A Nolan Show Investigation

we head towards Christmas Day itself. Some unsettled conditions to

come, but before that we have a crisp and bright weekend.

Now more on the story that's been dominating the week's news.

On the face of it, it sounds like just another

Government initiative, with a suitably dull name -

In reality, it has become the biggest financial scandal ever

More than ?400 million of your money committed over the next 20 years

to subsidise the uptake of renewable energy.

The problem is that there was no cap.

The more you burned, the more you earned.

Hundreds of millions of pounds of public money

The question is, why wasn't it closed down

Instead, it was kept open and when news came last autumn

that the subsidy was to be reduced there was a rush to get in.

There was a massive spike in applications,

accounting for almost half the total projected spend.

The claim is that that autumn deadline was extended

despite warnings and because of political pressure.

How was it all allowed to get so far?

Tonight, the DUP MLA and former minister Jonathan Bell

goes on the record to, in his own words, tell the truth

about what he believes actually happened.

We'll hear that interview with me in just a moment and then we'll get

the response of the First Minister, Arlene Foster, who spoke to me

So, let's hear what Jonathan Bell had to say.

We ask that by the power of the holy spirit that you will direct him in

all that they think and say, that at the end of the day we all will have

been done for the glory of Christ. Father, here are our prayer, for

Christ's sake. I have undertaken before God that I

will tell you the truth. Yes, hundreds of millions of pounds has

been committed and significant amounts of money has been spent. I

am authorising every detail, every document, every civil service

document that I signed, every submission that I signed, to be made

publicly available and to be examined exactly as the truth I now

give you. And you are saying, I will go into the detail in a second, you

are saying you believe this scandal was avoidable? Is that your

position? Yes. Let's start then, when you became minister, May 2000

and 15. Day one, were you aware of this? No. There was nothing

mentioned that was urgent. How do you feel about that? It should have

been closed on day one. Why? Hundreds of millions of pounds have

been overspent which will have to be clawed back out of schools,

hospitals and roads. You believe there was an awareness in May that

this was a problem? There should have been an awareness of the cost

of the scheme. That should have been brought to my attention as Minister,

with an urgency and to be immediately addressed. That was in

May. Let's move to June, because there was a significant event in

June 2015 involving the permanent Secretary, Andrew McCormick. What

happened? The permanent secretary, who, let me say is a person, of all

the times I have worked with him, is a man of the utmost integrity, one

of the finest servants of the civil service that the public could ask

for, he came to me and raised with me concerns over the scheme. What

did he say? That the scheme would overspend. They were not sure by how

much. It was difficult to calculate. Was he expressing low-level concern,

or was he very concerned, or what was his demeanour? Significant

concern with the scheme. And the advice I was being given was that we

could manage this if we reduce the tariff. Just to be clear, when we

are talking about closing the scheme, there two parts to the

scheme. For this section we are talking about, we are talking about

closing the lucrative part of the scheme, the part where there was

only one tariff being paid out to the public, and the more you burned,

the more you learned. So why didn't you close it? Because his

explanation was that now these concerns were raised, it takes a

month period to process a submission, for me to address, and

that we would do that immediately, we would take action on it

immediately. Did you? We did. There was a submission on record, which

they have allowed me to see but not to photo copy, and that submission

will show a date in the very early part of September signed Jonathan

Bell, where I sought to reduce the tariff. So you sought to close that

part of the lucrative scheme. Yes. And you are the minister in charge.

Yes. And my signature, at the earliest possible date, I believe,

is on a document currently with the Department of the economy, signed by

me, at the most immediate point. When? September 2000 and 15. So why

didn't they? The DUP involve themselves in the process. Special

advisers? These are the key advisers within government. They are senior

people, senior political advisers. I was then informed by my special

adviser in the Department that other DUP special advisers were not

allowing the scheme to be closed. That is a big allegation. It is a

fact. Not allowing it to be closed. This is a fact. How had they the

power? This is a fact that will not only be borne out by me, but I had

discussions with my permanent secretary at the time. And the

explanation was that these other special advisers, I had to act by

what they term collective responsibility. In the words of my

permanent secretary, this is the way government works. If the other

special advisers are saying the scheme has to be delayed, then you

cannot, you have to work in collective responsibility with them.

Which department are you talking about have the power to overrule

you? The office of the First Minister's special advisers, and the

Department of Finance and personnel special advisers. Do you know for a

fact that they influenced the scheme staying open? Here is the fact that

I do know which reveals it. The deputy permanent secretary of my

department, Chris Stewart, asked for something that was highly unusual

and only done once in the five years that I sat in the executive. He

asked to meet the minister, as he is entitled to do, to whistle-blower on

a one-to-one basis. What did he say? He said the purpose of me being here

today, and for you not having even your own special adviser with you,

is, minister, we have two advise you that, without your knowledge, the

special adviser in your department has been asked by the other special

advisers to remove references to Arlene Foster, the First Minister,

and to the Department of Finance and personnel. I have spoken about this

subsequently to the permanent secretary, who has verified all of

this and is prepared, if asked, to put it formally on the record in an

enquiry. I have asked for the changes that were sought to be made,

when I said to him, how can I see the evidence of what your deputy

permanent secretary was telling me, he said, there is an e-mail Trail. I

cannot show you the e-mail trail because you are only entitled to see

the final e-mail. But he said, you will see the that there were to take

out the references to office of First Minister and the Department of

Finance and personnel. Fact. Now, why would they want to do that? That

is for them to answer. Why do you think? You have told me you were

going to tell me the truth from your heart today. I can tell you the

truth from my heart. I cannot tell you what they're thinking and

motivation was. Personally, I was deeply, deeply hurt that, as a

minister, the supposed number one in that department, the person who the

buck stops with, that without my knowledge, and without my consent,

this attempt was made. It took a whistle-blower, a person of

considerable integrity, to brief me as Minister that this was happening.

So why was the scheme kept open? I have asked questions. Can I say...

Lets not come off this point. What is your belief of why this scheme

was kept open, because we are now getting into the period where

hundreds of millions of pounds of the money of the people watching

this programme was committed to. I want you to tell me, why do you

believe this was kept open? I believe the scheme was kept open

wrongly, inappropriately, and when I commit to telling the truth, I am

not prepared to speculate why other people did what they did. Factually,

it is on the record. I wanted to close the scheme on the 1st of

October. The outside interference of the special advisers in short the

scheme was kept open another four weeks. Who? They will have to detail

that. My understanding from my own special adviser at the time and also

from the belief of the permanent secretary was that it was the

special advisers in the First Minister's office, and also the

special adviser... Who? The name given to me from the First

Minister's office was Timothy Johnson, and from the Department of

Finance and personnel, of which Arlene Foster was the First

Minister, was Doctor Andrew Crawford. These are astonishing

allegations you are making and I want to go over this again. You are

telling me that the special adviser to the First Minister, when she was

the minister in the Department for Finance and personnel, you are

telling me that special adviser attempted to keep this scheme open

against your will? Yes. Timothy Johnson is one of the most senior

people in the DUP. He is at the heart of your party. Timothy Johnson

is the most senior adviser in the DUP. And has been for a long time.

What are you saying about him? I am saying, factually, as the record

will bear out, I sought to close the scheme on the first of Toba to a

lower tariff, which would have left us in a manageable situation. -- the

1st of October. I was informed by my special adviser I wouldn't be

allowed to do it. Here is the implication of this. October, 429

more applications. Your money, a projected ?250 million. November,

the scheme continued until November 17. This is the lucrative part of

the scheme. Those first two and a half weeks, 452 applications,

another 235 Ian pounds your money committed over a 20 year period. --

235 Lean pounds. ?485 million of your money, and you are telling me

that is because special advisers, against your will, kept this open.

Yes. And I can tell you more. The permanent secretary has confirmed to

me in recent days, because I said, why could my instruction as Minister

not be followed? He said, it is the way the government works in Northern

Ireland, that when the other special advisers interfere, you must work by

collective responsibility. He would not have been able to do it alone.

Have you evidence that the Department of Finance and personnel,

when Arlene Foster was Minister, knew about the soaring numbers in

this scheme? And the financial problems that this would cause? My

understanding is when my permanent secretary was telling me this, that

it is inconceivable that the permanent secretary in my view,

David Stirling, would not have been telling the Department of Finance

and personnel of the nature of this. And do you believe the special

adviser in Arlene Foster's department at the time, her special

adviser, do you believe he was acting with her knowledge? I only

speak factually, and I wasn't there for any of those meetings so I

cannot comment. What I can comment on is, factually, my permanent

secretary informs me that when a special adviser of a minister

informs the Department, the rules are that they are taking it as the

instructions of the minister. What about the office of First Minister?

The same applies. That is what my permanent secretary is telling me.

He is clear that the reason the scheme was delayed, on the record,

was because of the outside influences and interferences of the

DUP special advisers. Why did and you fight on the half of the people

of this country in October and November, when you knew this was out

of control, because you were saying the numbers were there, right? I was

not getting daily updates. You had no notion in October or November

that anything was wrong? Andrew McCormick told you in June he had

concerns and wanted it closed by September. Why didn't you fight for

us, Jonathan? Don't say things can't be true. What Andrew McCormick told

me in June is true. What I have told you is true. I was not given, and

there is a record of this, I was not given a daily update, or a weekly

update. You knew something was wrong. That's true, which is

different. You should have had concern. Why didn't you? I had major

concerns. Why didn't you shout? The permanent Secretary told me, you are

under collective responsibility as a minister in this government, and as

part of ministerial collective responsible itty, you cannot breach

those codes. What I did at the time was I did raise my concerns. Those

concerns are on the record, and I was also told that I was overruled.

The Minister of the department was overruled by the outside special

advisers. Arlene Foster might be saying this

is revisionist history. I will make all the documents and facts

available because I'm given to understand that if I make a referral

to the commissioner for standards every document every e-mail,

everything that is currently being withheld from me is available to

them. I don't want revisionist history, I want a public enquiry,

Judge Laird, to examine every single document I am giving complete

permission, everything to do with me and my department, every document,

every submission, to be let out. You will see factually that every

document will stack up the truth that I'm telling you today. Arlene

Foster has been saying over recent days that she has nothing to hide

and she is very much putting the Spotlight on the officials, those

officials she says, she passed the whistle-blower's concerns onto those

officials and she has nothing to hide. Do you believe she is hiding

something? I believe my officials when they tell me there is a

documented e-mail trail which shows an attempt behind my back without

the knowledge of the Minister of the department, to cleanse the record,

my officials are not only telling me at that time. Either way, when it

told me at the time, I did inform my party leader, Arlene Foster, my

Deputy Leader, Nigel Dodds, and Lord Morrow, the chairman of the party,

in writing of my concerns because it was so serious. You have known her a

long time. Arlene and I go way back to 1989 when we were students at

Queens University together. I think I was one of, if not the first

person, to sign her nomination. When she became leader, I told her she

had my full support. She had 100% loyalty and service from me. Does

she have that now? I am in a position of major and massive pain.

The truth overrides anything else. Doctor Paisley once taught us, you

must tell the truth should the heavens fall. This is not easy for

me. In any way. We are now at January 2016, and the reason why

this period is critical is because the Treasury in this month had sent

notice to the government in Northern Ireland that they were not picking

up the bill for this renewable heating scheme overspent, correct?

January? I went to close it immediately. Why? For the reasons

you just said. The Treasury is telling us. The advice from the

Treasury, the advice from my permanent secretary. What did he

say? Than it was to the effect that it was so significant it was

unsustainable and needs to be closed immediately. I fully agree with him

on the basis of the evidence that I analysed and reviewed. In fact, what

he said to me was you have to close the scheme and I am no longer

prepared to deal with these outside influences. I am putting this on the

record to you. What Andrew said to me was, if you want me to continue

the scheme as your principal civil servant, you must issue me with the

ministerial directive to keep the scheme open. I said to him, Andrew,

I will guarantee you I will not issue, and never issued him ever

with the ministerial directive to keep the scheme open. I refused. And

yet this scheme did not close. What happened was I went away and I was

informed on a confidential business trip and I was trying to secure jobs

for Northern Ireland, that the First Minister of Northern Ireland was

ordering me to keep the scheme open. So by this stage, and this is

January 2016, by this stage Arlene Foster is the First Minister of our

country and you fly back from your trip abroad. What happens the next

day? I leave Canada on the beginning of February, I think, though state

to run record. I refused Arlene's instruction to keep it open because

I refuse to give the ministerial directive because I will as the

permanent Secretary do something wrong, to get him to do something

wrong in the face of all the evidence. I flew back from Montreal

to London. In the early hours of the morning, six o'clock, I was on the

9:20am flight back to Belfast. I went straight home, changed my suit

and had a shower, and I was the answer questions at two p.m.. I was

ordered to appear in front of the First Minister before my Question

Time. In the strongest terms both in volume and force. Arlene Foster

overruled me and told me to scape -- told me to keep the scheme open.

Described the scene in her office. I went in and sitting in front of her

desk at that stage I think the word to special advisers, Stephen

Brimstone and Richard Bullick in the room. What she controlled? She was

highly agitated and angry because I had been refusing over the last

period and telling them I was not going to do this. Give me more of a

sense of the atmosphere in that room. Hostile. Fear. It was abusive.

Abusive in what way? She is sitting down just talking to you? Know, she

shouted at me at me to keep the skin open. She shouted so much that

Timothy Johnston came into the room. That is her special adviser? Yes.

She said I had to keep it open, but I was strongly saying I would not.

The image you are portraying on this programme is that our First Minister

in her room was shouting at you. Voices raised, ordering me to reopen

the scheme. It caused me a lot of problems because people know that I

have closed it, and I turned to the special advisers and said, you knew

I was closing this, what on earth are you thinking of reopening it?

They sat and dropped their heads, they had no answers. You must have

asked the First Minister, Arlene Foster, Wiley, you must have said

wide? We are night at about 1:20pm, I had flown through the night,

hadn't been to bed in 24 hours and at 2pm I am to appear at the

dispatch box for 45 minutes to answer questions. The

determination... I was determined to tell her that I would not and never

have, and I doubt he ever will, issue a ministerial directive to

tell a civil servant to do something which in my heart of hearts I

believe to be wrong. There is of course a counter narrative to this,

which is as many other political parties were doing at that time,

demanding, calling for the scheme to be kept open and Arlene Foster may

very well have been of this view, to be fair to her, that people

throughout Northern Ireland had invested in these boilers or had

orders in place or have legitimate businesses, many legitimate

businesses, to use this environmentally friendly products,

and that might be why she was insisting to you that I want this

kept open. This was a luxury that was not only not affordable, but to

fulfil what was legally contracted you were going to have to take that

money from the future budget for generations of Northern Ireland. You

have a problem with my next question. Any question I will

answer. You walked out of that room and you told the Assembly, you told

the public of Northern Ireland, that the right thing to do was to extend

the scheme, to keep it open. That was out of your mouth. You have a

problem. The way the government works is you have all of your

arguments and all of your difficulties behind closed doors. At

the way collective responsibility works is that no matter how fears

the argument, no matter the bullying or whatever it is, the final

decision is then defended by all of the ministers, that is collective

responsibility. He said that I have decided to defer closure for two

weeks. Under the orders of the First Minister. I can't overrule it. I

can't overrule it. But you could have worked into that assembly...

The regret that I ultimately have now when we are seeing terminally

ill children being sent home from hospital is that I didn't resign. I

am sorry I didn't resign. I am sorry now that hundreds of millions of

pounds... Yes, I was overruled, Jessica can collective

responsibility, yes the triple back-up everything I say, but I am

sorry I didn't resign. Do you apologise to the people of Northern

Ireland for the money that was committed to be spent over a 20 year

period? I apologise for that, for that which I was responsible for.

Deeply, I am most profoundly sorry. Do you think Arlene Foster, your

party leader, goes the people of this country an apology? I think we

should all hang our heads in shame. Should she? All of us. She is the

First Minister, she was the minister in charge of the departments when

this process was designed. You have gone over the process. It is a

direct question about Arlene. Do you think she was the people of this

country an apology? Yes. For what? For the fact that the scheme was

allowed to run, for the fact that special advisers were allowed to

overruled me. I am apologising for what I wanted to do, which was close

on the 1st of October. I am not apologising for those who overruled

me. Here is the rub, we are hurting the most vulnerable people in

Northern Ireland and that doesn't make me sorry, it makes me sick. I

have come into the studio because my obligation is to God to tell the

truth are greater than my obligations to anybody else. Doctor

Paisley was right, tell the truth should the heavens fall on you. You

have no idea how difficult this is for me. I have been told there will

be ostracised, demonised, my political career is finished. Are

you involved in a coup to take Arlene Foster down as the First

Minister and leader of your party? Nothing, as God is no judge, could

be further from the truth. I am the boy that signed her papers. I

believe I was one of the first to sign her papers. I campaign for her,

I have been involved in nothing other than telling the truth of what

has occurred. What is your message to Arlene Foster? I think the

situation is so significant that first of all you have to deal with

the major problem, you can't stick a plaster over a gaping wounds, and

you deal with it by means of a public enquiry. And during that

time, when that investigation that you are asking for is happening, if

indeed it does happen, do you believe Arlene Foster should step

aside as the First Minister of our country? Well that investigation is

being conducted? I believe that people have to act according to the

conscience before God. What do you believe what might happen to you

within the DUP when this interview is broadcast? I have no idea. My

only aim is that the truth is told and I have no tour that.

You must have thought of the implications

And given the level of exposure and all the criticism

that comes with that, it'll not be easy.

But my wife told me this morning, "Jonathan, tell the truth.

You prayed, Jonathan, before this interview.

Faith and God is clearly very important to you.

I'm a very poor Christian but I've got a great God.

Because hospitals in Northern Ireland will not be built.

There is a ward in the Ulster Hospital,

Children are dying coming into our hospitals and they are dying, or we

are saying that they are going to have to drive 40 miles from the

There is a ward in the Ulster Hospital,

Do you think I can sit back and not tell the truth?

Not when God's told me to tell the truth.

And Doctor Paisley was right, "Tell the truth, should

That's what Jonathan Bell had to say.

Earlier this evening, I met the First Minister,

First Minister, thank you for doing this interview tonight. Why are you

speaking to us? First of all I thought it was important to have

balance on this programme. I understand you have had an interview

with Jonathan Bell and he has made allegations. I'm not sure what those

allegations are but I thought it was important that you heard from me in

relation to these matters because of course I was in China last week when

the story broke from Spotlight. I gave interviews on Monday but this

story has developed and now Jonathan Bell has decided to go to the press

in relation to this issue so it is important to hear from me as well.

Let's go back to when this scheme was first created. That is November

2000 12. It was created under your watch. Were the Minister of the

department and it was such a flawed scheme that the cost controls that

should have protected the public money was not there. Why did you not

protect our money? That is with the benefit of hindsight at the time.

Back in 2012 and 2011 and the run-up to the scheme being brought in, we

engaged a number of consultants in the energy division and external

consultants and they looked at the GB scheme. We decided we would have

our own Renewable Heat Incentive scheme. It was important to have our

own scheme because it was important to move people away from fossil

fuels... The question is why you did not protect our money? And one has

to put the context in place first. So it is important that we had a

renewable heat scheme. The officials brought the scheme to me and the

recommendation was that I go ahead with this without, with the benefit

of hindsight, there should have been tariffs in place. I left the

department in May of 2015. No problems were highlighted to me by

officials. There were no recommendations about doing anything

differently. But it was on your watch. It is not all about officials

getting all of the blame? It is not all about the officials. That is why

I am going to the Assembly... In May 2015I left the department and then

the department passed over to Minister Bell. I think I need to ask

you questions about what happened when this scheme was up and going

and your watch. In June 2013, consultants told your department to

seriously consider tiering. It did not happen, why not? It went out to

consultation. In October 2013, after the consultation, instead of

officials bringing back recommendations, I did not have any

information. It was on your watch. I am supposed to have a crystal ball.

The consultants did not say to me, they said it to the officials and

they did not bring me any recommendations. So it is their

fault? What is the point of view being minister if we do not hold to

account? You are holding me to account. I'm going to the Assembly

on Monday to set out all the difficulties around the scheme and

why we found ourselves in this situation. A whistle-blower

contacted you. Let's try to deal with the whistle-blower side of it.

I don't understand it. Nigel Dodds told the public: there has been

quite a scurrilous attempt to blame Arlene Foster for the RHI saga. The

endlessly repeated claim has been that she failed to follow up on the

whistle-blower concerns. Now we know no such concerns were raised with

her. He is saying no concerns were raised

with you when you told Spotlight in 2013 a whistle-blower made

allegations to me about the operation of the RHI scheme, I

passed these concerns onto departmental officials to

investigate. How can you pass concerns on that Nigel Dodds said

you never received? I'm glad you brought this up. Spotlight came to

me before I went to China and they said the whistle-blower and made

allegations against the RHI scheme. They did not provide me with the

e-mail the lady had sent to me. I understand you have now seen this

e-mail. We looked for this e-mail, could not find a whistle-blower

e-mail anywhere in the system. I went off to China. I knew I had

passed on any concerns to my officials that were raised with me

because that is my practice and what I would have done. When I returned

we finally found the letter the lady sent to me and indeed, it was not a

whistle-blowing letter. The whistle-blowing was raised in later

correspondence and later meetings with the various officials. The

letter that she sent me was along the lines of the fact that she

wanted to know how energy efficiency sat alongside renewable heat and how

I could help her with that and I asked the officials to help her with

that. That is the background to it all. So you did receive allegations

or not? I did not receive allegations. I said I passed on the

concerns. No, you did not. You said a whistle-blower made allegations to

me, your words. That is what was said to me by Spotlight. It now

turns out the lady only made those whistle-blowing concerns to the

officials later on. They did not provide me with any correspondence

so I have to go on memory. I knew I had passed on the correspondence

that was sent to me by this particular lady. I could not

remember what was in the letter. Jonathan Bell, as you know, a member

of your party, still a member of your party, is accusing the office

for First Minister and Deputy First Minister and special advisers for

trying to stop delays. What is your reaction to that? Trying to stop

delays or trying to stop cost control? Trying to stop delays in

implement in cost control and then there were delays in 2015? It is my

understanding that Jonathan was told in June there were big difficulties

with this scheme. He received a submission in early July. He did not

sign that submission off until I think somewhere in early September.

In that submission in early September he chose to close the

scheme in November. Jonathan took all of those decisions. No one from

the office of first and Deputy First Minister, as I understand it, nobody

in that office intervened. I certainly did not intervene because

I was a Finance minister at the time. What authority would I have to

intervene? I was at the same level. He is saying, and this is a man who

was a minister, your party appointed him as a minister, he is saying that

an official or officials within the F and DFM and SPADs. This is

Jonathan trying to detract from the fact that he took the decision after

he took the decision... To close the scheme. He named one of the special

advisers as Timothy Johnston. When we asked him did you ever attempt to

attempt to influence the decision, he said that he never took to

influence the decision. No one intervened in terms of the tariff

change in September. What I do understand is that advisers of

course well advised, but the minister takes a decision. Did

Timothy Johnson had any role in advising them to keep that lucrative

scheme open? No. I want to move on to the very point that there seems

to be delay after delay. If you think about it, they want the scheme

changed in September. They then want the scheme changed in October, they

then want the scheme changed in November. No. The scheme was to

close in November. There was a period in October when they wanted

it changed? The submission he signed off said November. The 1st of

October was also a period they aimed for. What he signed off, on the 4th

of September was the scheme would close in November. Do you know why

there were these delays? I have no idea. You haven't asked? Why would I

ask? I was a finance minister at the time. Why would you ask? You are the

First Minister of this country and you have not asked why the delays

were. I am talking about you asking on behalf of the public. I'm sure he

will tell you why he delayed the scheme. It would be very interesting

to hear. I am bemused why he would leave it open for such a period of

time. Let me get this right, we're hearing now of people who have been

putting boilers into sheds and blasting heat into the sky. We know

these delays were a factor and as our First Minister you still have

not asked what the delays were about? Jonathan signed off on a

submission on the 4th of September... Do not want to know?

I'm sure you have asked him why he left the scheme open for that period

of time. It would be in Justin to hear why he did that. There was no

influence from the former First Minister and no influence from me as

finance minister. How could I have influence when I was at the same

level? He took the decision to keep the scheme open. That has been an

attempt to remove references to you and the office of First Minister

from e-mail chains. What is your reaction to that? Now we have moved

on to the scheme in 2016. Thank you, and for this stage, there is now a

two tier system which happened on the 17th of September. Now we are in

the January and the Treasury sent a letter to our government here saying

we're not paying for this so there is panic. And we need to find the

money from somewhere. That aligned with the fact that I had someone who

came into me and said there was fraud in relation to the RHI scheme.

That person came to me towards the end of January. I was concerned

obviously about that issue. So I shared that. I was then, as you

know, in the Executive office as it is now, so I share that information

with the Deputy First Minister. By this stage, Jonathan had received a

submission which she signed off to close the scheme in March of 2016.

We felt that that was too late a date and so we spoke to him and that

was actually brought forward to February. The piece you are talking

about, and something I cannot understand was actually the fact

that we had had a consultation with Jonathan in relation to this issue,

not to delay the scheme but actually to bring it forward from March to

February and the submissions there. Let's deal with that first. Jonathan

Bell alleges that he wanted to close the scheme. This was very much his

thought process in January. He alleges that you called him to a

meeting. He says there was a stand-up row. He uses the word

abusive. He said you were shouted at him to keep it open. First of all he

signed off a submission in January to close the scheme in March and I

was concerned that was too long and I believed it needed to be closed

before that, as did the Deputy First Minister and we discussed the issue.

In relation to a meeting with Jonathan, I do recall a meeting with

Jonathan and rather than me be abusive with him, he was very

aggressive with me and I have a witness in relation to how he spoke

to me on that. I was sitting in my room and he came in and used his

physical bulk to stand over me in quite an aggressive way, so much so

that he was not physically but he was told to step back. And you know,

Stephen... The Jonathan Bell that appears, and

I have only seen a small clip of your programme tonight, but the

Jonathan Bell that would not be familiar to many of his political

colleagues, many of his civil servants in the department. Or

indeed to many in the business community. Many female colleagues

who have felt intimidated, felt the lead by Jonathan over the years. Mr

Bell would emphatically deny that. He may well do. I felt intimidated

by Jonathan Bell on occasion. And I certainly did on that occasion so

all of this nonsense that I was aggressive to him is quite the

contrary. What was he saying? He had when... He provide a statement

saying that he was closing the scheme immediately. Representations

were made across the political spectrum that there had been a lot

of people who had spent a lot of money on capital equipment he had

not had the chance to apply into the new score. Don't forget, this game

before November had been tiered. We spoke to senior civil servants and

they said there may be a possibility that there would be legal

challenges, these people had spent money, and they haven't been able to

apply into this game. We thought the best way forward was to leave a

two-week specific gap for those people to be able to apply in. So

you did ask for it to be extended? This was after I had said the march

was too late. Marched and forget was Jonathan's date. In conjunction with

senior civil servants who agreed that was the right thing to do, and

if you look at Jonathan's statement in the house that followed, he said

that the two-week period was in consultation with the office of the

first and Deputy First Minister. What he was angry about them was

that he would have to change for me -- from a major closure to another

two weeks and he didn't like the fact that he was going to have to go

back to the house and he was angry about that fact. Jonathan Bell says

he believes his political career is over. With izzard within your party?

That this for the party officers. We have a party officers Tina takes

decisions on that. What do you make of him? I think he is a very

aggressive individual. He has been aggressive to me in the past. I

think it will try to portray himself in a particular way this evening,

but I think plenty of people know exactly what Jonathan Bell is like.

Are you prepared to consider stepping aside while there is an

investigation into high hundreds of millions of pounds of our money has

been committed to be spent? Well, of course it would be spent because we

have a plan coming forward to deal with that matter and that plan will

come forward in January, so I am not stepping aside. I am First Minister,

party leader of the DUP and I have a job to do and I'm committed to do

that job. Can I say to the hundreds of people here contact me today,

thank you for your support, thank you for bringing into my office,

thank you for contacting all of the officers across Northern Ireland. I

really do appreciate your support and I won't let you down. I will

implement the plan to deal with these issues. How much of money do

you think we will get back? Well, it hasn't been spent yet. The money

that has been committed to be spent. We will get our significant

proportion of that. About half? I would hope that that would be the

case, yes. Obviously, at home, on Twitter and

Facebook and all of that, you will be commenting about that. There will

be full coverage on the BBC tomorrow of this.

Let's speak to the BBC's Political Editor, Mark Devenport,

who is with me and who has been watching that interview

with Arlene Foster, and also the earlier interview

That is extraordinary. Yes, words are almost failing me. It is time

for a sharp intake of breath as we sit back and take on what we have

seen. Extraordinary that these arguments that are so often kept

away from the public are being played out here on the screen and

extraordinary really the level of venom that now exists between these

once close colleagues. This is politics read into damp cloth. While

there was a lot of dense detail the about what document went to whom

went, it is clear that these two politicians have the complete

reputations on the line and there completely contradictory and you

have to conclude one is telling the truth with the other is telling the

telling the truth, the two cannot coexist. Here is a sense of the war

between the two of them, senior people in the DUP, both high

profile. Jonathan Bell alleges that Arlene Foster was shouting at him,

she alleges that he used his bulk to hover over her and have two be asked

to stand back. Extraordinary. It is the kind of scene you might see

outside a nightclub at closing time, I suppose, not the kind of scene

that I think the public would expect to be going on in terms of

discussions of these highly sensitive schemes, very important to

the public, potentially expensive to the public purse. He would have

thought there would be a degree of coolness over how this would have

been dealt with. But both of the accounts, there are certainly

wasn't. What we need to know and any enquiry that is brought in, we need

to know who was pushing for what. They are giving contradictory

accounts of this. Jonathan Bell has called for a judge let public

enquiry. Will he get it? At the moment, the ball is in the court of

the Public Accounts Committee. That looks like the place with the

witnesses will be called. Even members of the Public Accounts

Committee will be wondering if the powers are sufficient for the job,

they said that this afternoon when they met. A number of people were

named during that interview. We have asked them for their responses to

the allegations. We heard a lot about the role of the special

advisers, what have they been saying? To begin with, Timothy

Johnston is the most senior of the special advisers preferred to. At

the time he was about to the First Minister and he points out that for

the majority of this period that was Peter Robinson. Timothy Johnston

denies that he ever attempted to influence decisions about the

heating scheme. He also states that he never sought to alter or delete

records or e-mails relating to the scheme. Let's move onto Andrew

Crawford, at the time he was the special adviser in the Department of

Finance. Prior to joining the finance Department, Andrew Crawford

worked alongside Arlene Foster in the Department of enterprise. He

said he did have discussions with his successor at the enterprise

Department offering informal advice and assistance but not on behalf of

Arlene Foster, the Finance Minister. He also denies ever seeking to keep

the scheme open up a higher tariff against the wishes of the minister.

He points out that the then Minister, Jonathan Bell, had

expressed a view on the scheme. Two other advisers were mentioned,

Richard Bullick and Stephen Brimstone, who recently resigned.

Both are nice seeing any heated exchange between Arlene Foster and

Jonathan Bell. Then there is Timothy Cairns, Jonathan Bell's own adviser.

He said he did amend the draft submission on the heating scheme.

That is one of the contradictions in the accounts that we saw. Timothy

Cairns also said that he offered advice to Jonathan Bell, as he would

do, but the ultimate decisions about the heating scheme for further

minister to take. Peter Robinson was First Minister prior to Arlene

Foster. What is he said about the allegations that he or his 56 macro

intervened in the skin? Peter Robinson told us that the problems

around the heating scheme were never brought to him as First Minister or

DUP party leader so he did not intervene. He does say that had he

been made aware he would have urged the minister responsible to sorted

out. In relation to allegations of altering documents, he said he would

have never have asked anyone to do it and had no knowledge of anyone

doing it. So many allegations are flying here. Jonathan Bell said he

e-mails not only Arlene Foster but the DUP Deputy Leader Nigel Dodds

and the party chairman, Lord Morrow, with his concerns over attempts to

change e-mails and documents relating to the scheme. No doubt

they have replied to that. They have confirmed to us that they were

contacted. They said the matter was investigated and they did not

conclude that there had been any attempts to remove references to the

office of the first and Deputy First Minister. They did confirm that

reference in the draft submission which highlighted the role of the

office and asking for the scheme to be closed earlier than Jonathan Bell

have proposed, that was removed. What about the response from the two

senior servants mentioned? We made effort to contact both Andrew

McCormick and Chris Stewart, so far we have nothing back. What happens

tomorrow? What happens tomorrow! There is a lot for everyone to

digest. Do you think Arlene Foster will survive this? The public are

going to have to judge this. In the short-term, her Deputy Leader, Nigel

Dodds, he tweeted how proud he was of the leadership she has given, so

he is behind her. The majority of party will be behind her, but I

think in terms of any enquiry, be it the Public Accounts Committee or

judicial enquiry, will be important what evidence the neutral parties

give, and the big question, the big question not answered is what was

going on in the grounds in terms of lobbying to keep the scheme being

kept open. That still has to be filled in. You getting any sense of

the split within the DUP beyond Jonathan Bell? There are sources

within the DUP who were maybe briefing against others. It is not

entirely unanimous, but I would say at the moment Mr Bell is probably

looking fairly isolated within the party. Whether he is isolated within

the wider community, that is up to the viewers, who they'd have decided

to believe given these two very different accounts.

So, very two different versions from two members of the same party.

What we've tried to do tonight is give then both an opportunity

It's now up to you to decide if they have given you a clear idea

of what led to the vast overspend of your money on the Renewable

The SDLP said they would bring a motion of no-confidence against the

First Minister. And guess on the question you want answered is this,

can we get our millions back? Full coverage on BBC Radio Ulster and the

BBC News teams tomorrow. Thank you very much for watching. Good night.