Northern Ireland Assembly, 19 December 2016

406 contributions from 46 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am taking no points of order at this stage of the proceedings.

Members, having been given notice by both the First Minister and deputy First Minister —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am taking no points of order at this stage in the proceedings.

Members, having been given notice by both the First Minister and the deputy First Minister —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. How can a statement that is not a ministerial statement be made to this House?

A Member

Keep it down.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am taking no points of order at this stage in the proceedings.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Farce.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Show the Speaker some respect.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Members, having been given notice by both the First —

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am taking no points of order at this stage of the proceedings.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Shame.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Shame.

Some Members

Shame. Shame.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Members, having been given notice by both the First Minister and deputy First Minister —

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

You have to explain yourself to the House.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I ask the Member to resume his seat.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Well, the other half of the Government has just walked out.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have been given notice by both the First Minister and deputy First Minister —

[Interruption.]

— and 30 Members under Standing Order 11 —

[Interruption.]

— I have summoned the Assembly to meet today for the purpose of an oral statement by the First Minister on the renewable heat incentive scheme and a motion on the exclusion of a Minister from office under section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

[Interruption.]

A Member

Bye, bye.

Some Members

Shame. Shame.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Before we proceed with today's business, I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Ms Jennifer McCann giving me notice of her intention to resign as a Member for the West Belfast constituency with effect from 6 December 2016. I have notified the Chief Electoral Officer in accordance with section 35 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I also wish to advise the House that I have been informed by the Chief Electoral Officer that Ms Órlaithí Flynn has been returned as a Member of the Assembly for the West Belfast constituency to fill the vacancy resulting from Ms McCann's resignation. Ms Flynn signed the undertaking and Roll of Membership and entered her designation in the presence of the Speaker and the Chief Executive on 7 December 2016. The Member has taken her seat. I welcome the Member to the House and wish her success.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Mr Speaker, before this turns into a total farce, I implore you to take a point of order on the probity of what is about to happen, in that this could not be a ministerial statement in that it does not have the consent of the joint office on whose behalf it purports to be made. There is no power in Standing Orders or in legislation to recall the House —

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I ask you to take your seat.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— for the purpose of a personal statement, and that is what this is.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr Allister, I ask you to take your seat.

I have received notice from the First Minister that she wishes to make a statement.

[Interruption.]

As the statement was made available to Members within only the last 15 minutes, I intend to suspend the sitting for 30 minutes to allow Members to read the statement. The sitting is suspended until 11.00 am.

The sitting was suspended at 10.36 am and resumed at 11.03 am.

Ministerial Statement

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Members, the sitting is resumed.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

On a point of order.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

If the Members will allow me to make a few opening remarks, then we will take points of order.

Before I proceed, Members will be aware that there is a requirement on me to make announcements on certain items of business to the Assembly. It is not the procedure to take points of order until that business has been transacted. I anticipated fully that Members may wish to make points of order in relation to this morning's business. I have a few remarks to make to explain the issues that I have considered this morning and will then take points of order.

I have received notice from the First Minister that she wishes to make a statement. Before we commence, I advise Members that the original request on 14 December sought to recall the Assembly for the purpose of the First and deputy First Minister making a statement on the renewable heat incentive scheme.

Subsequently, I have had a communication from the deputy First Minister that the statement does not represent the position of the Executive Office. Having taken legal and procedural advice this morning, I can say that it is clear that, in my role in relation to the procedures of the Assembly and not the procedures of the Executive, I have discharged my responsibilities under Standing Orders to recall the Assembly. Earlier this morning, I wrote to the Executive Office stating that I would be content to be notified if the deputy First Minister, or another Minister on his behalf, also wished to make a statement.

I am now content to take points of order.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for that advice, but it is still clear — it is at the top of the written statement that Mrs Foster is going to deliver to the House — that she is making the statement on behalf of herself. You have received correspondence from the deputy First Minister to indicate that. Is it the convention that, on behalf of the Executive, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister are then advised by your office to make two separate statements in order to satisfy the recall of the Assembly? I ask for advice on that.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Having taken legal and procedural advice this morning, I can say that it is clear that, in my role in relation to the procedures of the Assembly and not the procedures of the Executive, I have discharged my responsibilities in line with Standing Orders to recall the Assembly.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you said, Mr Speaker, you recalled us on Friday, issuing a notice saying that you had received a valid notice from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister and that the purpose of summoning us today was to receive a statement from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. You have now made clear that the deputy First Minister says that he no longer endorses what Mrs Foster is going to say. That invalidates Standing Order 11, so can you explain to the House under which Standing Order you propose to proceed?

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I understand the frustration of many Members on the matter. I want to reiterate that, earlier this morning, I wrote to the Executive Office indicating that I would be willing to accept a statement from the deputy First Minister or, in his absence, a statement from another Minister on his behalf. I have said twice now, I think, that I have discharged my responsibilities under Standing Orders to recall the Assembly. That is where we stand at the moment.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have asked you directly under which Standing Order you intend to proceed. The fact that you cannot answer forces me to ask it again: specifically which Standing Order are we operating under?

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr Nesbitt, I suppose that we are coming close to you challenging the Chair's decisions.

[Interruption.]

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

No, he is not.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Not even close.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Let me be quite clear: I have taken legal and procedural advice from the officers of the Assembly, and I am content that we are proceeding with their advice in line with Standing Orders.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Further to that point of order, Ms Ní Chuilín.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, there is an acceptance in what you have just said that allowing this statement to continue is undermining the jointery of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister and the Executive Office.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

That really is not a matter for me to decide on. That is a matter for the Executive to address.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Point of order, Mr Attwood.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. To put it moderately, I cannot agree with the last comment that you made. You have said to the House today that you will accept a second statement from a member of the Executive Office or from some other Minister on his behalf. Can you explain to the House how you reconcile that with not just Standing Orders but the Northern Ireland Act and subsequent legislation and the Good Friday Agreement, at the core of which is architecture that states that there shall be a joint office of First Minister and deputy First Minister?

Where do you have the authority, Mr Speaker — where do you have the authority? — to say to the Executive Office to make two statements? You have a duty to explain that to the House, to the people of Northern Ireland and to all those who endorsed the Good Friday Agreement, which established that office.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I think that you have made yourself quite clear. I have discharged my responsibilities under Standing Orders to recall the Assembly.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Point of order.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Point of order.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Point of order, Mr Allister.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We were notified to come here today to hear a ministerial statement. The Order Paper decrees that we will hear a ministerial statement. I presume that the Order Paper is issued under your direction. Can you, therefore, indicate how this now can be a ministerial statement from the Executive Office since one half of that office has withdrawn its imprimatur? Surely this no longer is a ministerial statement. I ask you to rule whether it is a ministerial statement. If it is not, by what Standing Order has the House been recalled to hear a personal statement? I know of no such Standing Order. Is this a ministerial statement? We need to know that.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will take you back, Mr Allister, to the remarks that I have previously made indicating that, this morning, I wrote to the Executive Office stating that I would have been content for a subsequent statement to have been made by the deputy First Minister. I believe that I have discharged on all the advice that I have been offered this morning. I have discharged my responsibilities under Standing Orders to recall the Assembly.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Point of order.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Point of order.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, could you rule —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker —

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Sorry: Mr Allister has the Floor.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Very much obliged. Could you rule whether what it is intended that we will hear is or is not a ministerial statement?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, I still persist that, if the statement from the First Minister is allowed to go ahead, it is undermining the joined-up approach of the Executive Office, and I believe that you are setting a precedent.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Assembly was recalled at the request of the Executive Office. I believe that I have discharged my responsibilities. Matters around that are for the Executive themselves to deal with.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Point of order.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Point of order.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

Further to that point of order.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Point of order, Mr Farry.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is readily understood and, indeed, backed up by legislation that this is a joint office. The office cannot issue a press statement, issue a line to the media or give separate answers to oral or written questions: every single decision that emerges from it has to be signed off by the two halves of the office. Therefore, I add my voice to the requests for clarification on how this can be taken forward. The Assembly was recalled on the basis of a statement from the Executive Office, which clearly we do not have. Will you, therefore, clarify whether we are, in fact, receiving a personal statement from the person who happens to be First Minister as opposed to a statement in the name of the Executive Office?

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Thank you, Mr Farry. Again, I understand the frustration of Members in the Chamber on the matter. It is a matter for the Executive. The decision has been made by the Executive. It really is my responsibility only to discharge under Standing Orders the recall of the Assembly. With all the advice that I have received from officers, I believe that we have recalled the Assembly in line with my responsibilities and Assembly procedures.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you clarify whether, on the basis that you are proceeding today, we will now expect Standing Orders of the House to be changed so that both the First Minister and deputy First Minister will answer questions for oral answer and will have an opportunity to make a statement on every issue that the Executive Office brings to the House in order that this be done in a consistent manner?

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

That would not be an ideal situation but it is not a situation of my making. We have discharged our responsibilities.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

On a point of order.

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Point of order, Mr Kennedy.

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I bring you back to the original request by the First Minister and deputy First Minister on behalf of the Executive Office to bring forward a statement on RHI today? Clearly, when that original request was made, circumstances were different, but, in a fluid situation, it appears that events have overtaken it. It is clear now that the current statement is not being made with the agreement of the deputy First Minister. Surely the item of business for which the Assembly was recalled — the joint statement to the House — would, with other items of business, then fall, allowing the second and principal item of debate, namely the motion of censure. Then, with some amendment, the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party could have made her points in respect of the scheme.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Thank you, Mr Kennedy, for that point of order. I received a valid request from the Executive Office to recall the Assembly.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Point of order, Mr Nesbitt.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Mr Speaker, you say that you have written to the Executive Office. Did you get a response? If so, what was it? Specifically, are you content that the independent Member of the Executive, Claire Sugden, had the opportunity to make a statement today?

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have not received a reply from the Executive Office as yet. Executive business is really —

I have received no request from Claire Sugden.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

Further to that point of order.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Further to that point of order.

Eamonn McCann (People Before Profit Alliance, Foyle)

On a point of order.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

We have not taken a point of order from Mr McCann as yet.

Eamonn McCann (People Before Profit Alliance, Foyle)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Over the past 30 minutes or so, you have repeated a number of times that you are content that we are proceeding on a proper basis. With all respect to you, it is nice to know that you are at ease with your decisions on procedure, but not everybody would agree.

It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that, since no statement can be made on behalf of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, which was the basis on which we were called here, we have no proper way to proceed. Is it not the case that what ought to happen now is that we should proceed, as quickly as it can be arranged, procedurally and in relation to precedent, to an election to this House? It is perfectly clear that the House is not operating as intended and it is not operating in a way that serves the interests of the people of the North. Procedurally, it seems to me that we are now in la-la land and limbo land. Please can we stop this charade?

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

On a point of order.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I received advice this morning from the officers and I have discharged my responsibility under Standing Orders to recall the Assembly.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will take a point of order from this side.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Members have an obsession here this morning with process. The same Members who have been calling for clarity around the RHI scheme. At what stage are we going to let the First Minister speak, given that you have outlined that you have taken procedural and legal advice from your officials?

[Interruption.]

At what point are we going to hear the statement from the First Minister that many people outside the Chamber want to hear?

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Will Members take their seats for a minute? If Members are going to continually raise the same point of order, we are not going to go forward on this matter. If Members have different points of order to raise, other than the ones that I have addressed within my responsibility to recall the Assembly, I will hear those.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I repeat this again. Given the remarks from the DUP Whip, who is indicating that the First Minister is making this statement to give an account of the RHI scheme without the consent of the deputy First Minister, I appeal again to the advice given to the Speaker that this is actually challenging the integrity of the Executive Office. I ask for that advice to be considered.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

That really is a matter for the Executive. I have considered all my responsibilities under the request that was lodged for the Assembly to be recalled.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Point of order, Mr Attwood.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

Mr Speaker, I have to say to you that I do not understand your ruling and how you can reconcile that ruling either with the notice that all of us received in the Chamber or with the Good Friday Agreement, the democratic will of the people of Ireland and our Standing Orders. Consequently, given that you are relying on what you referred to as "legal and procedural advice", I am saying to you, Mr Speaker, that, before this meeting proceeds, you must release, as a matter of urgency and now, the legal and procedural advice that you received, because you need to have your eyes wide open to the consequences in law and politics of what you are proposing.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member's request has been recorded. Your point of order has been recorded.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Point of order, Mrs Long.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We fully accept — that is why we are here — that your original notice and the original intention to recall the Assembly to hear a statement on behalf of the Executive Office was entirely valid. However, it is now clear that the deputy First Minister has withdrawn his consent for such a statement to be made. Does that not therefore invalidate this sitting of the Assembly? Can you clarify for us the political and procedural consequences of continuing down this road where we have one half of a double-headed Ministry presenting to the Assembly without the consent of the other?

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I agree with the Member that we are not in an ideal situation. I understand the frustration of many Members this morning. I did take the initiative to write to the Executive Office, stating that I would be content to accept a statement from the deputy First Minister. The deputy First Minister declined that invitation.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Point of order.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Point of order.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Point of order.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Point of order, Mr Dickson.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is quite clear that the Standing Orders of the Chamber have been stretched to their limit this morning with regard to the ability to hear effectively what is a private Member making a private statement to the House on this matter. She no longer has the confidence of the deputy First Minister in making this statement, and it is my belief, Mr Speaker, that you need to advise the House under what Standing Order you are allowing this unusual arrangement to proceed, if that is your decision.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am content, Mr Dickson, that I am complying with the requirements of Standing Order 18A.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Point of order.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Point of order.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Point of order, Mr Nesbitt.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Mr Speaker, the last 53 minutes have been a disaster for the integrity and reputation of these institutions. Can I suggest that you call another short adjournment, summon the Whips and see whether we can find a way forward?

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member has his point on the record.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not challenge at all the veracity of your original summonsing of the House faced with the request that you had, but it is quite clear that that request has effectively been revoked. Hence, I press, for the third time, for a ruling on whether or not you regard as a ministerial statement what it is anticipated we will hear from Mrs Foster. Are we now going to hear a ministerial statement or are we not? That goes to the heart of the matter.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr Allister, having taken the legal and procedural advice this morning, it is clear that my role is in relation to the procedures of the Assembly, not the procedures of the Executive, and that I have discharged my responsibilities under Standing Orders to recall the Assembly.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Further to that point of order —

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

Further to that point of order —

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I call the First Minister.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Mr Speaker, I am grateful to you for agreeing to recall the Assembly today and permitting me to make —

[Interruption.]

— a statement about my role in the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme.

[Interruption.]

Unlike normal practice on these occasions, which, by the way, you endorsed, I want to make it clear that the statement has not been cleared or approved by the deputy First Minister. I felt that it was important that I come before the House at the earliest opportunity. For almost two weeks there 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. This morning, I want to set out the actual facts to the Assembly. To repeat what I said in media interviews, I want to make it clear that, in order to get to the bottom of the entire issue, I am prepared to waive the normal convention and give evidence to the Public Accounts Committee.

The one issue on which we can all agree is that there were shocking errors and failures in the RHI 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 that lessons are learned and that the costs of the scheme are brought under control. As First Minister, I am determined that that will be done.

Today, I want to cover in some detail the establishment, operation and eventual closure of the scheme. I want to set out the policy objectives behind the scheme and the flaws in its operation. I also want to address some of the more common questions that have arisen over the past two weeks and, most importantly, to put to rest some of the myths that have grown up around the scheme. However, I want to make it clear that the statement will not set out every failing and flaw in the scheme and process, every missed opportunity and every mistaken assumption. That work has been and will continue to be carried out by the Public Accounts Committee.

Before I move to the chronology of what occurred, I want to say a few words about ministerial accountability. By convention, Ministers are answerable to the Assembly not only for their actions and decisions but for those of civil servants in their Department, regardless of any personal responsibility for actions or omissions by officials. In practice, Ministers determine departmental policies and delegate their implementation to officials. It is the departmental accounting officer — normally the permanent secretary — who is responsible for the stewardship of resources within the Department's control.

While it may have been lost amidst the media hype, I am on record as saying that I entirely accept that I am accountable to the Assembly for the actions of the Department during my tenure as Minister. I am sorry that the initial scheme did not contain cost control measures and that there were fundamental flaws in its design. This is the deepest political regret of my time in the House. As Minister, I accept responsibility for the work of the Department during my time at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI). Once again, for the avoidance of doubt, I believe that it is right and proper that I answer to the Assembly for my role in the RHI scheme, and not for one moment do I seek to shirk or avoid that responsibility. But, if we are to learn lessons from the entire experience, it is essential that we know exactly where things went wrong.

The non-domestic RHI scheme was introduced in November 2012. It supports the UK objective of contributing to the EU-wide target that, by 2020, 20% of energy consumption should be from renewable sources. The UK's share of the target is 15%, and the plan is to achieve that through a combination of 12% renewable heat and 30% renewable electricity by 2020. In Northern Ireland, the renewable heat target is 10% by 2020. The non-domestic scheme incentivises the uptake of renewable heat technologies such as biomass, heat pumps and solar thermal installations. It provides payments for 20 years based on the heat energy generated. The level of tariff is dependent on the size and type of technology, and the calculation of the tariff was intended to cover capital costs, operating costs and non-financial hassle costs over the lifetime of the technology.

A domestic RHI scheme was introduced in December 2014. There was an increase in application numbers during 2015 that escalated quite rapidly to produce the crisis we now face. Focusing on the incentive for small to medium-sized biomass boilers, the scheme provided a tariff of just over 6p a unit.

Just under £38 million of funding was provided by the Treasury for the Northern Ireland RHI schemes during the five-year period from 2011 to 2016. However, scheme uptake was initially low in the first few years, with only 409 applications received by the end of 2014, leading to an underspend of around £15 million during the first four years. The total number of renewable heating installations under the non-domestic scheme had increased to over 2,000 by the time that the scheme was suspended in February 2016. Current estimates suggest that around 6% of our total heating needs in Northern Ireland are now met through renewable heating technologies. In addition to the resultant reduction in CO2 emissions, the local Northern Ireland economy is benefiting from the ongoing investment through the RHI schemes. That investment brings benefits: job retention and creation in the energy services sector. I make those points simply to underline the point that, however bad the execution has turned out to be, the aims of the scheme were good and necessary.

One question that has been asked by many people is this: why did we not simply replicate the Great Britain arrangements in 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 the gas market is relatively immature. It was even more so in 2012, hence it is clear that simply to import the GB arrangement to the Northern Ireland market at that time would not have been appropriate.

While this statement is not the place to rehearse every failing or flaw in the process, there is one matter that I believe it is important for me to address. It is the error that goes to the very heart of why the costs of the scheme ran out of control. The crucial mistake in the 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, which is mainly wood pellets. In essence, that created an incentive to continue to burn fuel over and above the levels required for the relevant function, whether a commercial business operation or a community facility such as a nursing home or a church. Of course, the regulations do not provide for payment for wasted heat or heat that has no functional benefit. However, as the PAC has exposed, a further major failing of the scheme here has been that the necessary aspects of the regulations have not been rigorously enforced. There clearly should have been more and better inspections of businesses long before the summer of 2016.

At the heart of the RHI story is that the tariff subsidy was higher than the cost of the wood pellets, yet DETI's 2012 business case on the RHI wrongly stated that the tariff was lower. That crucial misunderstanding informed DETI's attitude to the RHI in subsequent years. It helps explain why concerns were not taken seriously enough and why action was not taken quickly enough when problems emerged. With the greatest of respect to those who criticise me for that, I remind them that I did not simply impose the scheme on the people of Northern Ireland. The tariff was set out in schedule 3 to the legislation, which was scrutinised by the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee and passed after debate by the Northern Ireland Assembly. Indeed, the Chair of the Committee at the time, Mr Patsy McGlone MLA, said:

"The Committee scrutiny of the development of the renewable heat incentive has been considerable and reflects the importance and long-term nature of the proposals. Before supporting the RHI, the Committee sought and received assurances on incentive and tariff levels, banding levels, incentives for domestic consumers, payments to participants and support levels for the renewable heat premium payment scheme." — [Official Report (Hansard), Bound Volume 78, p299, col 2].

The unfortunate reality is that no one in government or in the Assembly in their work in creating and passing the legislation picked up on that crucial failing. Contrary to some accounts, in the early years of the scheme, that was not widely picked up by the industry either. In fact, as has been stated, when I was the Minister responsible, Northern Ireland was underperforming in that area. In my years as Minister, there was an underspend on the RHI up to and including my final year at DETI, which was 2014-15. That is detailed in the Northern Ireland Audit Office report. Take-up in the scheme's early years was low. Indeed, as hard as it is to believe now, there was even a publicity campaign in 2014 to encourage more applicants.

The BBC 'Spotlight' programme and subsequent comment has made significant play of a concerned citizen. I would ask the entire Assembly, if it were here, to join me in thanking that person for all that she did to try to prevent the calamity that we have fallen into.

She deserves our highest respect and a sincere apology on behalf of my former Department, which should not have dismissed her 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 on which 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 me and the Department. When asked by 'Spotlight' about correspondence from the concerned citizen, I replied:

"I passed these concerns on to departmental officials to investigate. It is now obvious that these investigations should have highlighted the failings of the scheme and ameliorative actions should have been taken."

I made that statement from memory and on advice that appeared to indicate that she had raised her concerns directly with me. It is my normal practice — indeed, it is the appropriate practice — to pass any concerns received from members of the public to the relevant departmental officials. However, my response was made without the benefit of having reviewed the concerned citizen's original letter. It is now clear that the initial communication to me did not raise concerns about the RHI scheme. I understood from the Department for the Economy officials who have spoken to the person in question that this was the only correspondence sent directly to me. However, a subsequent email to my private account the following week has now come to light in which there is a reference to concerns about the scheme.

It has also been alleged that I contributed to the problem by putting the introduction of the domestic RHI ahead of cost controls on the non-domestic scheme. It is quite wrong of anyone to describe this as a smoking gun. I make no apology at all for having pushed to see the domestic scheme introduced, as it was a totally legitimate and rational decision based on the information available to me at that time. I did not receive any indication that cost control of the non-domestic scheme was an urgent priority at that time. The Department for the Economy is seeking to establish the facts as to why the warning signals that had been given, not least those from the concerned citizen, were not escalated in the Department. It is important that this work progresses to a conclusion as soon as possible.

To sum up, at no time during my period as Minister were any recommendations made to me to introduce cost controls, nor were there any warning signs that spending on the scheme was spiralling out of control. In fact, during my time in the Department, there was an underspend of the money available to us.

I will now turn to the period after I left the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. In May 2015, I became Finance Minister and had no role whatsoever in the ETI Minister's decision to amend the RHI scheme. The then First Minister, Peter Robinson, has also made it clear that he was unaware of the issues around RHI as they had not been brought to him as party leader or as First Minister. Therefore, at no time did he seek to intervene either.

Let there be no doubt that the decision to amend the RHI scheme was a matter for the ETI Minister. The timing of the introduction of cost controls was entirely a matter for him. It has been suggested that my party sought to influence the decision on the timing of the introduction of cost controls. It has been only in recent days that I have been aware of this allegation, and I have now taken the opportunity to investigate it. The only person who would have been in a position to instruct the ETI Minister would have been the First Minister at the time. This has been checked with the then First Minister, who has made it clear that the problems surrounding RHI were never brought to him either as First Minister or as party leader. He made it clear, therefore, that he could not and did not intervene in any way.

No other Minister took any role in this matter, nor did they make any representations in relation to it. I can confirm that the DUP party officers took no interest or role in the question of the RHI. Therefore, regardless of what, if anything, was said in relation to the party's role, no one had any authority to instruct the ETI Minister to do anything. There is no evidence whatsoever of Mr Bell raising any concerns with the First Minister if he felt that he was being pressurised. Let me make it absolutely clear: any suggestion that the Enterprise Minister was instructed to delay the changes to the RHI scheme is totally without foundation.

By way of a submission from John Mills, the then director of DETI's energy division, on 31 December 2015, a recommendation was made to the then Minister to close the RHI scheme because of concerns about an overspend, and the Minister agreed to that proposal. A subsequent submission from John Mills on 19 January 2016 recommended steps to close the scheme by early to mid-March 2016.

These submissions were based on the assumption that conventional processes of consultation and Committee clearance were required. The Minister signed off on this submission on Friday 22 January, agreeing to the early to mid-March closure. However, as a result of concerns, a hold was put on this decision within half an hour.

In late January 2016, complaints about the operation of the RHI scheme were made to me. I informed the deputy First Minister and I passed them on to the head of the Civil Service. I was deeply concerned about the proposed mid-March closure date in light of the growing financial pressures, and the Executive agreed on 5 February to a closure around 15 February. Immediately after the announcement of the early closure of the scheme, concerns were raised about those who had already installed boilers but had not yet applied and would be disadvantaged.

On the basis that cost control measures were now in place, there was a danger of legal challenges to those who had installed boilers but had not yet received authorisation and, with the agreement of senior civil servants, it was decided that the scheme should remain open for a further two weeks.

As the Enterprise Minister at the time highlighted in the Assembly, he took the decision with the agreement of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. The extension of the amended scheme was an entirely proper and proportionate step to take in all the circumstances. Once again, for the record, the scheme was closed earlier than initially approved by the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

Since the announcement of my decision to make this statement, the former Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has given an interview to the BBC. In that, he makes a number of allegations about the decision to amend and then subsequently to close the scheme. I think it is important that I also take this opportunity to put on record the factual position about 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 he could. This is untrue.

Today my colleague the Minister for the Economy is placing in the Assembly Library a copy of the submission that was agreed by the former Minister. It will show that the Minister received a submission on 8 July 2015 recommending the introduction of cost control measures. It will also indicate that the original proposal from officials was to introduce cost controls from October 1 2015 but was amended to 4 November 2015 and signed off by the Minister on 3 September 2015. It is apparent from this document that action was not taken immediately but after considerable delay.

Mr Bell further claims that other SPADs became involved in the process who were, and I quote:

"Not allowing the scheme to close".

The fact remains that the Minister signed off a proposal that was to take effect from 4 November 2015. The only further delay in the introduction of cost control measures was as a result of legal and financial issues being resolved by departmental officials. This was unconnected to any ministerial decision. The decision was solely for the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to take.

The former Enterprise Minister claims that he made a decision to amend the RHI scheme but was overruled by special advisers. Since last week, I have specifically investigated this claim. The evidence is clear. The only decision taken by the Minister was in early September to amend the scheme in November. The Minister was not subsequently overruled by special advisers, and I am clear that whatever representations may have been made by anyone on this issue, it was not being done with the authority of the party.

I understand from Minister Hamilton that the permanent secretary recalls being told at the time that some in the party wanted the scheme to be kept open. He was unaware of the source of this suggestion, but believes it may have been based on the erroneous but widespread view at the time that because the scheme was funded through annually managed expenditure (AME), it was possible to maximise take-up without creating a problem.

I have checked and confirmed that no Minister made any such request or took any interest in the decision taken in September 2015. The DUP party officers took no interest in this issue and gave no instructions. It is, therefore, clear that, whatever the belief, the DUP did not ask the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to extend the scheme. I also understand that, when the suggestion of a four-week extension was mentioned in the DETI issues meeting on 24 August, the Minister did not voice any objections. In fact, he endorsed the decision.

The bottom line is that this decision was taken by the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. No attempt was made to overrule him and no such allegation was made at the time. In fairness to the Minister, I should say that I understand from Minister Hamilton that departmental officials did not object to a four-week extension.

Mr Bell also claimed that he acted in the way that he did because of what he referred to as "collective responsibility". This demonstrates a total and fundamental misunderstanding of the convention of collective responsibility. The doctrine of collective responsibility refers to a convention whereby, once Cabinet takes a decision, all Ministers are expecting to abide by it or resign. In this case, there was no decision of the Northern Ireland Executive, nor had there ever been any conversation between DUP Ministers, much less a decision, on the matter. There has been no allegation from Mr Bell that the First Minister Peter Robinson sought to delay the change to the scheme. Collective responsibility has no bearing whatsoever on this issue. Indeed, it is clear from Mr Bell's statement on the two-week delay in February that he could robustly defend his role as Minister and would not change his course on the basis of SpAds acting without any ministerial authority or cover.

In discussing the decisions around the autumn of 2015, Mr Bell also claimed that he has a fact that reveals the role of special advisers in the scheme staying open. He then referred to a conversation he had with the deputy secretary of the Department, claiming his own special adviser had been asked by other special advisers to remove references to "Arlene Foster" and "the Department of Finance and Personnel". This is the key allegation — that documents were amended — and it is a crucial point.

The truth is very different from that suggested by Mr Bell. I can set out the simple facts, based on the official records of the Department for the Economy. First, the only conversation approximating to this version of events took place in February 2016, not in 2015. Secondly, it relates to paperwork concerning the closure of the scheme in 2016, not the introduction of cost controls in 2015. Thirdly, the DETI adviser accepts that any changes he made were made of his volition and not at the request of others.

Fourthly, the amendment that was made relates to one draft submission before it was finalised for the Minister to consider, not to any attempt to delete emails or Government records. Fifthly, the reference that was removed was one that highlighted the role of OFMDFM in wishing to see the scheme close more quickly and without consultation. The removal of that reference had the effect of avoiding any impression that the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister had been told that he had agreed to a process of closing the scheme that was too slow.

Sixthly, this was a submission for the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister only and did not impact on the document that was being forwarded to the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Seventhly, and most importantly, the change to the submission had absolutely no effect on anything in the real world; the timing and process for the suspension of the scheme had already been agreed.

Minister Hamilton asked for urgent clarification on that issue from officials, who provided a note setting out the factual position. That was released to the media last evening, and the Minister has also placed in the Assembly Library copies of the draft submission with the tracked changes marked. The final version was then approved by the then Minister.

In relation to the closure of the scheme in 2016, Mr Bell has alleged that he wanted to close the scheme immediately. Once again, let us return to the documentary evidence. First, let me refer to a submission dated 19 January 2016. That proposed a closure date of early to mid-March 2016 and was signed off by the then Minister, Mr Bell. The deputy First Minister and I believed that we should act more quickly, and a further submission was prepared by DETI officials which provided three options. Minister Hamilton has also left a copy of that submission in the Assembly Library. In it, officials recommended a longer process to close the scheme over a longer period of time, but it was agreed that it should be closed as quickly as possible. So even taking into account the issue of the two-week delay that was agreed after the announcement, after all the complex processes the simple truth is that the scheme closed earlier than had initially been proposed by the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister. The reality is that it was the intervention of OFMDFM that ensured an earlier closure of the scheme than would otherwise have been the case.

To deal briefly with that subsequent two-week delay in the RHI closure, let us remember that it was decided, after cross-party concerns, that the scheme should not close within a fortnight of the announcement. Members across this House voiced concerns that businesses that had just bought boilers would be left in the lurch. The two-week extension that Mr Bell then agreed to as Minister was supported by me and the deputy First Minister. Other parties in this House, of course, wanted it to be longer. Cost controls were in place for the RHI at that stage, and civil servants were content with the two-week period.

This is not an exhaustive rebuttal of the allegations made by Mr Bell, but I hope it will convey, with documentary evidence, what actually happened.

I also want to make it clear that I support the need for an independent investigation, free from partisan political interference, to establish the facts around the renewable heat incentive scheme. I believe that the conclusions of any investigation must be made public and that any investigation must be conducted speedily to assist in the process of building public confidence. I have been working to reach an agreement with officials and others on the precise details of such an investigation over the last number of days, and I hope that it can be resolved in the next few days.

While there will be significant interest in how we came to the present position, the most important issue for us now is to mitigate the costs of the scheme. Minister Hamilton plans to make a statement to the Assembly as soon as possible in the new year. The hope and intent is to reduce significantly the cost of the scheme to the Executive's Budget, but the details are still subject to considerable further work. This matters as we want to be fair to all those who responded to the incentive as it was intended to operate and to ensure that our process completely resolves the widespread abuse of the scheme.

In conclusion, unlike others, my priority in this is not headline grabbing or grandstanding. My priority, just as it was when I pressed for the earlier closure of the scheme rather than let it run to March, is to ensure that lessons are learned and to reduce the projected cost.

When I became First Minister, I said that I could think of no greater honour than to serve my country and the people of Northern Ireland. It is not a responsibility that I take lightly. I am not immune to the considerable anger and frustration that this issue has caused; not only do I understand it, I feel it too. I share those emotions because I am proud of this place and I want the best for it, and that is why I entered politics. I did not enter politics to shirk or shy away from difficult decisions.

The record shows that I have always put Northern Ireland first. The record shows that I have worked hard, throughout my political and ministerial career, to bring more investment and more jobs to Northern Ireland. The record shows that I have worked hard to keep Northern Ireland moving forward, and I will continue to do so as First Minister. That is why, rather than whipping up a media storm, I have actually been dealing with the problem along with my ministerial colleague Simon Hamilton and the Finance Minister, working on a practical solution, because that is what responsible politicians do. That is what government is about.

On a personal note, I want very much to thank each and every member of the public who has called my office at Stormont and, indeed, DUP offices across the length and breadth of Northern Ireland to offer words of support and encouragement. It really is appreciated. I will continue to work hard, as I have done throughout my political career, on everyone's behalf, to ensure a better and more stable future for Northern Ireland.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the First Minister for the lengthy and comprehensive statement that she has just given to the House. I ask the First Minister this: what is her view of those who say that they want facts and clarity around the situation but, when they have the opportunity to listen to those facts, walk out of the Chamber in an irresponsible way and in a media stunt to draw attention and grab headlines for themselves and are more interested in spin and propaganda than getting the truth for the people of Northern Ireland?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I just do not know what to say on this matter. For weeks now, people have been calling for me to come forward and calling on me to go to the PAC. I said I would go to the PAC; that was not good enough. I said I would come to the House, set out the facts and take questions from Members of the House, and where are they? Where are they? The people of Northern Ireland deserve better than this. The people of Northern Ireland will look at this today and say, "What is all that about — what is all that about?".

I have listened to people from across Northern Ireland — I have not been hiding away, I have been out and about. I have been in Upper Bann, South Belfast and my own constituency. I have been listening very carefully to what people have to say. They are angry, but they want a plan as to how to deal with this.

I am setting out a plan for how to deal with the matter whilst others seek party political advantage. I regret that. I regret that deeply. Others have to answer for themselves.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the First Minister for her detailed statement to the House. Will she explain why the cost controls in the Great Britain scheme were not replicated in the Northern Ireland scheme?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I took the opportunity over the weekend to speak to officials to establish why that is the case, and there are three reasons. I have to say that none of them is good or very acceptable, because cost controls, as we know now with the benefit of hindsight, should have been in place right from the beginning of the scheme.

First, there was an understanding from the specialist report — the Cambridge Economic Policy Associates (CEPA) report — that the tariff set was lower than the cost of the fuel. That was the fundamental mistake, as I said in my statement. The suggested rate for biomass boilers below 100 kW was set initially at 4·5p per kilowatt-hour. At that rate, the consultants noted, there was no need for tiering, as, at the time, the proposed rate was less than the cost of wood pellets and therefore there was no incentive to use the boiler excessively just to claim the subsidy.

Secondly, there was not the level of demand for the Northern Ireland RHI in the first few years. In fact, the first application for the scheme was received in January 2013. Remember that the scheme opened in November 2012. Over the first four years, there was an underspend of approximately £15 million. Therefore, it was thought — incorrectly, as it turns out — that the need to introduce cost controls did not arise.

The third issue is around governance. The governance processes in the Department did not enforce compliance with commitments given when the scheme was approved, including careful review of tariffs and risks. Cost control was proposed back in the 2013 consultation paper but not acted on. There was no submission to me saying, "We think that you need to look at cost controls" or, "This has been raised as an issue". Nothing came to me on that matter.

The cost controls in Great Britain should of course have been replicated in the Northern Ireland scheme. I am giving you the reasons that were given to me as to why they were not replicated. They are not good enough, but they are the reasons that were given to me.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I, too, thank the First Minister for her very comprehensive statement. It is most regrettable that those who have barked and shouted the most about the issue, when there was an opportunity for them to learn some facts around it, said, "We are not interested in the facts", and just walked out. They ran away. The First Minister is to be congratulated on her comprehensive report.

There has been much speculation as to why cost controls were not introduced when the scheme was established. Was any advice given to the Minister in 2012 about cost controls? Indeed, will the First Minister tell us what proposals for cost controls were considered and then rejected by the Minister?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Back in 2012, there were no submissions to me on cost controls. As I indicated in my last answer, cost controls of a sort were set out for comment in the 2013 consultation paper. It is not unreasonable for a Minister to expect that this document would have been acted on and that I would have been given a submission after the consultation closed. In fact, there was never a formal submission responding to that part of the consultation. I then went on to look at the introduction of the domestic scheme, but that is not a good enough reason for not bringing me a proposal or recommendation on the non-domestic scheme. One should have been brought, especially given that, by that stage, the concerned citizen had been in. She had spoken to officials on a number of occasions, yet they still did not think that it was the right thing to do to send me a submission on the issues. I deeply regret that that was the case.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the First Minister for the statement that she made. In the precursor to it, several Members raised points of order and the issue of undermining the credibility of the House. Does the First Minister agree with me that what undermines the credibility of the House is when its elected Members run away from fulfilling their function of answering questions in this place and instead choosing to do so in TV studios?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Of course it undermines this place when Members do not stay here to ask the appropriate questions but instead go outside and indulge in media spin. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that some Members have done that: we all remember the Ulster Unionist Party's stunt when I was appointed after the election. They said that they were going out of the Executive, and it was "Bring it on" and all that stuff. What was it? "Let battle begin", was that it? That was when they decided not to go into the Executive. They ran away then, and, of course, they ran away before that over the Fresh Start talks when they decided not to engage in that either. This is not new; it is a pattern. I do not think that they serve their constituents well: they do not. If they want to challenge me, the place to challenge me is in the House, but instead they will stay out. They will come this afternoon and put down an exclusion motion even though they have not been here to question me on the issues. They will come here with an exclusion motion even before the PAC has finished its investigation. They have made up their mind about the First Minister of Northern Ireland, but, thankfully, the electorate has also made up its mind about the First Minister of Northern Ireland.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for a comprehensive statement to the House this morning. It is obvious from this morning's events that there are many Members who should be in the Chamber who do not want this devolved Government to be in any way successful or to do their job in the rightful way, and that has been shown.

The 'News Letter' published a story this morning about the regulatory impact assessment. On what basis did the Minister sign off on the regulatory impact assessment, and should it not have been apparent that there was a fatal flaw at the heart of the scheme?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for her question. It is an important question, and I am glad that she has asked it. First, let me say that our opponents told us that today was an important day but then could not be bothered to show up. They cannot be bothered to show up and ask me questions about the sorts of things that the Member has asked me about.

In the regulatory impact assessment, the Department recognised that setting incorrect support payment levels to the RHI tariff posed the most obvious risk to the Northern Ireland scheme. If the level was set too high, those installing renewable heat would be oversubsidised and less heat would be delivered per pound than would be under more optimal subsidy levels; alternatively, if the rate was set too low, renewable heat would not be deployed to the extent expected. In that document, it was made clear that there were to be regular planned reviews of subsidy levels after a number of years of experience with the subsidy. That would, of course, have provided the opportunity to amend tariffs if needed and ensure that they remained appropriate, given the potential changing market conditions. Of course, the market changes, and we saw that in the prices of wood pellets, oil and gas.

In that RIA, it was proposed that the first review would begin in January 2014, with any changes needed to be made by 1 April 2015. The review did not happen. Departmental officials did not carry out that review. As Minister, I have the right to expect that risks identified in an RIA would be managed by officials. As the accounting officer has explained at length to the Public Accounts Committee, several important commitments were made at the time when the RHI was approved, not least on risk management, that were not followed through. Those omissions by officials contributed materially to the very serious problem we now face. That is already under investigation in the fact-finding work that has been discussed with the PAC, and I look forward to the outworkings of the PAC. As I have already said on the record, I am more than happy to go to the PAC, even though that is not the convention. The reason I am happy to go to the PAC is that I have nothing to hide in the matter — absolutely nothing. I am putting everything out there and am calling for an inquiry if we can get it arranged with colleagues. I have nothing to hide, so why would other Members table a motion to exclude me? It is all party politics, and this party will not be part of it.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the First Minister for her statement and the answers to the questions. They bring a great deal of clarity and dispel a lot of the confusion that folk have generated from other quarters on the matter.

Has the First Minister been able to ascertain or establish who was responsible for the assumption that cost controls were not necessary as they thought that the market price of wood pellets was higher than the tariff?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question. It appears to have been a mistake that was made by DETI officials. The initial report from the consultants, CEPA, suggested that the rate for biomass boilers below 100 kW was set at 4·5p per kilowatt-hour based on a 20 kW biomass boiler reference case. At that rate, the consultants noted that there was no need for tiering because, at that time, the proposed rate was less than the cost of wood pellets, and, therefore, there would be no incentive to use the boilers excessively just to claim the subsidy.

The consultants were then asked to reconsider the rates following feedback from the industry after the consultation process, and, in February 2012, the consultants produced a new paper that increased the rates to account for a larger reference case boiler of 50 kW rather than the original 20 kW reference case. The rate proposed for biomass boilers of less than 100 kW was increased in this paper to 5·9p per kilowatt-hour, but there was no mention — no mention — of the need for tiering or that this was not in excess of the cost of wood pellets. So, the final business case approved by DFP in mid-2012 included a 5·9p tariff, which has subsequently been increased with inflation to 6·4p per kilowatt-hour.

The Department's business case to DFP stated that there was no need to consider tiering because the rate proposed was lower than the cost of fuel, and, therefore, there would be no incentive to abuse the system by generating heat just to claim the subsidy. However, in the case of biomass boilers, this was simply not true. In fact, the cost of wood pellets was shown in the same business case as being 4·39p per kilowatt-hour compared with the proposed tariff. It was there in black and white that the proposed tariff for the wood pellets was 6·4p per kilowatt. Nobody in DETI, CEPA or DFP spotted that that was the case, and, therein, lies the fundamental problem.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

That concludes questions on the statement. The Business Committee has agreed to suspend the sitting for one hour following the conclusion of questions on the statement. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 1.00 pm. The next item of business when we return will be the motion under section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act.

The sitting was suspended at 12.07 pm.

On resuming —

Assembly Business

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

The next item of business is a motion signed by 30 Members under section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in relation to the exclusion of the First Minister from office. The motion for exclusion of a Minister under section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 must relate to the specific terms of that section. Any amendments that take the motion outside of those terms will be inadmissible. I have received legal advice from officials that the amendment proposed by Sinn Féin was incompatible with the requirements of section 30 of the 1998 Act and, as such, was inadmissible.

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to three hours for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. The First Minister will have 30 minutes, and all other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. At the start of the debate, I want to note that the motion has attracted the signatures of a wide range of parties. Whilst there is a three-hour time limit to the debate, I want to make Members aware that I intend to use my discretion to ensure that as many Members as is possible are heard from each party represented in the House. I advise Members that the vote on the motion will be on a cross-community basis.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move

That this Assembly, in accordance with section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, resolves that the First Minister no longer enjoys the confidence of the Assembly and that she be excluded from holding office as a Minister or junior Minister for a period of six months because of her failure to observe the terms of paragraph (g) of the Pledge of Office and the first paragraph of the ministerial code of conduct, in that she failed to observe the highest standards of propriety and regularity in relation to the stewardship of public funds surrounding the renewable heat incentive scheme.

The SDLP brings this motion before the House in the full awareness of just how serious a moment this is for our local politics. As we attempt to claw back the £400 million and more that may be lost to our local taxpayers, let us also act to claw back the fading threads of confidence in these institutions. As we draw towards the end of 2016, let us today act to redeem and restore some faith in the public service, because the common and the collective good remains worth fighting for. In that context, the SDLP very much welcomes the cross-party support the motion has received. There is a reason for that unity, and the DUP Members of the House would do well to take heed of it.

Since entering into public life as a councillor and as an MLA, I have never seen our public more engaged and angry about a single issue. I would hazard a guess that, as each of us walked around the streets of our constituencies this weekend, MLAs from across the Chamber were hearing that same disgust. Our community is united in anger. Let it be recognised here today that it is an anger that the public have every right to hold.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

No.

The last number of months —

[Interruption.]

The last number of months has seen a damaging pattern to our politics: the cloud hanging over the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) deal; the inaction on Brexit; the structure of the social investment fund (SIF); and the continued funding and appeasement of a UDA boss. Amongst the many uncertainties of this last political period, there is one thing we can all say for sure: there is no fresh start here.

The scandal of the non-domestic renewable heating scheme is by far the biggest imprint on that damaging pattern. This is the biggest public finance scandal ever to hit these institutions. As this scandal has unfolded, it has suited some to try to muddy the waters, but we must not be distracted. This scandal must not be reduced to a psychodrama between the Member from Strangford and the now First Minister. It must not be reduced to being about just a falling out between former friends or revised to tell only a story of a split in one political party. It is so much bigger than that.

So far, digging into this scandal has uncovered staggering incompetence. Digging deeper has the potential to uncover corruption. Therefore, let us be precise and forensic about the information that is still left unanswered.

The best place to start is always at the beginning, and whether the First Minister likes it or not, this scandal begins with her. The RHI scheme was deliberately changed from the GB model. The question still remains as to why that happened. When the scheme was drawn up in Northern Ireland, why were some of the GB regulations copied and included and why were some not? In particular, why was section 9 of the GB regulations not included, a section that would have established cost controls for the entire scheme? Did the First Minister advise or take advice on the inclusion of such cost controls?

Move on to personal warnings received by the First Minister. We have now lost count of how many times the account and response of the DUP to the whistle-blower has changed. This morning's revelations add to the impression that the First Minister was aware of a lot more than the jot and tittle of this scheme. Did she deal with other whistle-blowers in precisely the same fashion as she dealt with this lady?

Move forward to 2015. When will we get the names of the 984 applicants to this scheme between September and November 2015? Did the First Minister advocate for the scheme and on what scale? The same question applies to her party colleagues and their staff. When did Mr Stephen Brimstone make his application?

Move on to the role of special advisers. Under what direction and under whose control do DUP special advisers work? Are DUP politicians collectively responsible to DUP special advisers, or is it the other way round? In addition to departmental files, will the DUP publish all its internal correspondence regarding the RHI scheme?

The questions are many and detailed. For two weeks now, confusion has been met with contradiction. My party is clear that it will now require a full, public, judge-led inquiry to get to the full truth. It is only right and reasonable, therefore, that the First Minister, having failed to take the opportunity to step aside, is excluded from office whilst this investigation takes place. Let it be in the hands of the person tasked with leading the public inquiry to determine whether the First Minister is fit to resume office.

I note that the Member for Strangford has been removed from his position by the DUP pending an investigation. Surely the First Minister should follow the same logic and accept the same fate. The continuation in office will further bring deadlock to an already failing Executive.

Today, Members were expecting to scrutinise the draft Budget from the Finance Minister, yet we meet to discuss the career of one individual. During the week, there was confusion about 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 and dignified thing and step aside. We cannot go on like this.

The longer that the First Minister clings on, the more that her credibility will fade. Let me assure the First Minister that Christmas will not save her.

Let me now turn briefly to the First Minister's coalition partner, which, given its position, will play an important role in today's proceedings. I welcome that Sinn Féin has moved on to similar ground as the opposition parties. I acknowledge that it has come a distance over the past two weeks and has struggled to come to a position. I genuinely urge Sinn Féin Members, having travelled this far, to come a little further. Let them now support our motion and exclude the First Minister until a full investigation takes place. In doing so, let them follow the advice of someone whom they might respect, who spoke not so long ago on a similar scandal. He said:

"People have seen through this because citizens are not stupid. They have seen through the patronising responses and insulting remarks. The actions of the Government in this Chamber in failing to be straight with the Opposition or with citizens is damaging faith in the political system."

He goes on to say that a credible Government cannot continue to:

"evade questions and duck and dodge their responsibilities",

which:

"merely expose this Government's arrogance and incompetence."

Those are the words of Mr Gerry Adams supporting a motion of no confidence in the Dáil in 2014. They would be wise to avoid a partition in their principles.

Mr Speaker, 2016 has been a strange and serious year for politics. Even those who tune in to current affairs only occasionally will have noticed a change in its frequency and tone. If 2016 has been a bad year for losing musical greats, it has been an even worse year for politics. Too often in the past year, public service has been opportunistically downgraded and demeaned in the mind of the public. As we face into 2017, let us begin to change that narrative. First Minister, redeem some faith in the notion that public service is beyond the selfish needs of any one individual. Redeem some faith in these institutions and restore some dignity in your office and in our politics. Think beyond yourself and beyond your party. First Minister, step aside now.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is good to see people back in their places.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Of course, they will deal not with the facts of the RHI scheme but with a totally doomed motion. It is doomed because of what votes they need, and I will come to that in a minute.

I am proud to say that I serve this country as First Minister not at the pleasure of my political opponents but because of the mandate from the people of Northern Ireland in an election less than eight months ago. I am delighted to say that, in this country at least, it is still the people and not the politicians who get to decide who should be in office. It is certainly not the responsibility of those politicians who were soundly rejected at the polls such a short time ago to decide who should hold the highest ministerial office, however much they wish to do so.

The RHI debacle deserves to be fully investigated 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 is people seeking to score cheap political points. I know that Christmas is coming, but the attempt to turn the issue into a political pantomime is a diversion and a distraction from the important work that is going on. This motion turns what has been a very serious issue into low farce. It is a kamikaze motion with no prospect of success, and the signatories to it know that. It will not shine any light on the truth, nor does it seek to find solutions. Instead, it will cruelly expose the impotence of those parties that shirk their responsibilities rather than face up to the difficult choices that a Government face. The motion exposes and confirms what has already been clear over the past few weeks: that this is nothing short of an attempt at a constitutional coup d'état. I have to say that it is a coup d'état more worthy of a 'Carry On' film.

I know that, if the election had been held amongst just newspaper pundits and elements in the BBC, this party would not be where it is today. If they had their way, a few of us would be scattered across the Back Benches — probably sitting where Mr Allister and Mr Agnew are today, though perhaps with a few more seats — but it is the people and not the media who decide.

What people want is to get the problem sorted, not more arguing, bickering and stunts of walking out when they could have heard the facts from politicians here at Stormont. They want to know what our priority is to reduce projected costs — not claw back but reduce those costs — not to claim a political scalp. That is what this is all about: trying to claim a political scalp. I am here. I will stay here to fulfil the trust that has been placed in me and to make sure that the whole mess is being cleared up. That is what my priority is in all this. I deeply regret the fact that the scheme was flawed from the outset. I regret the fact that it has placed a projected burden on our public finances, which we now seek to bring under control, but I totally and absolutely reject any notion that I have ever done anything other than act with the highest levels of integrity from the start of the process.

As should be the process, I have made a statement to the Chamber and laid down the facts of the scheme. My opponents were so interested that they walked out. So confident were they in their arguments that they could not be bothered to attend the debate or to ask me a question — just one question — on the record. They are very brave in front of a camera but cowards in the Chamber.

[Interruption.]

That is because they are not interested in a discussion let alone a debate: all that they are interested in is political distraction. You know why they want a distraction. You know why they are desperate for a political distraction. It is because they have no purpose. They have no plan or policies for Northern Ireland, unlike the DUP, which has a plan to create more jobs by bringing in more business investment and to ensure that we get the best deal for Northern Ireland.

[Interruption.]

Unlike the DUP, they have no plan to strengthen our schools and hospitals. We do, and we are not going to be distracted by these games.

My political life is about bringing people together. I am proud to see that I have done it again today by getting the UUP, the SDLP and Sinn Féin to work together. It shows what they can achieve when they put their selfish interest first. Imagine what could be achieved if they put the people of Northern Ireland first. Imagine what this Chamber could achieve if they harnessed that energy and made the people of Northern Ireland their priority instead of themselves. I will always put the people of Northern Ireland first. I am proud to do so.

What I want to do this afternoon, however, is to analyse the motion before us, to consider the statutory provisions on which it is based, to respond to the central allegations, to consider the role of the media in all this and, finally, to make it clear that this party will use the mandate of last May to defeat the motion. The motion is, of course, premature. It is inappropriate and has no evidence to justify it. Above all else, the one aspect of the motion that most cruelly exposes the motivation of those who have sought it is the timing. No one could possibly conclude that all the evidence has been weighed and considered and that action should follow. What we have here is trial by television, not by the appropriate authorities. What we have here are facts being disregarded in a fevered quest to build my political gallows. What we have here is nothing more than shameful political opportunism. The central charges against me in the debate today have not even been considered by the PAC, or any independent investigation for that matter, let alone decided on. This rush to judgement not only exposes the political motivations of my opponents but raises serious questions about the fitness of those who sit on the PAC to be impartial. The debate is a fact-free zone. There is no evidence, no adverse findings and nothing that could even resemble a basis for the motion being tabled, never mind passed.

Until very recently, there were constant calls from across the political spectrum for me to give evidence to the PAC. It almost seemed like every news outlet, bulletin and press release featured that demand. I would not be surprised if Donald Trump even tweeted it. Well, guess what? I am ready and willing to go to the PAC. I have made that very clear. Suddenly, by magic, that is not good enough for Mike, Colum and Naomi; they want me out before I get near the PAC and before I am asked one single question or even open my mouth. So much for due process. So much for justice. So much for the facts. I ask this question in all sincerity of those who tabled the motion: would you tolerate for one second action being taken against a constituent on the basis of utterly unsubstantiated allegations? I sincerely hope that you would not, and I expect that your constituent would feel the same.

There are basic rules in the Assembly that my critics are trying to flout — rules at the heart of power-sharing. MLAs designated as nationalist or other cannot gang up and kick out the elected leader of unionism. Those rules work the other way, too. How many sermons on power-sharing have we heard over the years from the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

You drove a coach and horses through it today.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yet, here they are trying to bring back majority rule. I am sure that Mrs Long will get her chance to speak, as she always does.

Perhaps none of this should come as a surprise. When I look around the Chamber at those who have supported the motion, all I can see are individuals hungry for publicity and profile, jockeying for position as they desperately seek the media spotlight. I see Mr Eastwood and his party searching for political relevance after losing more seats at the election and opting out of government. I see Mr Nesbitt, the man who led the Ulster Unionist Party to its worst result in over 100 years, fighting for revenge against the party that humiliated him and defied his prediction at the polls. No matter what Mr Nesbitt says, let me say one thing: I will not be asking him to step aside as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party.

[Interruption.]

The SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party chose to go into opposition, and that is entirely a matter for them. I do not object to it; I am just grateful that they are not very good at it.

Then, of course, there is Naomi Long of the Alliance Party. In the past, for the most part, the Alliance Party behaved in a more considered and responsible way than this, but, of course, that was under a different leader. No doubt, we will hear at some point today that this decision is related to the flags protest —

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Will the Minister give way?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

No, I will not.

— or to costing her party a place in the Executive last May.

Then, of course, there is Mr Allister. Well, in fairness to Mr Allister, there has never been an exclusion motion that he was not prepared to sign, so we can let him off this time.

I turn now to the detail of the motion. It is an exclusion motion in accordance with section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. This is the most severe power on the statute book for dealing with political parties or Ministers. Section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act was introduced as a way of dealing with those who were linked to ongoing paramilitary and criminal activity after the Belfast Agreement but were otherwise legally entitled to a place in government. Indeed, in 2003, the provision was bolstered by a power to exclude for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, following a report from the IMC. This provision has never been regarded as a substitute for the normal accountability arrangements of Ministers to the electorate or to the Assembly; it was intended as a long stop when the normal processes did not or could not work.

At Westminster, when the House of Commons passes a vote of no confidence in the Government, the convention is that it will precipitate a general election. When the House loses confidence in a Minister, the expectation is that the Minister will resign. Nowhere in the Northern Ireland Act are there powers of exclusion, for the very reason that the Northern Ireland powers were drafted to deal with the particular circumstances of the links between political parties and the paramilitary groups at the time of the Belfast Agreement.

Members on this side of the House will recall that, when the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP had the power to exclude Sinn Féin when IRA activity continued in the first term of the Assembly, they sat on their hands and did nothing. On any proper analysis, section 30 is appropriate only where there is a proven link to paramilitary or criminal activity, or where there is wrongdoing on the part of Ministers and the normal democratic processes do not suffice. It is not for MLAs to arrogate to themselves the role of appeal chamber to decisions of the electorate.

Absent some allegation of corruption, fraud or criminal activity, even the outrageous and outlandish allegations of the Opposition fall far short of what would justify a proper use of section 30. Even the use of section 30 represents a massive overreach by those who have tabled it. The fact that it has been tabled before the PAC or any other body has investigated the matter, never mind reached any conclusions or recommendations, make it an even more inappropriate device for this debate. Section 30 was not drafted for these circumstances, but the real truth for those who tabled the motion is that it is a motion designed to fail.

I turn now to the charges that have been made in this debate and in the motion on the Order Paper. The allegation is that I:

"failed to observe the highest standards of propriety and regularity in relation to the stewardship of public funds surrounding the renewable heat incentive scheme."

One can only assume that this relates to the period when I was Minister responsible for the RHI scheme and not some guilt by association with what happened when I left the Department. We should be absolutely clear that the charge that is being made is not that I made some error of judgement in relation to the policy. The charge that has been made today is that I did not observe the highest standards of propriety and regularity. This is a remarkably serious and grave allegation to make. It is one that implies not merely an error of judgement but some malign intent or involvement. Of course, there is not a scintilla of evidence to justify such a charge. This claim goes far beyond any allegations made by the BBC, or even by Mr Bell for that matter, about my conduct as Minister for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

When it is published in full, the record will show that, at all points, I followed the professional advice of the officials, the experts and the consultants. I approved the recommendations that were made to me.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Minister give way?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

No.

I referred the correspondence of the concerned citizen to my departmental officials. At no point was any recommendation made to me to introduce cost control measures. In fact, far from it; I was being told that we needed to increase, not decrease, the take-up of the scheme. Although the Opposition do not want to hear it — they clearly did not want to hear it or they would have been in the Chamber earlier — the simple fact remains that at no time during my tenure in the Department was I warned that there could be an overspend. As Minister, I, of course, accept responsibility for the work of the Department, but the charge that I did not observe the highest standards of propriety and regularity is completely and totally baseless. If I am to be blamed for anything, it is accepting the professional advice that I was offered.

However, in this regard, I am not alone. I did not introduce this scheme as an unilateral ministerial decision. I brought proposals for this scheme to the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee to be considered and scrutinised. It did not simply nod through the regulations but, as the Chairman, Mr Patsy McGlone, told us, and it bears repeating:

"The Committee scrutiny of the development of the renewable heat incentive has been considerable and reflects the importance and long-term nature of the proposals. Before supporting the RHI, the Committee sought and received assurances on incentive and tariff levels, banding levels, incentives for domestic consumers, payments to participants and support levels for the renewable heat premium payment scheme." — [Official Report (Hansard), Bound Volume 78, p299, col 2].

In fact, as it was recorded at the time, the introduction of the regulations was delayed because the Committee took so long to scrutinise the scheme. Lest anyone thinks that concerns were raised that the tariff was too high, exactly the opposite was the case, as was so eloquently highlighted by Mr McGlone, who said:

"Some concerns have been expressed that the tariffs for the renewable heat incentive are lower than those in Britain because the tariff is generated against a counterfactual position of heating oil." — [Official Report (Hansard), Bound Volume 78, p299, col 1].

If there were errors on my part, they were errors that were specifically endorsed by the Committee after "considerable" scrutiny. Indeed, not only did the Committee consider and approve this scheme, but so too did the entire Assembly. In fact, one of the other signatories of today's motion, Mrs Overend, gave her specific support to the scheme and said:

"Having had the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations in Committee, I am happy to support the Minister in bringing them forward."

So she too accepts that she had scrutinised the regulations that contained the vital flaw in the scheme. She also went on to address the issue of why we opted for a Northern Ireland-specific scheme and not the GB scheme. She said:

"Given that there are differences between renewable heat markets in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it was important that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment undertook its own research and economic appraisal of the situation here. That research, followed by a public consultation, has undoubtedly been invaluable in informing decision-makers on the best way forward for a renewable heat incentive scheme for Northern Ireland." — [Official Report (Hansard), Bound Volume 78, p300, col 1].

In fairness to Mrs Overend and Mr McGlone, they were not alone. Everyone who spoke in the debate supported the regulations. There was not a single voice in opposition. Today, this motion is seeking to exclude me from office for a policy and a scheme that received not just Committee support but the unanimous support of the Assembly. This morning, I dealt with the issue of the concerned citizen. I do not intend to repeat that now, but I followed the appropriate steps in passing it to officials. In short, the motion seeks to castigate me for a scheme that was not just based on following the advice of officials but received the unanimous support of the Committee, after detailed scrutiny, and the endorsement of the Assembly.

As I said, it amounts to nothing more than a 'Carry On' coup d'état.

None of the other allegations made in recent days relate to my period as ETI Minister, nor are they particularly germane today. However, I want to reiterate the fact that I had no role whatever in the decision of the ETI Minister to introduce cost controls to the scheme in 2015. My involvement and that of the deputy First Minister in 2016 was to bring forward the closure of the scheme, not to delay it. The publication by the Department for the Economy of the note for the record of the allegations concerning claims made about the leaking of government records speaks for itself.

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the motion. For almost two weeks, I have listened daily to lies presented as facts, the truth distorted out of all recognition and a public narrative created and relentlessly pursued that bears no relationship to reality. Now, I am not surprised that the Opposition, in their desperation, seek to exploit the situation for cynical political reasons, but I expect better of publicly funded broadcasters who fail to present the facts in a fair and impartial way. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. From the start of this process, I have not sought to hide from my responsibilities, the House or even the media. I have been out and about, fulfilling my engagements and meeting people from all walks of life who have offered me warm words of encouragement and support. I made a full and detailed statement this morning; I gave a lengthy interview to the BBC last week; and here I am, this afternoon, responding to the debate.

This does not elevate our political process. It does nothing to solve the many problems and challenges that we face. It reduces our politics to a soap opera and the conduct of the House to little better than a television drama — and not a very believable one at that. Our people deserve better. Last May, I asked the people of Northern Ireland for a mandate: I got it. I do not intend to run away from my responsibilities. After this speech, I will have further meetings about how we find solutions, while others will talk to a meaningless motion in the House and, no doubt, will get coverage on the news tonight. I hope they enjoy it, because — do you know what? — their credibility will not be helped one iota by what goes on here today. However we got into this position I will make sure that we put it right. It is time for solutions, not for the nonsense we are about to hear from the Opposition. As I said this morning, we will implement a plan; we will get the costs down —

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

What is the plan?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We will have a full, independent investigation — if you had been here this morning, you would have heard it.

[Interruption.]

We will have —

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order, Members. Order.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

All talk, no action. You ran away.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Not for the first time.

We will get the costs down. We will have a full, independent investigation of where all this went wrong. Today, using the mandate we earned last May, we will defeat the motion.

Let me conclude by saying that I remain as committed today as I was on the day that I was elected First Minister to fight the good fight, finish the race and keep the faith.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

When an exclusion motion or vote of no confidence is put before the House, the debate is essentially about leadership. To my mind, the test of leadership is not whether we have a perfect society in which problems do not arise and mistakes are not made; the test of true leadership is in dealing with those problems, in facing up to responsibilities when problems arise and in finding solutions.

Today, the Assembly had two different routes that it could take. There were two pieces of business on the Order Paper. The first came from the First Minister. Her statement detailed the facts of how we got to where we are on the RHI. It outlined support for a fully independent inquiry. Indeed, let me make this clear in case there is any degree of confusion: it is not a DUP or a Sinn Féin inquiry. We support an entirely independent inquiry that will bring its own verdict on events so far and, most importantly, because this is what the electorate is looking for, identify potential actions to reduce the cost as we move ahead and remove the burden from future taxpayers. We saw the first steps —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

No. The Member will have his chance. Indeed, the Member had the chance to question the First Minister earlier but abrogated that responsibility.

The First Minister took the responsible leadership role today by outlining that. People want to see a process in which the costs are reduced so that they are not a burden in the future. By contrast, the position taken by the opposition parties is a politically motivated stunt targeted at an individual. It offers no solutions as to how we move forward. The motion does not even reference an inquiry.

What we have seen over the past couple of weeks from the Opposition is an opportunistic and cynically driven approach to the issue. We have heard numerous members of the Opposition writing off the £400 million as if it has already been spent. They have dealt with the issue with a level of glee that shows that they hoped that it was a much greater figure, because that would cause a greater degree of political difficulty. It is a case of basking entirely in hindsight. As has been highlighted, throughout all the consultations and in all the debates in the Assembly and the Committee structures, not a single voice from the main opposition parties said, "Hold on a moment. This has been got wrong. We need to put a cap on this. We need to bring this to a swifter conclusion". On the contrary, when the RHI scheme was brought to a close earlier this year, the opposition parties trooped in one by one to oppose its closure, complaining about the impact that that would have on jobs and the local economy. They did not want to close it; rather, they wanted it extended.

At the heart of this is the issue of the election. We have been told recently, "Vote Mike, get Colum" or, "Vote Colum, get Mike". Let me make it very clear —

[Interruption.]

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order, Members.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

That shows the kind of mature attitude that is being taken here.

People had the opportunity this year to vote Mike and get Colum or vote Colum and get Mike. That is possibly the most unattractive two-for-one offer that has ever been made in the history of marketing.

[Laughter.]

People said no. I give the leader of the SDLP some praise for what he has done on this issue. He has at least moved on. Some time ago, he was carrying the coffin of a dissident terrorist. He has now moved on to carrying the Ulster Unionist Party on his back, which has trooped in loyally behind him.

We are not going to have trial by television and radio. We are not going to have trial by innuendo and smear, trial by revenge or trial by jealousy. On the matter of prejudging the issues, members of the Public Accounts Committee, who are supposed to give an objective view on this, have already decided that they have given their objective view. They have produced a verdict before it is reached.

I have known Arlene Foster since she was 18. I am probably the person in the Chamber who —

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

— has known her the longest. She is a person of integrity, ability and conviction. She will carry on. She will lead for unionism in Northern Ireland. She is not a Mike-come-lately.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I am happy to give way.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am happy to give the Member an extra minute.

[Laughter.]

Will the Member please continue?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

It is the case that —

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member's time is up.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

OK. I urge Members to reject the motion before us and to deal with the issues.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it not the rule of the House that any intervention after the five-minute period is null and void?

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Your comments have been recorded, Mr Allister.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

It is slightly embarrassing that we have this unedifying shambles taking place. It is not just about the revelations around a scheme that was very badly conceived and handled. Even if a good scheme can be put together to try to reduce that, it has already cost a substantial amount to the public purse. That was compounded by the television programme in which the First Minister and a former senior Minister in her Executive hurled accusations at each other. There were revelations and accusations around special advisers and the role that they played in the scheme.

Last night, then, we got on to the selective release of papers from the Department for the Economy by the Minister, involving civil servants in an internal DUP squabble as to who was right and who was wrong. Those issues are now being refuted by the former Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Then we had this morning's behaviour, when the joint nature of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister was challenged and, in trying to allow business to go ahead, the Office of the Speaker was significantly challenged. All of this has been a very unedifying spectacle, which has added to public disquiet about the handling of the RHI scheme and the revelations and allegations around it. I have to say to the party on the opposite Benches that, as it continues, it may well circle the wagons thinking that that is the best method of defence. However, when you are in a hole, you need to stop digging.

None of this — the circling of the wagons or the robust defence — answers the questions that the public want answered. It does not deal with the broad range of issues that the public want answers on, and neither does this motion. By its proposer's admission, it is about the career of one individual: I think that I have quoted him correctly when I say that. This is about the career of one individual. If only this was about the career of one individual, it would, perhaps, be much easier to deal with. The reality is that this is about much more than the career of one individual. The motion does not deal with the investigation that is required, nor does it analyse the role of civil servants in relation to the matter. It does not deal with the former Minister, Jonathan Bell, and the allegations that he has made, and it does not deal with the role of the First Minister in relation to that and that of the special advisers who, it is alleged, were improperly involved in extending the length of the scheme when there was advice that it should have been closed down. The motion does not deal, as the proposer quite rightly said, with the applicants and the need to understand who benefited from the scheme. That will also cast up some answers about the operation of the scheme.

What we need is a proposition to the Assembly that deals with all those things and is not about a short-term fix or a quick headbutt for somebody followed by a walkout, saying that we have done our job, but a proposition that deals with the issues and with the very necessary and robust proposition to put a scheme in place that undoes the financial catastrophe that the RHI scheme has foisted on our public finances. This motion does not do anything for that. We asked the proposers and seconders of the motion to put it to one side and join the motion that we have submitted for the new year, which is not just about the career of one individual but which deals with the entirety of what needs to be examined and the fact that we need to get to the bottom of it all.

Unfortunately, it seems that a day in the sun, or in the spotlight, is more important than getting to the heart of these issues.

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I am very happy to give way.

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Does the Member accept that the motion, which I ask him to speak to, is the first step in looking at where that £400 million went, where it is agreed to go and what the principles are behind it?

[Interruption.]

The tone of this debate is not fitting given that the public are rightly angry. The debate so far is an absolute disgrace to the House.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member has an extra minute.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

In fairness, in answer to the Member, it is not the first step; it is actually the last step. The public want to see a proper investigation into the entirety of the issue, not the career of one individual. The motion does not deal at all with such an investigation, nor does it deal with financial recovery or the broad range of people whom I mentioned, including the First Minister in her role, the former ETI Minister, the DUP special advisers and the civil servants. It does not deal with any of that.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member very much for giving way. He and his party had every opportunity to put down an amendment to the motion, but you put one down that could not possibly be accepted. Who is playing stunt politics? There was an opportunity to put all those things into the motion but you missed your opportunity.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

It is very interesting that the Member and his Opposition colleagues spent this morning challenging the authority of the Speaker on this matter. However, when he refuses an amendment from my party, it is entirely correct. You cannot have your cake and eat it. The motion does not get to the heart of what we are trying to do. It is simply about an opportunity to grandstand in the Chamber.

What this institution needs and what people are asking for is a proper, fully fledged —

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Will the Member conclude his remarks?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

— resolution. The First Minister should step aside until that is concluded. There is also a need for an urgent scheme to resolve the finance issue.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

It is important that we listen —

[Interruption.]

— listen — to the angry and increasingly frustrated voices of our constituents, many of whom have directly expressed their incomprehension at how the scheme, which was available to just 5,000 recipients, giving them a potential tax-free payout of around £275,000, could have happened, notwithstanding the fact that it costs us over £85,000 a day and every day until this is sorted out. However, I must express a much wider concern: a malaise about our Government, who have a disregard for the people of Northern Ireland and are focused on the retention of power for the sake of power itself. They are a Government who hold the process of good order. responsibility and accountability in contempt. Whether it is the Economy Minister obfuscating about US airline routes, the Agriculture Minister denying that she has had discussions about waste incinerators, only to quote, 60 seconds later, from the same letter in the House, the Communities Minister telling councils to prepare to revive regeneration powers that then remain the same or the abject failure to address the existential challenge to Northern Ireland from Brexit, the arrogance of power with little or no accountability is beyond breathtaking — it approaches institutionalised corruption.

Added to that, we have a prison system in meltdown, with the suicide rate running at nearly one per week. We have an Executive who seem to believe that it is perfectly all right for paramilitaries to lead social enterprises, even when the Chief Constable categorically makes it clear that illegal activities are being perpetrated by members of that organisation — an organisation whose accounts have to be qualified because the files caught fire. It seems that the incineration of combustible material will be a metaphor for what will, hopefully, be the DUP leader's short term in office. Her epitaph will be less about leading Northern Ireland into its second century than helping to keep Ferraris warm — this is just since July.

As to the question of standing aside, we need to refer in greater detail to the period when the DUP leader was the ETI Minister; indeed, until recently, she and her party were at pains to explain that her wealth of experience as Northern Ireland's longest-serving Minister made her ideally suited for this highest office. Yet, she then explained that neither she nor any of the copious SpAds — more, I might add, than in Scotland and Wales combined — were, to use her language, "over the detail" of one of the most potentially expensive energy schemes anywhere.

Ministers do policy, and when that policy goes wrong in a normal government, they do the decent thing or are sacked. The SpAds are sacked, and, under normal rules, the ex-Minister's SpAds and culpable civil servants are banned for several years from employment in the sector covered by their Minister. Not here. Any mapping out of the golden circle here will see the same names connected to Ministers and parties regularly appearing on quangos, often receiving up to £22,000 a year for their trouble. Little wonder that a very senior US official compared Northern Ireland to the former East Germany but with better golf clubs.

We need to go back to 2012 when our then Minister decided — remarkably so, when many in her party deny that climate change is even happening — on a renewables policy for Northern Ireland. There was even a very clear model, one that the United Kingdom would largely pay for and that had safeguards attached and a regulator that would ensure its smooth running. It gave an incentive to industry and supported reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Why, then, did DETI or, more appositely, the leader of the DUP decide not to follow it? Did she have some form of intuitive insight that the rest of the UK renewables sector did not have? Somehow, the GB scheme has managed to remain largely on budget and on delivery. It is also noteworthy that GB is not commissioning renewable energy at twice the capacity of the grid to support it or charging small-scale producers three times the going rate for connection charges.

Again, those are all perverse policy decisions that deserve answers.

Why do we have a failure of energy policy, real concerns over brownouts or worse and some of the highest energy costs in Europe?

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

They were all policy decisions made directly by the leader, yet there is no Minister who was responsible. It was all the officials' fault.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Yes.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Does the Member agree with me that a lot of this is about judgement, and that is where there is a big question mark over the actions of the Minister?

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member has an extra minute.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Quite frankly, it makes little or no sense. Ofgem has made it clear that it was in regular contact with DETI, pointing out its concerns. Like many people, we find it inconceivable that the civil servants did not keep in regular contact with DECC.

While I have little sympathy for Jonathan Bell on many things, he was clearly handed a £1·18 billion hospital pass if ever there was one. Yet, no Minister is responsible. It is all the officials' fault, it was somebody else or it was the previous Minister. The responsibility, accountability —