Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017

Part of Executive Committee Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 4:15 pm on 23 January 2017.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Jonathan Bell Jonathan Bell DUP 4:15, 23 January 2017

The Member makes a very interesting and valuable contribution. Mr Chambers made a similar one in the last couple of minutes. There are serious concerns about these regulations, and we have to address them the best we can. It is my considered view that it is best to support these regulations. They have gone through in this limited time because we are in a very difficult situation whereby if they are not supported we cannot get the figures down.

I do have serious reservations about people who say they can get this down to zero; media have advertised that we can get this down to zero. I do not agree with a lot of what has been said about the media. If it were not for the media and the BBC, I could not have got my points out.

I doubt very much, had it not been for them, that we would be in a position today where we have, we are led to believe, a public inquiry and proposals to stop the haemorrhage. It is a balance. That is the best that Members can be asked to do: make a balanced judgement on what has occurred.

I look at the regulations to see, truthfully, how they can help us get out of the mess that we are in. I spoke to the permanent secretary and made known my concerns about closing the tariff. I said:

"When it was coming to me to close it, had it not been interfered with by the higher Department, I could have closed this on 1 October and halved the bill. Isn't that right?"

The permanent secretary told me, "Well, that's right".

We now have regulations on the table that were not on the table when I tried to close the scheme on 1 October, before I was interfered with. I asked, "Is it right that we could have closed it?". Had we closed it then, I believe, as Mr Lunn said in his contribution, the cost to Northern Ireland would have proved to be minimal. Mr Lunn is entirely correct in his assertion. I say to you again:

"When it was coming to me to close it, had I not been interfered with by the higher Department, I could have closed this on 1 October and halved the bill. Isn't that right?"

Dr McCormick replied to me, "Well, that is right". But history did not turn out that way.