24/01/2017 Stormont Today

Hello, and welcome to Stormont Today.

And we're done - the last session of the current

Assembly has been and gone, and it's anybody's guess

when the new, reduced intake of 90 MLAs will be here

Perhaps fittingly, today's highlight was the debate over the very issue

that contributed so much to the collapse of the

devolved institutions - the Renewable Heat Incentive scheme.

But we also heard from the new leader of Sinn Fein

in the north and her plans for the future.

The Finance Minister reveals the terms of the public inquiry

'S there is an urgent need, Mr Speaker, to get to the facts of the

RHI scheme, to identify negligence, incompetence, alleged corruption and

abuse and to hold those responsible to account.

Michelle O'Neill sets out her stall ahead of the election.

They need to change their attitude. They need to come at the

negotiations after the election with a really meaningful approach to make

sure they represent all sections of society.

And we've saved the best to last - Professor Rick Wilford

is here with his thoughts on the last day of Stormont.

It was revealed last week that the Finance Minister

would call a public inquiry into the Renewable Heat

But today Mairtin O'Muilleoir put the meat on the bones

of his plan for the Assembly - announcing who will lead

the inquiry, when it will start and even,

The Minister revealed all in the chamber this afternoon.

I now have in place, Mr Speaker, chair, a retired Lord Justice of

Appeal,. I'm very pleased he has agreed to lead the enquiry and I

know he will be unflinching in his pursuit of the truth, unscrupulous

-- and scrupulous. I've agreed he will be supported by two panel

members. The team will begin its work on the 1st of February and will

report as quickly as possible. Openness and transparency will be

key touchstones for the team. In terms of key requirements I pointed

to earlier, the investigation will have the power to compel witnesses

and evidence. Every stone will be turned, there will be no dark

corners. It will be impartial and objective. It will be tasked with

getting to the truth of the RHI scheme. I will not interfere in this

work. It will be entirely independent. There is an urgent

need, Mr Speaker, to get to the facts of the RHI scheme, to identify

negligence, incompetence, alleged corruption and abuse, and to hold

those responsible to account. Can I ask, why the Minister has not

insisted on a preliminary report so the electorate can go to the polls

with relevant information on this scandal is to mark why he has not

confirmed a timeline for publication and also outlined a process for the

independent appointment of the two panel members referred to in the

report? Thank you. I know there's an election coming, and I know it is at

times difficult to appease the unions that I have a memory recently

of the Ulster Unionist Party wanting enquiry. You got one. Do not

prejudge the actions. You will act in an impartial and objective

matter. He will be scrupulous and unflinching. What discussions have

you had with the chair so far with reference to legal costs and also

the time frame to ensure the findings can be brought forward as

soon as possible? I assure the hopes of the member that we will

expeditiously get a report. That said, these are matters for the

chair. If I was pressed, I think it would be appropriate for us to have

a report six months after the enquiry starts. But that, in my

view, is a matter for the chair. Where will it be held? We don't

know. I have a desire to see the enquiry held in public session on TV

and in that regard I know of building whether our committee rooms

which have TV coverage which can be broadcast. But at the moment the

decision is continuing. Mairtin O Muilleoir,

not giving too much away just yet about where he'd like to see

the inquiry sitting. What do you make of

it had to be somebody I think somebody from the legal profession

and I think is a good choice. We don't know yet who will be the two

fellow panel members. It's no surprise that there will be at least

three. The venue does not matter. I think what matters are the terms of

reference. And of course he has been given free rein to give to draw up

those terms of reference because the act under which it is established

provides for the Minister to be able to reference -- influence this. The

key thing is there will be compatibility of witnesses and

evidence. And if necessary witnesses can be compelled to give evidence

under oath. I think this will be a no holds barred enquiry. The main

issue is that it is not going to issue an interim report before the

election. It is going to be a shadow cast over the election.

No public sittings until after March second.

Six months seems to be the target date for it to be

in a position to report back - is that over-ambitious?

It could be, because of course the witnesses some of whom will be

compelled to come and give evidence, they will bring legal teams with

them and there could be a lot of legal argument. So if they are

meeting five days a week the six months I think nine is probably more

likely. All things RHI also

dominated questions Simon Hamilton told MLAs

he still hopes to reveal the names of everyone on the scheme,

despite a judge issuing an interim injunction to prevent

the publication of hundreds Yesterday one of the assurances you

gave to the house was in respect of the robustness of your scheme and

yet this afternoon we learnt that some 300 boiler owners have managed

to block or thwart your promise to this house and to the citizens of

Northern Ireland to deliver the names of boiler owners. In those

circumstances would you publish the names of those others who are not

currently blocked by the injunction? I very just received the news and I

haven't seen the full judgment yet. I will consider it in full before

making any decision. I'm sure you like me wish to have the fullest of

transparency around the names, that is still my objective. That is what

I was seeking to do by making the announcement that I did last week.

We had to run through a process which the department undertook in

pretty quick time given the volume of work. I signal my intention to

publish the names inconsistent with the process is laid out. I deeply

regret the injunction that has been sought and awarded this afternoon,

because I think in and of itself it prevents full transparency, and

obviously I will take the time to consider what can now be done in the

circumstances. As the minister given any thought to publishing an

anonymous list that could provide some geographical detail, dates and

payment, so we could get a sense of the level of applicants that are

credible and the level that are not? Thank you. I think it is asked in

the appropriate spirit. The whole purpose of doing this was to seek to

instil better public confidence. He said it was going to be challenged,

I suppose it was. What I've heard about the judgment is it is not

permissible to publish the names of members of the association. However,

I am happy to look and I will look at other options. I think it is

interesting the member says there is something short of the full

disclosure which the court is now preventing from happening which may

help to instil public confidence. That is what I want to do. That is

what my objective is, and I certainly will look at the option

which you have mentioned along with others to hope to achieve that

purpose of maximum transparency with the aim of instilling public

confidence in the scheme. Is it his own ultimate ambition to publish the

names and addresses of all participants when they applied and

if so when does he expect to be able to do so? That is what was my

publicly stated position, it is the position I stated in writing to

recipients of the scheme. Because I believe that there was a public

interest, clear public interest, in having maximum transparency. That

was my intention. To publish business details and a geographical

information as well as other information. I still hope to be able

to do that but obviously I will have to reflect on the judgment that has

been made. 24 hours after assuming the mantle

of Sinn Fein's leader at Stormont, Michelle O'Neill sat down

with our political editor, Mark Devenport, who asked her how

precisely she'd got the job. It was an appointment by the

President and I was chosen to lead the party and I am honoured to do

that. Other parties have elections with candidates and campaigns. Why

not Sinn Fein? It has its own internal process. They ratified my

position and I'm very pleased they did. You are obviously now going to

face interaction which, according to some predictions, will be quite

brutal. What you see main challengers? The public will have

their say and we will deal with all the issues but we said we can't

return to the status quo. We need change and attitude from the DUP. We

can't tolerate their debts respect for the public. And we can't be part

of institutions like that. Do you think Arlene Foster is someone you

can work with? I don't have a choice. If the electorate returned I

will work with them. But I will only work with them on the basis of

respect and equality for all citizens. That is the any situation

where I believe our party can be part of that institution. Would you

be relaxed about a rate of a long period of direct rule? Others need,

the negotiations after the election with a real meaningful election to

want to make sure they represent all sections of society. We seen heavy

actions of the DUP, things like the decision to remove ?50,000 first

disadvantaged children to learn Irish. That is petty. For myself, as

an Irish republican, and for my party, we want to make sure we look

after all citizens. Not interested in just looking after the needs of

nationalists and republicans. We are interested in looking after the

needs of all. We've seen in the past has been a failure by the British

Government and the Irish Government. To make sure they deliver on the

presence was the issues identified in previous negotiations. We have

outstanding issues. We could get the point where there is full and 20 and

of the agreements that have gone for. That is where we need to be.

You mentioned legacy. Across the border we have Unionist MPs saying

there is a witchhunt against former soldiers and they want to

essentially see that brought to a halt. If there was any move to

prevent these prosecutions going ahead, what response would you have?

The Stormont house agreement identified mechanisms to deal with

this. The British Government are hiding behind the cloak of national

security. That is not the way to do it. We support truth and justice.

For everybody that is different full stop some families just want

information. Someone call cases. It is making sure that we have a range

of mechanisms which avoided been agreed by the sword and house

agreement that allows us to get to the truth for all those families.

Funny, I believe my job is absolutely about trying to heal the

past to get up place where we deal with the legacy issues.

Michelle O'Neill talking to Mark Devenport.

Why is she the right choice from Sinn Fein's point of view?

I think it represents a generational shift. I think that is important.

She's also someone without any IRA I gauge and I think that is a plus for

them. They are seeking to project an image of moving on. And also

becoming civilian eyes and female friendly. We now have three female

political leaders in Northern Ireland. She is the third in the

space of a year. To what extent is she likely to be frankly a junior

partner in an overarching all Ireland leadership team? I expect

she brings the status and wait with her. I don't think she is in the

pocket of Gerry Adams but Sinn Fein work in mysterious ways. She is

quite clearly not going to step outside the party line on any

significant issue, so I think she will play an equal role. She is

junior, so no doubt she has a lot to learn and I think she recognises

that herself, but it is a fresh face for the party, as they contend with

another election. OK. We will talk more about that election at the end

of the programme, thank you. Paul Givan kicked off the last

round of Ministerial question Bedroom tax mitigation and funding

for community halls are issues which have loomed large in recent

weeks for the Minister, The necessary legislation was

approved by the Assembly on the 16th of January. This legislation gives

the parliament the necessary powers to make accurate and timely payments

to the estimated benefit claimants who may be impacted by the

introduction of the social side sector claimant. They will be paid

for weeks in arrears and the payments will be made in the current

financial year. There is a whole range of mitigation measures we have

had to introduce to implement the welfare in Northern Ireland, the

bedroom tax being one of them. All the plans were being run through

according to a proper time frame, in the normal course of the business of

politics, there was no risk whatsoever of not having in place

the legislation to mitigate against this. Nobody could have legislated

against the actions in respect that Sinn Fein had. We have to make sure

the most vulnerable are not impacted. The community halls

capital grant pilot programme was launched on the 19th of October 2016

and closed in November 2016 with 800 applications received and following

a robust procedure, up to 90 projects were accepted for financial

assistance. Was it only for Orange halls to apply because I know to

some of the media seemed to be putting it out there that this was

some sort of sectarian scheme? Was it available for all of the

community? May be the Minister could tell us of the organisations which

will benefit from the scheme? The answer very clearly is absolutely

not. This programme was opened all types of facilities with a hole

which is used by the local community, and applications were

received from church halls, JHA clubs, Masonic calls, community

groups and many others. I ask this question without any malice, but can

he understand the way that a number of the funding schemes have ruled

out, there is a perception from some within our community that the

decisions are secretary and? I think the very point the member raises, it

is a perception. Whenever we look at the way the funding was allocated,

and in terms of the community calls, this was something that whenever I

was out in the community, people were saying we have a need.

Applications were being put into a pilot scheme which we recognise

would be very important to those groups, and so you have the GAA when

sitting from this, parochial halls within the Catholic Church

benefiting from this so any suggestion that this in any way had

a sectarian agenda is completely false and I have Minister had no

role whatsoever in assessing any of the applications.

The Communities Minister, Paul Givan.

Meantime the Health Minister has blamed a breakdown

in communication for a disagreement between the Belfast Health Trust

and families of several very sick children, over access

Yesterday, the BBC revealed that three children who suffer

from a severe muscle wasting disease - Spinal Muscular Atrophy -

are waiting to hear if they will receive the drug.

Clinicians in the Belfast health and social care trust made a clinical

decision to use the extended access programme to provide this drug in an

individual case to treat SMA. On this basis, the extension of this

programme was made on the basis of the clinicians in the Belfast trust.

I am aware of the concerns of parents with children with SMA. I

raised concerns with the trust who assured me that urgent action will

be taken to make contact with families involved. I understand

direct contact will be made this Thursday and there will be a

face-to-face meeting with the clinical team in the hospital. Is

there any assurance that those three children do meet this suitability

tests, that they will face a very real prospect of getting access to a

life changing and life-saving drug, given that the health Department

does not have to pay for the drug and simply provide the theatre space

and medical staff to administer it. It is not for me to decide who

should get access to what drug and the trial but obviously, I want to

make sure that these families who are dealing with very complex

challenging conditions to make sure they have every support and every

lifeline possible. I think obviously that has been a breakdown in

communication and we will need to rectify that problem and that is

something I have asked the trust to do.

Michelle O'Neill, who continues until the election in her role

A suspect in the case of David Black has had his case reviewed. Last

year, he was given leave to change his bail so he could go on a three

day spa holiday. That same individual has now not been seen

since the 18th of November. There are of course conditions and

circumstances in which bail should be denied but the course must be

satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for continued detention

before a denial of bail can be justified, and there are potential

grounds for the denial of bail. Grounds that a defendant may fail to

turn up for trial, interfere with witnesses and so on. And while this

case is a bad case and a hard case and there may be others like them,

we should not draw conclusions about the character of the police and

criminal justice systems in the way that some of the extravagant

language has suggested today. I am not going to defend Mr McLauchlan in

any way, but I do note that his original bail was set in May 2014

and I can't help thinking, if he had been remanded in custody, we would

be having a different debate now. When they say all these good things

to entice Unionists to thinking that a united Ireland would be some sort

of Utopia, great place to live, when we all realised it wouldn't be, but

then the very next day they will sound side-by-side with hardliners,

with placards outside Knock HP. As I have already said to this Assembly

before, this review is currently underway. It will establish facts

about the bail decisions in Northern Ireland and I do not want to

pre-empt the outcome but I would hope we would find a conclusion to

that in the coming weeks. But it is vital that Northern Ireland has an

effective framework for bail which properly balances the needs for

victims and defendants so how have asked for this work to be completed

as soon as possible. And on this final day

of the mandate, Steven Agnew brought forward the first sole

Green Party motion. The motion called for urgent

legislation to expand the role of the Assembly Commission

for Standards to allow for investigation into alleged

breaches of the Ministerial Code. We need an Independent, open and

transparent process for investigating ministers. I have

always failed to understand the opposition to this from some in this

House, but I think given recent events, if the Assembly was to

oppose this again today, there would be public anger. This would be the

last decision made by this Assembly. And I would call on members not to

waste this opportunity, to send a clear signal of the standards of

accountability we expect of the next Executive. This Assembly has deemed

this Assembly of good conduct and to be fit for purpose and the

mechanisms are in place under the Northern Ireland act 1988 to

correctly deal with any breaches. I have said in several occasions in

respect of many varying matters, but find myself saying again today that

bad legislation is worse than no legislation. Even if we were not

standing on the edge of another election, the call to bring forth

urgent legislation lacks any understanding of the process

involved. The Assembly commission can investigate members of this

Assembly, then it seems reasonable that a similar process should be in

place to hold ministers to account. Can you believe this? In the months,

this is the DUP, why should we have this model to create conditions

where none exist. Where it is better to have no legislation than bad

legislation? Would Pam Cameron explain to people where it is that

she sees that where we are trying to create issues where none exist? What

will have you been living in?! We don't have openness and transparency

about public dealings, then we see at the crease in trust, and if the

trust continues to decrease because there are no accountability

mechanisms two mechanisms at work, it turned to complete cynicism. Yes,

we have a code of conduct, yes, there is a ministerial code, but

there is no mechanism to investigate in any Independent sense, whether or

not a minister has fallen short of the standards thereby imposed. And

that is deliberate. And that motion passed

on an oral vote. Let's have a final word

with Rick Wilford. Are you expecting the brutal

election campaign that Arlene Foster has talked about? Guess, I think it

will be pretty bitter. I think we already hear the sound of sectarian

trenches being dug. I just want to contrast Jim McAllister. There are

so many issues which are overhanging the election, not least the no plan

enquiry into RHI, the Irish language act and Brexit which is looming ever

larger, and now the Assembly will not have a role. There will not be a

legislative consent motion. That was a result of the Supreme Court ruling

today. I think it will be bitter. It will be protracted, six weeks. So I

am not sure whether we will see any significant changes. A real

opportunity for the opposition parties I think because there are

some open golf here, not least over RHI, but I think it will be bitterly

fought and will leave a lot of people licking their wounds. You

have listed a number of areas on the political landscape which are likely

to come up on the election campaign, will they be critical? Are those the

issues on which people will decide how to vote? Or will it inevitably

come down to Orange versus Green? On hopes that this is an occasion when

the electorate, and let's hope a greater share of the electorate get

out of and vote, bring their rational behaviour and not be pulled

into the same old voting of the past. One thing we cannot predict is

what Sinn Fein is asking, namely a change in attitude particular yonder

part of the DUP. You cannot legislate for that or behavioural

change, so goodness knows how long this will be put back together, even

if there can be an agreed platform at some stage on a whole raft of

policy issues. And that's it for tonight -

and for this run of Stormont Today. The Assembly is formally dissolved

on Thursday of this week - and then all attention will formally

shift to the campaign trail as the parties do battle

to keep their numbers up As to what happens after that,

it's still anyone's guess - but rest assured, if and when

the politicians are back up here on the hill,

we'll be here too to bring you full Until then, we'll have full coverage

of the unfolding political story, as usual, on The View and on Sunday

Politics. For now, though, from everyone

in the Stormont Today team, bye-bye.