08/12/2016 The View

A bigger scandal than De Lorean - the Renewable Heat Incentive scheme

could cost hundreds of millions in public money.

The Economy Minister says he's working on ways to reduce that bill.

So how will Simon Hamilton tackle this red hot political issue?

And how does he respond to calls for his leader to resign?

I beg to introduce the abortion debate own foetal Albert Adomah --

abnormality bill. As David Ford launches his

Private Member's bill, an anti-abortion campaigner tells

the former Justice Minister The border dispute dating back

to partition that could be putting lives and livelihoods in jeopardy

on Lough Foyle. If this was happening anywhere else

in the course of Ireland, government officialdom would be done like a

tonne of bricks, this is a free for all.

And a free-for-all, too, in Commentators' Corner

with Fionnuala O Connor and Alex Kane.

"Cash for ash" - that's just one of the nicknames for the Stormont

scheme that's set to cost taxpayers here ?400 million.

The RHI pays out more in subsidies than it costs to participate in,

which means users earn more money by burning more fuel.

The First Minister, Arlene Foster, who was the Enterprise Minister

at the time, says she did not ignore warnings brought forward

by a whistleblower in 2013 and passed them on to her officials.

Earlier today, that whistleblower claimed just five minutes

of research was needed to find serious flaws in the system.

The Economy Minister, Simon Hamilton, is with me now.

Welcome, thank you for joining us. Have you been speaking to the first

Minister during her trip to China this week? Yes, I have been in

contact with her before she went and during a trip to China. I will be

speaking tour next week as well. Have you been talking to her about

this controversy? I have been in contact with her about this. She

sees the importance of getting to grips with this issue, it is very

serious. I will not sit here for a second and say anything other than

this is a shocking situation and one which needs to be dealt with. We

have -- we are both aware of the need to get to get reverse and bring

forward a plan which will mitigate the costs and significantly reduce

the cost for the taxpayer. She is worried enough to talk to you during

an important trip with China? I keep in regular contact with Arlene

Foster at any week in the year so it is not unusual for me to be in

contact with Earth. This is an issue she takes very seriously. She is

showing leadership on this issue which is what you would expect. It

is a monumental clock up and you seem to be left to sort it out, you

either firefighter tonight? I was wanted to be a firefighter when I

was young. This is a serious issue. I am in the portfolio to deal with

this issue and that is what we're doing. We working intensely. This is

the number-1 priority my department. We are very seized as I said about

the importance of reducing the cost to the Northern Ireland taxpayer.

We're working on a plan and developing that plan, we are taking

legal advice on the planet and I hope to bring forward the details of

its very early in the New Year. I would like to talk in more detail

about that in a moment but you hear about the reputation of the first

Minister, why do you think she should keep her job because others

are not least Mike Nesbitt who is the main opposition leader in

Stormont says it is time prior to consider our position? It is hardly

surprising that Mike would call for her resignation because she

annihilated him in the election earlier in the year. Some of the

things which have been said in the past 40 hours have been entirely

party political. Mike Nesbitt and his party and the Alliance Party all

voted to keep the scheme in place back in February when he had the

opportunity to close at... They were not in full possession of the facts,

that is the point. These are parties who said they were not in full

possession of the facts but that did not look that might prevent their

members at every stage of the progression of this scheme voting in

favour of it and voting to keep the scheme in place. They voted in

February to keep this scheme going, scheme and some of them have

described is squandering public money. They were prepared to

squander this money. Their point is that they did not know the details

which have now become public. Let us talk about Arlene Foster's

performance on this issue, she was the minister with oversight of the

scheme. She knew in 2013 when she was contacted by the whistle-blower

that there were potential problems with the scheme. She says she passed

those concerns onto her civil servants and then what happened? She

did. She received a letter from the whistle-blower who we want to thank

for her contribution. I want to apologise to her that her complaint

was not taken seriously by governments. It was taken seriously

by Arlene Foster who passed the information onto tour officials

which is the right thing. She did not keep a watchful eye after that

point, that is the charge. The communication she received was not

specific about the alleged abuse. I can say that... Have you seen the

letter? I have seen it. Will you put the letter in the public domain? You

can take my word for it that it is not specific about the abuse... With

the greatest respect, I'm not prepared to take the words of anyone

because the way to deal with it is to go for a full chance. Let us be

the judge, put the letter in the public domain. I do not disagree

with the premise of what you said... I do not disagree that we have to

get the full facts of the situation clear. I am taking your word for it

at the moment. That is the process this is going through and you know

the Public Accounts Committee are doing our fact-finding

investigation. But the complaint was appropriately passed on by Arlene

Foster to her officials and they did not take it seriously. There are no

permanent Secretary of the Department for the economy in his

evidence said that Arlene Foster acted appropriately. She is his

boss. She is not his boss. He is an impartial civil servants. He is

giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee on the record. He

said she acted entirely appropriately. She acted

appropriately by passing on information to our senior civil

servants. The question is, people will wonder if she did the right

thing by her failure to follow up and keep a close eye on what

happened next because clearly she did not? Had officials did not come

back to her with any complaint. She did not ask. There was no detail in

the complaint for her to follow up on. In his evidence on the record,

as I said, he said she acted entirely appropriately. Having had

the issue flagged up, we did not have made sense for her to keep in

contact with the senior civil servants there she met daily to ask

about the woman who came in to speak to me about her concerns on the

heating scheme? That seems blindingly obvious. The idea that

Arlene Foster is not... I have heard it suggested she is not looking at

this thing. You have interviewed her on countless occasions and you and

her political opponents, even her opponents, could not say for the

second is that she's not capable. I have known her for 20 years. She is

an incredibly capable person and has done her job appropriately on this

case. Some people with say she has fallen asleep at the wheel. Of

course some people would say that. If she did not drop the ball then

she needs to put all of the relevant correspondence into the public

domain so politicians and the public can judge for ourselves? You know

the Public Accounts Committee is investigating this, as they should.

All the information will be in the public domain in due course. It

would be a great help to you, if there was nothing to hide, put the

information in the public domain and this goes away. You are now being

silly. You know that is an investigation going on with the

public accounts Committee. Will she appeared before the committee? Will

she? I am sure when she comes back she will address this issue. She has

said she is accountable to the Assembly. She will be forthcoming.

She has nothing to hide. Let me count the accusation she was not

paying attention... In your view, should she appear before the Public

Accounts Committee? If she phoned you from China and asked what should

she do, what would you say? She is an struggle and accountable to the

Assembly. I am confident she will come forward in due course because

she has nothing to hide. If I can go back down is a question you asked

three questions ago about charges, the policy direction was set by

Arlene and it was a good direction. The implementation and design by

so-called policy experts in the department was wrong. They relied on

independent external consultants. You are telling me she did nothing

wrong, the people running the scheme got it wrong? Is that what you're

telling me? It is clear to me they got the design of the scheme wrong.

The consultants they used a run that records at the Public Accounts

Committee saying they got it wrong and apologise for that. At no stage,

and something which has been confirmed by senior officials, no

advice or recommendation was given to Arlene Foster to bring forward...

She did not ask how that was going. No recommendation was brought about

cost-control questions. People are asking she should resign, absolutely

she should not resign... She was not in effective ministerial control.

Who was running the department? There was no crystallisation of the

problem during her time in office. At the early stages of the scheme,

there was a ?15 million underspend. That is what we're trying to get

through... That is my now. You talk about transparency, perhaps I can

help you to deliver that. I will ask about your handling of the issues in

she became minister in June. PwC was brought in to conduct a review. The

site indexed -- investigations were conducted as part of the report,

we're still waiting for the report to be published. Why is that? This

is a very serious issue and we're giving it the serious attention it

requires. Not long after coming in post I brought in PwC to carry out

that independent investigation of site inspections. We are talking

about 300 boilers and they have found evidence to show there has

been some abuse of the scheme. We are dealing with that abuse. A very

small number of fraud cases but certainly abuse of the spirit of the

scheme. That has been abuse of the spirit of this scheme and some

abuse. Proving fraud take some time. You will never recover all this

money, ?400 million by just identifying cases of fraud? You're

absolutely right but clearly we have identified cases of fraud and we

need to bear down on that and have strong enforcement of that. A lot of

people got involved in the scheme legitimately without any intent to

abuse the system but be getting a return well over and above what was

anticipated and that is what we're looking at. You need to get that

report into the public domain as quickly as possible if you're going

to reassure members of the public, you accept that? The first report as

with the Public Accounts Committee. They will make that public in due

course and that is the right and proper place for it. You are wheel

of the conventions and they will publish it in due course. -- you are

away. Why have you taken no steps at this stage to reveal the names of

the beneficiaries of the scheme? This is an issue I have been asked

about. You know that people who signed up to the scheme did not

agree to have their names put forward. Colum Eastwood says we need

to know who benefited. There are hundreds and thousands of people who

benefited in terms of having support to the scheme but the data

protection act prevents, even if I wanted to, prevents me putting the

names out there... Farmers to receive single farm payments,

lawyers who do legal aid work, these details are published every year so

this does not stand up. It does. I could go out and do it and I could

be prosecuted for doing that myself because these people have not

consented. If they have nothing to hide. People have not consented.

They have not contain -- consented to do this and are protected by the

data protection act. You can tell people if they want to remain

recipients of this benefit that their details will be published so

they have a choice if they want to remain anonymous, they take

themselves out of the scheme, that is the way of doing it? I think this

is a distraction. The issue at hand is getting to grips with the problem

we have which is the overspend, the ?400 million you mentioned earlier.

That is what I and Arlene are focusing on. That is concerned. He

is a concern, your reluctance to put that information in the public

domain could be because there are names on that list which could be

embarrassing for your party, is that the case? I do not know the names on

that list. Your name could be on the list. My lane -- my name is not on

the list. That is not the case. The names on the list, the people who

received it have not consented to the names going forward so are

protected by the data protection act and so we cannot do that. So you are

starved? You talk about transparency and you're going to fix this, tell

me in 30 seconds what you would do to fix this? You're asking for the

names but what we're doing is investigating sites and that is

something I initiated coming into this job. I initiated the PwC

investigation which has investigated 300 of installations. It is a start,

a small start but it is a start of a process which we are bringing

forward and a plan B are working on. That is the first phase and more

work will be done. Our plan will reduce... You cannot guillotine this

scheme at the moment because you're concerned about fraud and you are

concerned about an overspend and a cost to the public purse of ?400

million, you do not have the power to stop the system where you

investigate? Nobody else has been allowed on the scheme. It will not

stop the ?400 million overspend. It will not and that is deeply

regrettable. But my number one priority is to reduced the cost to

Northern Ireland taxpayers. We are working on a plan and taking legal

advice. We want a plan that works and provides a significant reduction

in the cost to the Northern Ireland public purse. We will continue to

keep a close eye on how you do that. And we will hear from the first

Minister no doubt in due course. For now thank you very much.

Government officials from north and south have been meeting this

week to try and break the stalemate over who owns Lough Foyle.

The Irish government has rejected claims by London that

Meanwhile, oyster fishermen have been cashing in on the political

confusion, placing thousands of metal oyster trestles

That's raised concerns for the safety of boat users -

as our political correspondent, Enda McClafferty,

Londonderry harbour National Health Serviceed 16 U-boats. It once

provided the backdrop for a memorable surrender when the German

U-boat fleet sailed up Loch Foyle at the end of the war in 1945. Today,

Loch Foyle is at the is centre of another battle. And there is no sign

that either side is prepared to surrender just yet. As James and

Charlie made clear last month, with claim and counter claim. But while

the Government's duck and dive over who exactly owns Loch Foyle there is

a big problem lurking beneath the surface. And this is it. Oyster

farms have been popping up along the coast, because of the political

deadlock they don't need permission or a licence, all they need are

plenty of metal trespassles. And this is what they look like up

close, these are the trespassles where the oysters hang in bags until

they are ready to be harvested. There are 30,000 of these now dotted

all along the Loch Foyle cost. The agency tell us they are posing a big

risk to boat users but they are powerless to do anything about them

because of the political stalemate. It is outrageous this should be

allowed to happen, if this was happening anywhere else around the

coast of Ireland Government officials Tom would be down on this

like a tonne of brick, there are thousands of them, unregulated,

unlicensed, this is free-for-all. A conDyke. But Enda Craig is is more

concerned about the hidden danger they pose for boat users At low tide

they are visible, you can see all they are made of, iron and steel,

adds the tide comes in they are covered over, if you were a stranger

here or if you weren't too aware of where they were, you could become

sitting six inches below the surface of the water, you have steel waiting

on your boat coming up. You don't enjoyed to be a genius what would

happen. There is a massive safety implication here. This coal ship did

sing 35 years ago, attacked by the IRA, Margaret Thatcher restated the

UK's claim on Loch Foyle and the ship's owners looked for

compensation n the end both Governments paid out. Now London and

Dublin are locked in a bigger Brexit debate about where the border lies.

If James Brokenshire is right I have stepped from the Irish Republic and

am standing in the UK. But how does all this work in practise? Who

polices that patch, and who polices this patch? Christopher Murdoch

found that out when the local Garda Sergeant discovered his stolen boat.

It was about 10 feet from the path, and rocking in the waves on the

rocks, and I asked them to help me lift it off, into the water, he

refused, because it was outside his jurisdiction. He said if I needed

help, from police, to call the PSNI from across the other side. And they

would then deal with it. What did you feel about that? I was

very surprised and a bit back on my heel, wondering why he couldn't at

least put one foot on a rock and give me a lift wit. But no, he won't

do it. That would suggest the UK holds the

upper hand, but why does it still feel the need to claim all of Loch

Foyle? Who better to ask than this man, he is a law lecturer, historian

and regular sailor on the Loch. The difficulty for the Secretary of

State is the Na investigation of the Foyle is not in the centre, in order

to navigate it you have to go through the Irish side. If you are

trying to access the port of Londonderry you have to go through

the Irish side of the channel. To the point where you are hogging the

peninsula. Navigating a way around Brexit was the focus at this

conference in Donegal this week and fishing rights were on the agenda,

this Senator says the Government needs to put their differences aside

and find way to protect Loch Foyle. The oyster fisherman I know that I

have dealt with are people you know, that understand the need to protect

and sustain what is there, clearly, unfortunately there are some who are

taking advantage of this opportunity, in a reckless way but

what we need to do, is both Governments need to understand their

responsibility, they can give the agency the strength they require,

and that then needs to be done in partnership with the responsible and

sensible oyster fishermen that he are there.

This week, Government officials from north and south met to try and

smooth the waters. But there is no sign they are any closer to

surrendering their claims on the disputed Loch. It is time to stop

hoodwinking the people and man up to the situation and get a resolution.

Hiding it and pretending it doesn't exist and pretending the elephant is

Enda McClafferty reporting from Lough Foyle.

Now, as MLAs wait to see proposals from the working group looking

into abortion in cases of fatal foetal abnormality,

the former Justice Minister, David Ford, has brought forward

a Private Member's Bill which seeks to legalise

His last attempt was blocked - so what chance has this

I'm joined by David Ford and Marion Woods from Life NI.

David Ford, when you with here three months ago, you said there was a

potential for majority the assembly voting in support of your bill, you

think that is still the case? I think that is still the case. It

depends on the behaviour of two arties which whip their members

against the similar proposal before the election, the DUP and SDLP and

how they react, whether they allow a free vote. Have you any indication

how that is likely to go? Any indication the new intake of MLAs

might be more sympathetic to what you are trying to do? They certainly

think from some conversations there are some who have clearly replaced

people in a way that is more likely to support the proposal, but we will

have to see specifically about those two parties we have named. You don't

like the term fatal foetal abnormality. Let us go with the more

detailed description of allowing a woman to choose abortion in cases

where two doctors certify there is no chance of viable life. Have you

kept an eye on where they are on this? Do you think David Ford's

Private Members Bill could succeed? We hope it doesn't. I think the DUP

made it clear in their mandate, that they were going to continue to up

hold the law, as it currently stands and they wouldn't see any legal

change. We are very concerned about the title of the bill because it is

a very harsh term, it is upsetting, many parents whose babies have maybe

passed away shortly after birth, or whose babies are living with

conditions that would be deemed to be under this category, we prefer

the term life limiting condition because we think that term is more

indicative of what these conditions are, they are life limiting. No

doctor and Jim Dornan was on the show last year, 2015 and he said

that no doctor can say when the life of a baby will end, and that is very

important, and what we would be saying is we need to support women

to help them to continue with their pregnancy, to bring their child as

far as possible, in the pregnancy, and then give every affordable care

after. So what do you say to David Ford who takes a different view? How

would you seek to persuade him he has got it wrong. You can speak

directly to him. I think our concern is why are you not listening to you

know, there was a consultation several years ago, it was very clear

that the proposals were rejected. In February of this year, there was

another attempt to bring in a law changes, tacking it on to the

justice bill, as an amendment and yet it seems you are intent on

forcing this issue through. It would concern us you are doing it as

opposed to focussing on perinatal care in the NHS and supporting a

charity like our own, we believe that both lives matter. We are

concerned about the woman and the child at the centre of this. One of

the key things a that section two makes it clear, that a woman must be

supported medically whatever decision she takes, so given that

this is a bill dealing with the criminal law, I put in that specific

issue round medical care, but I take a different view from you, I think

there are circumstances where there is no prospect of a viable life and

no treatment could be offered, if it went to full term, that is in a

entirely different situation from other issues relating to abortion,

that is following on from the work the Department of Justice did. The

organisations that opposed to the, showed there was significant support

for making the change and public opinion polls have showed there is

support for that narrow area. They have told us that termination should

never be solely for the condition that the child may have, and

whenever you make law, and the problem we have as well is that the

word likely in this law is very broad. Nobody can say... Likely is

the civil law definition of balance of problem builts, that is explained

so it is not ambiguous. The difficulty is surely that you take a

view and you are entitled to take your view, there will be people who

are watching who will agree, there are other people and David Ford is

clearly among them, who take a contrary position, which is that

people who find themselves in this very difficult condition, and David

Ford is the first don seed that is the case, should be allowed the

choice do things differently. We agree these are very traumatic

situations. Everybody agrees on that We stand in solidarity with women

and families who find themselves hearing the news their baby has a

condition which may be terminal, but what we are saying this is a human

life, we can't dispute this. Science shows us this is a human life. So

what we are saying this life has to be allowed to continue, as far as

possible, through its own development. That baby may pass away

before birth, that baby may live for several days months hours and the

very important thing is that if we can provide care and support women

and families through that, most women and most families would choose

to continue with the pregnancy. I am not telling anybody who wants to

continue, I am saying for women who cannot face that, who find it too

traumatic, they should be given the option... It is early days as far as

the proes dress of the bill is concerned but you are confident you

can persuade enough people to support that. I believe there is the

potential for it but we will have to see how people decide when we come

to the second stage of the bill. All right. There is lots more to discuss

on this. Thank you both for coming in to join us.

And let's head back to Commentors' Corner for the final

time in this 2016 run - Fionnuala O Connor and Alex Kane.

Oeuvringening both. Lots to discuss, let us start with Simon Hamilton,

what did you make of his defence of Arlene Foster. Arlene could want no

more, but he couldn't do anything more than he did do, and I was

struck by him, the note, the tone throughout, especially at the

beginning, this is very serious, the first issue on my plate, the main

thing I want to focus on, that is entirely different from the focus

and from the tone that Arlene Foster greeted this with, because from the

beginning it was very much not my bids, can't expect me to notice

every detail. The officials were wrong, the civil servants o who were

wrong, there is a different tone, be lately the DUP have realised Arlene,

we have to make up for her tone, we have to make it clear this was a

mess. It would be interesting to see what her tone is like if she does

another interview with ourselves when she gets back from China. Do

you think she can keep her job? I think she will, simply because there

is no incentive for the DUP or Sinn Fein to force what... Should she?

Sinn Fein will push her out. They are being kind. They are not going

to put her out. I think it was a woeful performance, all this we have

to get to grips, we have to get a plan, the, but there was nothing

there, what he miss, what she misses, the DUP misses is the scale

of the ineptitude, the deParliamental blindness, the

arrogance and there was from Simon attacking Mike Nesbitt. The

opposition this is a huge, ?400 million. It isn't something behind

the sofa, they have taken this arrogance because they know she will

survive. Know matter what comes out she will be allowed to survive. What

about the issue of transparency in terms of locking at the

correspondent between the whistle-blower and the department in

terms of seeing who the beneficiary of the scheme are, as column

Eastwood... He waffled more at that point than any later on, anyone

later on, in fact I wondered if he overspoke and said there is nothing

specific in that let eo so if it comes out will it be embarrassing.

They have no qualm, the DUP or Sinn Fein about denining transparency,

that is a shared mow teach. I want to touch on one thing, Gerry Adams

is increasing pressure about his past. He is. I think in a case 33

years, that is waiting for truth, for justice, for clarification, he

will get none of that. I have no idea why he got involved in this,

because he was never going to give Austin Stack what he needed. Part of

Adam's psyche which makes it look as if he has do this practised to make

it look as if he cares. I don't know, I think there is something

else there. I wonder if actually, now, he did drop the ball, he

missed, he actually thinks that, believes that Steve McClaren gave

him those names and has -- Stack has muddled it. Up. He is demonstrating

it is time for him to go, way past time, I haven't been sure of that

until this. I thought he brings them enough. Now he looks wobbly.

Interesting to hear your thoughts. Thank you both very much. That is it

from The View and the year. In the meantime if you need a suggestion

for Secret Santa here is an idea. From even in the team, bye. Now

that's what I call sectarian. # Stones are falling

# All around me # Children making

# Petrol bombs # We're saying a rosary this

Christmas # Till the Queen's Speech is over

# Last Christmas I gave you my sash # But the very next day

# You gave it to Taigs. Over 1690 of the bigotry Christmas hits ever

recorded. # Prods like to call it Orangefest

# But really it's the 12th # Well I wish it could Christmas on

the 12th # Now that's what I call sectarian