" as well?”
“Why has the Minister not insisted on a preliminary report so that the Northern Ireland electorate can go to the polls with some relevant information on the scandal? Why has he not confirmed a timeline for publication and outlined a process for the independent appointment of the two panel members referred to in the report?”
“I welcome this public inquiry and thank the Minister for his consultation on the process. Unfortunately, this is yet another failure of this dysfunctional Executive — that the Northern Ireland electorate will go to the polls without an output from this inquiry, due to the failure to set up an inquiry well over a month ago when we first called for it.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I share his understanding of what the likely ramifications may be. I fear that the regulations have too many holes and are too open to legal challenge, which could mean that the £85,000 per day of waste that my colleague refers to will continue. <BR /> <BR />I am afraid that this so-called solution is half-baked and produced in haste, and I worry that it will fail in its objective. Despite all those caveats, questions and concerns, as my party leader said earlier, we will not stand in the way of the regulations, in the hope that the waste will be curtailed.”
“They would be even angrier, if that were possible, if the regulations failed to stem the flood of waste. If the mitigating actions were also introduced in an incompetent way, making them open to legal challenge and continuing the £85,000 per day waste of taxpayers' money —”
“Today is about trying to put right the mistakes of the past concerning the now infamous RHI scheme. The priority must be to put in place cost controls to minimise the liability to the public purse, but any proposals must minimise the scope for legal challenge; let us not repeat previous mistakes. The purpose of the regulations must be to stop the waste, protect public finances and put in place the protections that were — for some unknown reason that, I hope, the public inquiry will uncover — removed when the scheme was introduced in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />No doubt like many in the Chamber, I was out on the doorsteps at the weekend, and people are genuinely angry at this incompetence and scandal. I have never witnessed a public reaction like it.”
“Has the Minister considered that proposal? What are his views on the issues raised by Mr Capper? Is the Minister satisfied that his duty to consult those potentially affected by the regulations will not be used as a reason for legal challenge? <BR /> <BR />My party has proposed the use of a windfall tax — Mr Agnew referred to that a little earlier — to recoup the excess income from the RHI scheme. That is the best method for recouping the excess cost while minimising the potential for legal challenge. Has the Minister considered that option? If not, why not? If he has excluded it as an option, can he tell us why he has come to that conclusion?”
“Mr Capper concludes his letter by saying:”
“Have we not learned the hard lessons from the failures of the scheme?The question is raised in the report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules of whether this instrument is intra vires under section 24 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 because of its incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically article 1 of protocol 1. Can the Minister confirm that there is no risk under ECHR and that the proposals under the regulation are deemed to be proportionate? <BR /> <BR />No doubt the Minister will have a copy of the letter that all parties received from David Capper, a reader in law at Queen's University Belfast, urging the inclusion of a hardship clause in the regulation to ensure that it is not seen as a blunt instrument. Mr Capper suggests that a hardship clause:”
“<BR /> <BR />As has already been mentioned, the eleventh report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules to the Assembly refers in detail to the regulations before us. It highlights issues that I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to at the end of the debate. We know that there has been no detailed scrutiny by the Economy Committee due to the tight turnaround for the regulations. My colleague Steve Aiken has stepped up in the absence of the Chair to maximise the engagement and scrutiny by the Committee in such a short timescale. Why has it taken so long to finally produce a scheme to stem the waste of public funds, thereby curtailing the time available for proper scrutiny?”
“First, why did it need the threat of an election to generate a response to mitigate the impact of the scheme on the public purse? The Minister, as we all know, has had the Northern Ireland Audit Office report since July. Lack of action to date has already cost taxpayers over £16 million since then. These proposals will add another £6·5 million to the bill before it comes into force on 1 April. We now, at least, have a public inquiry following Sinn Féin's welcome U-turn on the issue. Arlene Foster had promised to call one nearly a fortnight ago, and, of course, we have had nothing since then as well. Despite this better-late-than-never proposal, we have many questions outstanding, and no one, of course, has been held to account for the, at best, appalling errors of judgement and mismanagement.”
“I have to say, though, that, in most people's eyes now, having the fingerprints of a SpAd on anything will not be seen as much of an endorsement. <BR /> <BR />I have questions that, I hope, the Minister will reflect on and address when he gets an opportunity to make his comments on the regulations. Does the business case — we have yet to see the business case, of course — achieve the zero additional cost that he and Arlene Foster first promised a number of weeks ago? I believe that the proposals before us will retain an ongoing cost of over £2·25 million. I would appreciate it if the Minister could confirm whether that will still be the case. <BR /> <BR />The key question of course is this: are the proposals legally sound, or will they fall at the first legal challenge? I will come to that in a bit more detail further on in my remarks.”
“Like Mr Bell, I sincerely hope that these proposals end the £85,000 per day cost of the RHI scheme, but the proposals must be more than a pre-election panic measure in the hope that the public will forget the incompetence and the arrogant response to the scandal. What is proposed in the regulations is the introduction of some of the controls that should never have been removed in the first place on the previous Minister's watch. As my colleague Alan Chambers said, the permanent secretary, when he was giving evidence to the Economy Committee earlier today, admitted that the scheme that is in front of us today was cooked up by a special adviser over Christmas. He did not say who it was. Perhaps the Minister may elaborate when he is summing up later this evening.”
“The penny appears finally to have dropped that the public anger in response to the scandal is genuine and widely held and that the usual tactics to distract attention will not work. The last-minute action brought yesterday appears to be designed to be a short-term fix ahead of an election campaign. While we hope that public money can be saved, that does not get the DUP off the hook. We must have a public inquiry. <BR /> <BR />Finally, the whole mess is summed up by the recent fire in Fermanagh, where eight boilers in a shed overheated. It is a scandal — incompetence at best. Northern Ireland deserves so much better. At least people will now have the opportunity to pass their judgement on the scandal.”
“We proposed the adjournment of yesterday's debate so that we would have more time to scrutinise the Minister's proposals effectively. I hope that we will see a proper business case, have time to allow the Examiner of Statutory Rules to look in detail at the proposals and ensure that there is a sound legal foundation for the legislation. The last thing that we want is a legal challenge, although it appears that that is already in waiting. As my colleague Steve Aiken said yesterday, I hope that the Minister will stake his position on the legal validity of his proposals. <BR /> <BR />I suppose that we should be grateful that the arrogant response to the scandal has started to wane.”
“The Government have known about this for at least a year, if not longer. The Northern Ireland Audit Office report was published in July 2016. Why oh why were proposals brought only at the last minute? It is all, I believe, to try to avoid awkward questions on the doorsteps. However, we will certainly welcome anything that plugs the £85,000 daily cost of this scandal and protects Northern Ireland's taxpayers.”
“I hope that the Economy Minister will continue to stand over that commitment. To give some context to the cost, I refer to a tweet that Sam McBride issued last week. This is not about a media storm. I pay tribute to the role that the media have played in this process; they have exposed the scandal in all its detail. He said in his tweet that RHI has cost taxpayers £3 million since the BBC 'Spotlight' programme, £20·5 million under this Executive and £32·4 million since the whistle-blower warned OFMDFM in January 2016. Of course, it will cost a further £6·5 million at least until the regulations come into effect on 1 April. There are also other costs that the Department is liable for. So much for zero cost. <BR /> <BR />Why have we had to wait until now for action? Is the thought of facing the electorate focusing minds?”
“On 4 January this year, Mrs Foster said in the 'Belfast Telegraph':”
“I will move on to the cost of this scandal. The motion calls on:”
“I take that point on board, but the bottom line is that, if we had taken on the GB policy, we would not be in the mess that we are in today. The question is this: how do the Assembly and the public get answers? As Mr Dickson asked, where is the public inquiry that we were promised by Arlene Foster last Wednesday? There has been nothing again. Accountability seems to have been punted down the road, at best until after an election. How very convenient.”
“I thank the Member for the intervention. I totally agree. The changes that were proposed by the Economy Minister yesterday basically put in the tiering and controls that were, inexplicably, removed under Arlene Foster's watch as ETI Minister, as you rightly said. If, as Mr McCormick suggests — he should know — it was a policy mistake, it reinforces Mrs Foster's responsibility.”
“<BR /> <BR />I believe that the Department's permanent secretary, Andrew McCormick, said at the Economy Committee yesterday that the mistake in the original scheme was a policy mistake. Who makes policy? Ministers make policy. He was very clear about where the responsibility lies.”
“I appreciate that this is a long and complex motion. I will focus on a couple of key clauses. The motion highlights "mounting public concern" and "damage caused to public confidence". Those words do not do justice to the anger and frustration that people genuinely feel about this scandal. It is a scandal, as we have heard from Mr Bell. It has brought down these institutions. It has led to an unnecessary and expensive election that is unwanted by the public. It has damaged the reputation of Northern Ireland nationally and internationally. It could and should have been avoided. Even as recently as Christmas, the then First Minister could have avoided the current crisis by not taking an arrogant and high-handed approach to this scandal and instead taking her share of responsibility for this failure.”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. I appreciate that the initial question has been taken over by events, but, now that we have no monitoring round capability and the first Bengoa action on waiting lists will fall, what does the Minister say to the 250,000 people on record waiting lists to explain why she has put party politics before effectively doing her job for all the people of Northern Ireland?”
“They rightly want an apology, action to mitigate the liability to the public purse and to see those who were responsible be accountable for their actions. First Minister, this happened on your watch, under your leadership. You need to go until the scandal has been fully investigated. I support the motion.”
“This is about leadership, as I said at the start. The First Minister needs to think of what is best for Northern Ireland, not what is best for herself as a leader or for the DUP. It is not party first but country first. Brazening it out is not a sign of strength but of weakness. The DUP can, of course, vote against everyone else and win a pyrrhic victory which will only further undermine public confidence and, understandably, push the public towards the Trumpism of wanting to drain the swamp. Who could blame them? <BR /> <BR />We also need to see leadership from the other partners in government, Sinn Féin, and the Justice Minister, Clare Sugden. Or, is Jonathan Bell correct: it is all about collective responsibility? <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, the public expect action on this issue.”
“Although, of course, a First Minister standing aside in Northern Ireland is not exceptional. We have been here before, and Mrs Foster has played a key role not once, but twice. This time, it is different. Previously, Mrs Foster stepped in for Mr Robinson for a period of six weeks — the maximum allowed — in order for Mr Robinson to deal with his family difficulties resulting from his wife's actions, and, more recently, as a political tactic to get him and his party out of a hole. This time, Mrs Foster must stand aside to account for her own actions — her responsibility for the design and outworkings of the disastrous RHI scheme.”
“It is also why the First Minister cannot credibly continue in her role until this scandal has been properly investigated. This time, the scale of the failure is so enormous and so unique that it requires an exceptional response.”
“On the row, he said that she was hostile and abusive; she said that he was physically intimidating. However, the focus must not be on the personality fight between, in their words, "aggressive" Bell and "hostile" Arlene. The critical issue is the £485 million of our money that has been needlessly committed — the key word is "committed" — to a damaged scheme. <BR /> <BR />Who is responsible? Who is accountable for this debacle? Did the penny really drop only when the Treasury refused to pay the overspend? Was it OK to fleece the UK Treasury? They are our taxes too, do not forget, but the you know what hit the fan only when the block grant was impacted. This is why we need a full investigation. The public demand answers, and, this time, we cannot and will not be punted into the long grass.”
“<BR /> <BR />Some 251,000 people sat up to watch Stephen Nolan's exposé last Thursday night, which is testament not only to the theatre of good journalism but to the interest and concern of the people of Northern Ireland in getting to the bottom of this mess. <BR /> <BR />This scandal — let us be in doubt that it is a scandal — has hit home with people much more than the litany of previous allegations and problems that have beset this Government. The spat between Mr Bell and Mrs Foster was certainly jaw-dropping television. On the waste of money, he said that DUP SpAds overruled him; she said that it was his decision alone. On the emails, he said that DUP SpAds tried to change the email evidence trail; she said that there was no attempt to remove references to her Department and OFMDFM.”
“We have been called back from recess, supposedly to help to restore the public's confidence in our Government. Today's events and lack of action from the First Minister and the Executive to tackle the RHI issue have no doubt diminished the reputation of these institutions even further. We now have to wait for some unspecified time in the new year until we see an action plan for RHI and a Budget for this Government. We needed to see leadership today from the First Minister and the Executive. The Opposition are doing their part by playing their role in holding this Government to account. We have raised this issue again and again in recent months, and now the BBC, via 'Spotlight' and 'The Nolan Show', has got its teeth into the story. I pay tribute to its journalistic endeavours because the issue is now rightly on top of everyone's agenda.”
“Will the investigation initiated by the Minister be able to distinguish between maladministration and illegitimate installations — in other words, fraud? Are the police currently investigating this?”
“How can the public have any faith in the Executive's ability to represent Northern Ireland's best interests on this issue when one half of it is so blatantly pursuing —”
“Yesterday, Sinn Féin launched a document called 'Towards a United Ireland'. In a covering letter from Gerry Adams, which we all received, he said that the prospect of Northern Ireland:”
“All that remains is a policy vacuum and a massive bill that, as the Audit Office identified, could and should have been avoided. <BR /> <BR />I hope the Minister can, in his response, provide reassurance that the lights will not go off in Northern Ireland any time soon and that he can detail his plans for securing the additional generating capacity needed to avoid that. If we do not take action now, electricity outages could become a reality by 2021, if not before.”
“<BR /> <BR />I acknowledge that there are concerns about the use of overground rather than underground cabling and the resulting impact on public health as well as the local landscape, and those objections may well hold up progress. The issue of interconnection is closely related to the issue of renewables policy. Where will all the consented renewables go if the interconnector is further delayed? Where is the grid capacity? With the sudden closure of the NIRO and the RHI does the Executive have a policy or a plan for renewable energy? Leaving to one side for a moment the unfolding scandal of RHI currently being investigated by the Public Accounts Committee, the fact is that there is nothing to replace what has gone before.”
“SONI proposes greatly increasing wind capacity to deliver the double benefit of building local capacity along with meeting our 40% renewables target by 2020. Whatever your views are on doubling or more the number of wind turbines in Northern Ireland, the reality is that wind generation is intermittent and still requires backup capacity. Furthermore, integrating additional large amounts of renewables onto the grid will require significant investment in the transmission and distribution network. While both of those developments will help build capacity, the key action is the building of the second North/South interconnector to secure an integrated single energy market, but, for it to be in place on time, work must get under way now.”
“I have already given way, so I want to make progress. <BR /> <BR />Hence its endorsement of a second North/South interconnector, which was then forecast to be operational in 2013-14. Here we are in late 2016, no further on and keeping our fingers crossed that we have enough capacity to deliver our energy requirements. That may be one of the less newsworthy failures of the Executive but is, possibly, the one with the biggest impact. It is ironic and cold comfort that our low growth and energy demand due to flatlining economic growth may be our saviour. <BR /> <BR />What are our options? The return, as we have talked about, of the Moyle interconnector to full capacity will be helpful, but its record of faults does not instil great confidence.”
“I thank the Member for his point. The reality, as he points out, is that we are going from generating a 600 MW surplus last year to a 200 MW surplus this year, and from 2021, as the Member rightly points out, our generating capacity will be in deficit. <BR /> <BR />While we currently are secure in our electricity supply, a prolonged outage of a large generation plant or of the Moyle interconnector would force us into deficit at any time. All that was recognised in DETI's 2010 strategic energy framework —”
“I can quote many others, like the economist John Simpson or the NI Utility Regulator, Jenny Pyper, saying similar things, but time is against me.”
“SONI general manager, Robin McCormick, in this month's 'agendaNiI', stated that Northern Ireland is facing an energy supply crisis, as old, conventional fossil-fuel generators retire. He goes on to say that, over the next five years, we will be at a point where we are in energy deficit and states:”
“The motion rightly highlights two critical issues, each of which has the potential to derail Northern Ireland's economic policy — namely, energy affordability and security. I want to address the most important issue, which is energy security. <BR /> <BR />It is rare to get a consensus on any issue, but the potential for the lights to go out in Northern Ireland if we do not secure our supply and develop an energy strategy comes close. The CBI stated in 'Success through Smart Choices' that, even if the second North/South Interconnector was in place before 2021, the Executive would still face potential security of supply and system stability challenges. <BR /> <BR />Last month in 'The Irish News' Jamie Delargy said:”
“If the public do not care who does what, it raises this question: why have devolution at all? The Minister will, I hope, be aware of correspondence that I have sent him seeking feedback on my private Member's Bill, which proposes devolving powers to local government, including regeneration powers. As he is, I believe, now responding on behalf of the Executive but has yet to do so, can I assume that his statement indicates his lack of support?”
“Does the Minister accept that what the Executive have at present, namely, secret monitoring rounds, no longer any public consultation on annual Budgets and absolutely no transparency on how Department's baselines are generated or altered, is exactly the opposite of the thinking around a citizens' budget?”
“Thank you, Minister, for your statement. I look forward to studying this in more detail at the Finance Committee. I look forward to welcoming the Minister to the Committee again. Hopefully, it might be a little less entertaining and more insightful than his last visit. From his statement, it appears that this has yet to be agreed by the Executive. Did the Minister not consider replicating the Scottish or English model for non-domestic or business rates by removing all SMEs from rates below maybe £10,000 or £6,000 respectively, with tapers down to even higher levels?”
“What discussions has the deputy First Minister had with the First Minister regarding the Supreme Court appeal? Are they any closer to producing an agreed, joined-up post-Brexit plan for Northern Ireland?”
“— to look at in the consultation. I agree with my colleague Sandra Overend and urge the Minister to be creative in order to maintain face-to-face services in the towns affected.”
“In Ballynahinch, for example, there are 13 or 14 staff but 13,000 or 14,000 service users. I appreciate that that may be only a secondary issue from the Minister's perspective, but, if you take the offices out of these towns, it will have a massive impact on trading conditions. That needs to be taken on board. <BR /> <BR />The key issues in the consultation were value for money and the need for investment. From a value-for-money perspective, the focus in Ballynahinch in my constituency was on running costs for staff, when, in reality, they should look at the running costs for the service users, which is a much better comparison. On the issue of investment, the comparison in the consultation for Ballynahinch was for a £2·2 million new build, when, in reality, a £700,000 refurbishment of the existing building would have sufficed.”
“Those people will find this a much more difficult proposition. <BR /> <BR />The other impact, of course, is on the towns themselves. The consultation certainly focuses on that, but it talks about the lack of footfall if staff go.”
“Members talked travelling the 10 or 11 miles from Cookstown to Magherafelt or Dungannon, and, in my constituency, with the example of Ballynahinch, we are talking about people travelling to Newtownbreda or Lisburn. By the time that people, first, incur the costs of getting there and, secondly, travel to and fro, with a public transport timetable that does not facilitate transport particularly well, the reality is that people who are going to claim JSA are probably technically not available for work that day because of the time and effort that they have of getting to and from the place of signing on. I think that the Minister should take that on board. That is before you consider the more vulnerable, such as those who have young children, those who are disabled and service users who are older.”