19/12/2016 Stormont Today

Hello and welcome to a special edition of Stormont Today,

and what an extraordinary day it has been.

Recalled to hear a statement by Arlene Foster on behalf

of the Executive Office, MLAs from every party except the DUP

walked out when Martin McGuinness withdrew his consent to that

statement being made, leading to fevered talk of a crisis

And a subsequent motion of no confidence in the First Minister saw

a spirited defence mounted by DUP Members under attack

Angry scenes as the Speaker is challenged for allowing

the First Minister's statement to go ahead.

I've asked you directly under which standing order you intend to

proceed, and the fact you cannot answer forces me to ask again, where

do you have the authority? Where do you have the authority?

And Arlene Foster continues to insist she did nothing wrong.

I also want to make it clear I support the need for an independent

investigation free from partisan political interference to establish

the facts around the incentive scheme.

And helping us to make sense of it all, Professor Rick Wilford

Recalls, walkouts and a no confidence motion that stood no

It's been a day of high drama at Stormont.

The First and Deputy First Ministers may agree on the need

for further investigation into the Renewable Heating Incentive

scheme, but they remain sharply divided on Mrs Foster's role in it.

Last week it was announced that the Assembly was to be

specially recalled, so we were always braced

for spirited exchanges - and we got them in spades.

Rick, some might say today brings to mind that immortal

Conor Cruise O'Brien phrase, GUBU - "groteqsue, unbelievable,

Indeed. I think he's got it in four words there, really. I watched like

you a whole raft of episodes over the years since we've had devolution

in Northern Ireland and we had some very spirited exchanges but today

was really quite remarkable and in a class of its own. It is

unprecedented certainly. Bizarre, yes. A bit like Alice In Wonderland.

Things go down the rabbit hole and get curiouser and curiouser. Quite

frankly, I can understand the anger of some of the members in

challenging the speaker in terms of how he was awarded status to the

statement by Arlene Foster. Lots more from you throughout the

programme. Thank you for now. Well, let's see how

the day panned out - and it started with MLAs gathering

for the special statement However, it quickly became clear

that this was not how Martin McGuinness saw it,

and be aware, there's some flash I want to make it very, very clear

from my perspective and that of my party that the statement which

Arlene Foster is scheduled to make to the Assembly today does not have

my authority or approval as Deputy First Minister. She is speaking in a

personal capacity and not in her role as First Minister. First

Minister should stand aside to allow the investigation to take place in

as conducive and atmosphere as possible.

The first attempt to get proceedings going was met by a walkout.

Sinn Fein and all the other parties left the chamber when the Speaker,

Robin Newton, refused to take points of order.

He called an adjournment for half an hour, but MLAs were no more

Having taken legal and procedural advice this morning, it is clear

that my role in relation to the procedures of the Assembly, not the

procedures of the Executive, and I have discharged my responsibilities

under standing orders to recall the Assembly. She is making this

statement on behalf of herself and that you have received the

correspondence to indicate that, but is it difficult -- the convention

that on behalf of the Executive the First Minister and Deputy First

Minister are advised to make two separate statements to satisfy the

recall of the Assembly. I think having taken the legal and perceive

right eyes this morning, it is clear that my role in relation to the

procedures of the Assembly, not the procedures of the Executive, and

that I have discharged my responsibilities in line with

standing orders to recall the Assembly. -- legal and procedural. I

ask you under which standing order you intend to proceed, and the fact

you cannot answer forces me to ask again, specifically which standing

order of the operating on, then? -- are we operating? I suppose we are

coming close to you challenging the chair's decisions. Where do you have

the authority to say to the Executive office, make two

statements?! You have a duty to explain that to the House, the

people of Northern Ireland and all those who endorsed the Good Friday

agreement. You've made yourself quite clear but I have discharged my

responsibilities under the standing orders to recall the Assembly. The

order paper decrees that we are hearing a ministerial statement. I

presume the order paper is administered under your direction?

Can you therefore indicate how this can be a ministerial statement from

the Executive office since once half of that office has withdrawn? Isn't

it the case that what ought to happen now is we should proceed as

quickly as it can be arranged procedurally and in relation to the

president to an election to this House? Because it's perfectly clear

that it does not operate as intended, it is not operating in a

way that serves the interests of the people of Northern Ireland and

procedurally it seems we are now in La La land and limbo land. Please

can we stop this charade! At what stage we going to let the First

Minister speak, giving you have outlined that you have taken

procedural advice and taken legal advice? At what point are we going

to proceed to hear the statement many people from outside of this

chamber actually want to hear from the First Minister? She no longer

has the confidence of the Deputy First Minister in making this

statement and it is my belief that you need to advise the House under

what standing order you are allowing this unusual arrangement to proceed,

if that was your decision. I am grateful to you for agreeing to

recall the Assembly today and permitting me to make the time and a

statement about my role in the renewables incentive scheme. Unlike

the normal practice, which, by the way, you endorsed, I want to make it

clear this statement has not been cleared or approved...

And as the First Minister began her statement,

Members from the other parties promptly left the chamber.

Rick, Members were clearly exasperated with the line

taken by the Speaker throughout those exchanges.

Not just exhaust rated but utterly confused. I think the speaker and

his officials in his office have tried post Hoch, as it were, to

dance on the head of a procedural pain, and that is because the

original request for the statement to be recalled was made. --

procedural pain. Clearly statements have been made in the past few days

about what it might or might not contain. It was said, I am not

prepared to stand without. So the speaker was put into the invidious

position where having received a request to summon the Assembly on a

joint basis, then proceeding as though that's still applied, where

in fact it didn't. So although the office, and certainly Arlene Foster

herself must have believed she was being First Minister, but it could

only be understood as a personal statement as the head of the DUP,

not as First Minister. The fact that he, as the speaker, was doing it as

a piece of politeness rather than a piece of procedure on the role she

performed. She says it was unclear or approved by the Deputy First

Minister but at no point does she say it is a personal statement. No,

I think had she said that it would have allayed any confusion felt by

members in the chamber, and they're clearly were very confused members

and they were very angry, and quite rightly, because it is not a

precious point, it's an important operational principle of an

institution, the Executive, that things are jointly exercised. Going

ahead on this basis, a unilateral basis, flies in the face of that

principle. And therefore it's no wonder that the other parties in the

chamber were actually very cross indeed, and I think quite rightly so

it was not allowed to proceed on that basis.

The Speaker took the unprecedented step of writing to MLAs this

afternoon to explain how he'd made his decisions about this

Various figures, among them Mike Nesbitt, Jim Allister

and Eamonn McCann, went on to suggest to the media

in the Great Hall that the Speaker's position is "very close

Well, of course, for those critics, they have been in quite recent form.

I don't think untenable but it has made things much more difficult.

Now, thank you. Extraordinary scenes,

and we haven't even heard So, finally, Arlene Foster got

to make her statement on the renewables scheme

at the centre of the controversy, albeit to a smaller audience

than she might have expected. It lasted almost half an hour

but here are some of the highlights. I want to make it clear this

statement has not been cleared or approved by the Deputy First

Minister. I felt it was important I came before the House at the

earliest opportunity. For almost two weeks they has been a barrage of

media coverage on this matter, including wild claims and

allegations, many of which have been based on spin rather than reality.

-- there has been. I want to give the actual facts to the Assembly. To

repeat what I've said in media interviews, I also want to make it

clear that in order to get to the bottom of this entire issue, I am

prepared to waive the normal conventions and give evidence to the

Public Accounts Committee. The one thing we can all agree on is that

there were shocking errors in the scheme and a catalogue of mistakes

all of which coincided to create the perfect storm, resulting in the

position in which we now find ourselves. In all of this it is

critical lessons are learned and that the costs of the scheme are

brought under control. I'm sorry that the initial scheme did not

contain cost control measures and that there were fundamental flaws in

the design. This is the deepest political regret of my time in this

House. As minister, I accept responsibility for the work of the

department during my time at DETI. Once again, for the avoidance of

doubt, I feel it is right and proper I answer to this Assembly it about

my role in the scheme, and not for one moment do I seek to shirk or

skirt around that responsibility. But if we are to learn lessons from

this entire experience, it is essential we know exactly where

things went wrong. One question asked by many is why we did not

simply replicate the Great Britain arrangements into Northern Ireland.

The answer is quite simple. In Great Britain, the main obstacle to the

growth of renewable heat was and is the wide availability of affordable

natural gas. Here, the main heating fuel is oil and gas market is

relatively immature. It was even more so in 2012. Hence it is clear

that to simply import the arrangement would not have been

appropriate at that time. Well this statement is not the place to

rehearse every feeling or flaw in the process, there is one matter I

believe it is important I addressed. Because it is this error that goes

to the very heart of why the costs of the scheme ran out of control.

The crucial mistake in scheme was that the tariff for the most

commonly used boilers, small to medium biomass, was set at a level

higher than the market price of the relevant fuel, namely wood pellets.

In essence, this created an incentive to continue to benefit

your oval and above the levels required for the relevant functions.

-- to continue to burn the fuel. I would remind I did not simply impose

this scheme on the people of Northern Ireland. The tariff was set

out in schedule 3 and was scrutinised by the investment

committee and passed after debate by the Northern Ireland Assembly, and

indeed the chair of the committee said, and I quote, the committee's

scrutiny of the development has been considerable and reflects the

importance and long-term nature of the proposals. Before supporting the

RHI, the committee sought and received insurances on incentive and

tariff levels, incentives for domestic consumers, payments to

participants and support levels for the renewable payment he scheme. The

unfortunate reality is nobody in government or in this Assembly in

their work creating a passing this legislation picked up on this

crucial failing. Mrs Foster then moved on to two

major figures in this whole saga - the whistleblower who attempted

to alert her then department to flaws in the heating scheme,

and her former colleague, She turned first

to the whistleblower. The BBC's Spotlight programme and

comment has neared play of a concerned citizen and I would ask

the entire assembly to join me in thanking a person for all she did to

try and prevent the calamity we have fallen into. She deserves our

highest respect and a sincere apology on behalf of my former

department which should not have dismissed claims with disbelief but

examined them with diligence. It is no exaggeration to say that had she

been listened to on any of the three occasions when she approached DETI,

the crisis would have been avoided. Unfortunately it has been difficult

to establish the exact facts around contact between the concerned

citizen and myself in the department. When I asked by

Spotlight about the concerned citizen, I said I pass them onto

officials to investigate and it is now obvious that these investigation

should have highlighted the failings of the scheme and action should have

been taken. I made this statement from memory and an advice appeared

to indicate that she raised concerns with me directly. This is my normal

and the appropriate practice to pass any concerns received from members

of the public to the relevant officials. However, my response was

made without the benefit of having reviewed the original letter. It is

now clear that the initial communication to me did not raise

concerns with the RHI scheme and I understood from the Department of

the economy officials who have spoken to the person that this was

the only correspondence sent directly to me. A subsequent e-mail

to my private account the following week has now come to light in which

there are references to concerns about the scheme. Since the

announcement of my decision to make the statement, the former minister

has given an interview to the BBC and he makes a number of allegations

in relation to the decision to amend and subsequently close the scheme. I

think that it is important that I also take this opportunity to put on

record the factual position in relation to a number of those

allegations. Mr Bell alleged on several occasions that he took

action immediately to introduce cost control measures into the scheme and

signed off the submission at the most immediate point that he could.

This is untrue. Mr Bell further claims that other SPADs became

involved in the process who were not allowing the scheme to close. The

fact remains that the Minister signed off a proposal which was to

take effect from the 4th of November, 2015. The only further

delay in the introduction of cost-control measures was as a

result of legal and financial issues are being resolved by departmental

officials and which were unconnected to any ministerial decision. This is

not an exhaustive rebuttal of the allegations made by Mr Bell but I

hope will convey with documentary evidence of what happened. I also

want to make clear that I support the need for an independent

investigation, free from partisan political interference to establish

the facts around the Isles of Sheppy. This must be made public and

any investigation must be conducted speedily to assist in building

public confidence --. RHI. It's likely, then, that we will see

an inquiry in the New Year, but any fears that the institutions

were under real threat because of today's events seemed

to be allayed when Martin McGuinness gave an interview to my

colleague Mark Devenport. The Deputy First Minister says he's

more interested in repairing any financial damage the flawed

scheme has caused. We need a robust, independent

investigation into the biggest financial scandal any bus have

witnessed in a long time regarding the RHI scheme. We need a credible

working relationship between Simon Hamilton and Martina Willey in order

that we cut back on the money which potentially we could lose over the

course of the next two decades and of course, in my conversation with

Arlene Foster, a number of days ago, outlined, not an instruction, but

what I would do if I was in a similar circumstance -- Mairtin O'

Mueillor. That was to accept a robust investigation and that I

would stand aside for what I think would be a short period to allow the

investigation to report. Arlene Foster made it clear that she was

not standing aside and she went ahead with this statement, has that

damage the joint nature of your office? My concern about the

statement and the staters of the statement would have been, if there

had been anything in the statement that indicated an action, on behalf

of herself, either as leader of the DUP or, depending on her thinking,

as First Minister, that would have brought us to a major crisis. In the

event, none of that happened. Gerry Adams said in a speech on Saturday

that your health issues were making the handling of this more

problematic, what can you share with us about your health at the moment?

I am being attended to by a wonderful group of doctors and

nurses from our health service and I think that is all I need to say

about it at the moment. Is it the kind of thing where you can come

back to work, you're confident you will be able to come back to work?

We made it clear from the very beginning, when they issued the

statement explaining the circumstances of China that I was

continuing with my ministerial duties and anyone who has seen me

recently and today can see that I am doing that.

Martin McGuinness talking to Mark Devenport.

What is Sinn Fein's strategy in all of this?

Is the party endeavouring to position itself in the hope

They are leaving some concessions and other policy areas. I think they

are determined, as they see themselves, Sinn Fein that is, as

the defenders of the institution, to ensure that would ever investigation

or enquiry is undertaken, is actually seem to be robust and is

fully transparent. There is a real difference between an investigation

which is what the DUP one, which suggests to me, and in-house

investigation by officials, which is what Sinn Fein is asking. Those

things are very far apart. They are and the judge led enquiry would have

many more powers and would be much more forensic in its approach and it

would be external to the Assembly and all the other institutions.

There is one point worth acknowledging as a result, whether

it is an investigation, or a full-fledged enquiry, in opting for

an enquiry or some kind of investigation, it actually says we

do not have any confidence in the Public Accounts Committee of the

Assembly, it pulls the rug from underneath its authority. Just a

quick word about the performance of Arlene Foster. Did she flirt with

humility as one commentator said in advance of her statement, that you

very much needed to do? I agree with that. I thought a prime requirement

for Arlene Foster is that she should take a big helping of humble pie and

she didn't, she was quite abrasive and non-conciliatory and competent.

We had come to expect that from her, ordinarily, but this is not an

ordinary situation. This is an extraordinary situation and the

public is justifiably very cross about this. I would have thought

that humility would have been one of the strap line of her approach, but

it was not there. Thank you. The other big discussion

point today, of course, was an SDLP motion of no confidence

in the First Minister. It was never going to pass as it

required cross-community support, but it did give Members a chance

to voice their concerns about Arlene Foster and for her

party colleagues to speak up Today members were expecting to

scrutinise the draft budget from the Finance Minister. Yet we meet today

to discuss the career of one individual. During the week, there

was confusion at whether an Executive Office press release was

actually a DUP press release, today we are informed that the First

Minister is speaking without the authority of her joint office. All

of this is because the DUP leader will not do the decent thing, the

dignified thing and step aside. We can't go on like this. The longer

the First Minister clings on, the more her credibility will fade and

let me assure the First Minister, Christmas will not save her. The RHI

to be fully investigated and understood and understood and that

is what will happen. We need to know exactly what went wrong and how we

are going to fix it. What does not serve the people of Northern Ireland

well are those who seek to play cheap political points. I know

Christmas is coming, but the attempt to turn this issue into a political

pantomime is it a version and a distraction from the important work

that is going on. This motion turns what has been a very serious issue

into low farce. I am ready and willing to go to the Public Accounts

Committee. I have made that clear. But by magic, that is not good

enough, they will be out before I get near the committee before I get

asked a single question or even open my mouth. So much for due process,

so much for justice, so much for the facts. While I might have little

sympathy for Jonathan Bell in many things, he was clearly handed a pass

if ever there was one. Yet there is no minister who is responsible. It

is all the fault of the officials, it was someone else, it was the

previous minister. The responsibility, the accountability

and need to atone for this disaster lies with only one person. The First

Minister was called on today to voluntarily stepped down and allow

an investigation to take place without prejudice. I said that last

week and they say it again now, to put the integrity of office against

the interests of a party. She still has time to do so. The previous

First Minister stood aside in order to allow investigation into a ?50

million land deal. ?50,000 land deal pales into insignificance in

comparison to what we are dealing with here. I'm embarrassed standing

here listening to the debate and the debate that has happened so far.

You're losing the run of yourselves. This issue is about public

confidence. The previous Speaker talked about how the Executive has

delivered in the last number of months and it has delivered on many

fronts, but every action and delivery that has happened to date

has been overshadowed by the fact that the DUP cannot accept that as

leader needs to stand aside to make sure there is a full investigation

into the issues which have been played out, drip fed into the public

either for the last number of weeks. I'm not interested in the internal

wrangling of the DUP, get mother, fight among yourselves. The First

Minister said arrogantly that she has nothing to hide but she

certainly does. She was the architect of this whole scheme and

she intervened on several occasions to keep it in operation, despite

warnings from senior civil servants and others about the scheme. This

isn't some administrative air or something that she can pass the buck

on -- error. Nowhere else in the world would politicians be allowed

to get away with theirs and her position is untenable. I will not be

supporting the motion tabled by the opposition because I believe it to

be premature. You're asking me to support a motion that excludes the

First Minister on the basis of no confidence. My confidence in the

First Minister or lack of confidence in the First Minister will be based

on unsubstantiated information, not allegations manifested in the media,

particularly as Justice Minister, it would be remiss of me to pass

judgment without a full hearing. No court in the land would do so. Mrs

Foster says this is a Tobacco, the Oxford dictionary defines that as a

supplement and ignominious failure. It is a story about confidence,

ineptitude and powerlessness. We will now vote, those who go that way

are voting for a career, those who go that way are voting for the

integrity of these institutions. When it came to it, Sinn Fein

didn't turn up to vote, despite taking part in the debate,

and, as expected, the motion fell. Has Arlene Foster managed to lance

the boil, for now at least? I think she has put a sticking

plaster, but if you like to use at theatrical metaphor, this was a

prologue to the main proceedings, which is the form that some kind of

enquiry or investigation will take. That is the centrepiece of this. My

own preference would be for a formal judge led enquiry, I figure would be

more frantic and it could be done efficiently. She has not put an end

to this, this is just the overture. How wounded do you think she has

been by the last week to ten days? I do not think there is any question

other than she has been damaged, don't forget, this is a party which

prides itself on physical conservatism and here have a party

now at the centre of an enormous controversy over the potential

overcommitment of ?400 million of taxpayers money. Not only is her

personal reputation damage, and it was not helped today by her lack of

humility, the party image has been damaged as well. Just finally and

briefly, how damage do you think the key relationship at the heart of

government in Northern Ireland, that relationship between the DUP and

Sinn Fein? The default position of that relationship has always been

one of mutual mistrust and suspicion, it is at best and on

civil partnership, it is not a happy marriage, this will not have helped,

but no doubt, I suspect what will happen in the fullness of time is

that they will muddle through. We have proven very adept at muddling

through in Northern Ireland and I suspect this is how this will end up

as well. Thank you. That's it from this special

edition of Stormont Today. We'll be back in January,

but until then, from everyone You only grow old once,

so you might as well enjoy it.