Northern Ireland Affairs Committee
Oral evidence: Renewable Heat Incentive—recent developments, HC 48
Wednesday 15 November 2023
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 15 November 2023.
Members present: Sir Robert Buckland (Chair); Stephen Farry; Sir Robert Goodwill; Carla Lockhart; Jim Shannon; Bob Stewart.
Questions 26-40
Witnesses
II: Mike Brennan, Permanent Secretary, Northern Ireland Department for the Economy; Richard Rodgers, Head of Energy Policy, Northern Ireland DfE; Sarah Brady, Energy Director of Operations, Northern Ireland DfE; Laura McPolin, Director, Managing Services, Northern Ireland DfE.
Examination of witnesses
Witnesses: Mike Brennan, Richard Rodgers, Sarah Brady and Laura McPolin.
Q26 Chair: This is the second session of this morning’s sitting of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee. I am temporarily chairing the Committee.
I am delighted to welcome a panel from the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy. The witnesses are all online, and I am grateful to them. I wonder, permanent secretary Mike Brennan, whether you could introduce yourself and the other members of the panel, please.
Mike Brennan: Thank you, Chair, for the invitation to attend this morning. As you said, I am Mike Brennan, the permanent secretary in the Department. On my left is Laura McPolin, who is the director of the managing services directorate in the Department. To my immediate right is Richard Rodgers, who is the head of the energy group, and beside Richard is Sarah Brady, who is the director of energy operations in the Department.
Q27 Chair: Good morning and welcome. I will start the questioning, if I may. Given what was, in effect, the warning by the Lady Chief Justice of Northern Ireland in the February 2023 Court of Appeal decision that the 2019 changes to payments under the scheme are assumed to be temporary and—I quote her directly—“a final, fair solution” should be found so as to prevent future litigation on the matter, what steps is the Department taking to determine that solution?
Mike Brennan: Thank you, Chair. I am glad for your clarification that this is a forward-looking session, because we listened to the previous witnesses and, as you would expect, we have some disagreements on some of the numbers quoted and the interpretations. As you say, they have been aired in the courts and the Court of Appeal, in February, gave a helpful steer as to where the Department should go, moving quickly and trying to expediate a solution. That is the mode that we are currently in.
Over recent months, we have been working on trying to find a way to move forward. As you know, the complication is that we do not have Ministers or an Executive to air solutions with. Certainly, over the last year or year and a half before the Executive went down, there was a lot of ministerial discussion on moving this forward; there were papers that went to the Executive and papers that our Minister wanted to take to the Executive on finding a forward-looking solution to a non-domestic renewable heat initiative.
At present, we as a Department fully recognise that there need to be tariff adjustments. That is a reflection of the comments made in the Court of Appeal. Unfortunately, we do not have an easy way forward to make those tariff adjustments. I think it is section 113 of the Energy Act 2011 that says, essentially, that, if the Department wants to make tariff adjustments, it needs to do so and to lay them in the Assembly. In the absence of an Assembly, that is not a straightforward process. We are working with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, discussing how best to move that forward. In the absence of an Executive-endorsed way forward, the only option left to us is, with the NIO, to progress something through Westminster.
Q28 Chair: Without rehearsing some of the old issues, I think there are two aspects to this. There is the issue of cost controls, which remains central, and then there is this phrase the “culture of delivery”. With particular regard to those two aspects of concern, what steps have you been able to take to try to future-proof any new scheme against such issues?
Mike Brennan: I will bring in my colleague Richard in a second, but the key driving principle for us is to ensure that whatever tariffs we set are forward-looking tariffs and that they are guaranteed to give the participants in the scheme the 12% rate of return that was their expectation when they entered the scheme.
As you heard from your earlier witnesses, tariffs were always going to need to be adjusted over the 20-year period, because, for example, there would be fluctuations in prices of comparator fuels and inflation would change. The tariff would always have to change. As I say, we are now looking to construct a forward-looking tariff that gets participants back on track to achieve the 12% internal rate of return that they were expecting.
Richard can maybe give some figures. These are figures that we presented in past legal proceedings relating to the rates of return already achieved. As I say, we have parked that behind us, and we are now looking at what we will do going forward in terms of tariffs so that participants can achieve the rate of return they expected to achieve.
Richard Rodgers: When we appointed the external consultants Cornwall Insight to look at the 2019 tariffs, they came back to say that the methodology had been correct in calculating the tariffs, but that they should change again in 2020. You referred to that point that we have now been in a process since 2020 and are looking towards April ’24, so that is four years. Things have changed, most notably in fuel prices, which some in the previous session outlined. Certainly, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we had a significant change in global fuel prices and that reverberated around Northern Ireland.
We recognise that there needs to be a change in tariff and, as Mike indicated, we are working on that. We had a very firm steer from the Lady Chief Justice in the judgment in the Court of Appeal. We are at business case stage now, where effectively we are seeking approval from the Department of Finance for the solution we propose. At that point, as Mike indicated, we will need legislation to enable the change. We are very much focused on trying to deliver this from 1 April ’24, to bring people back on track for the target rate of return of 12%, which is the subject of the state aid approval.
Q29 Chair: Thank you. There are other aspects. I want to ask about the procedural aspect of the steps being taken. Again, I do not want to go into the whys and wherefores, but are procedures now in place to ensure that advisers and special advisers’ interests are properly registered and that all that is in a different place from the situation that concerned the inquiry?
Mike Brennan: Indeed, Chair. The previous Executive fully accepted all 44 recommendations of Sir Patrick Coghlin’s inquiry and the Finance Minister made a detailed statement to the Assembly on accepting the recommendations. Included within those many substantial pieces of work that have already been delivered are revisions of the codes of conduct for both Ministers and special advisers. Those were published in January 2020 by the Executive.
Chair: I am going to bring in Jim Shannon. There are issues about renewable energy that we want to look at and, Jim, I would like to hear from you.
Q30 Jim Shannon: Ladies and gentlemen, it is always a pleasure to see the Department, even if only on a screen. Thank you for coming along. The Chair is right that I have a deep interest in green energy—in how we can do better and why we have to do better. It is not just how we do better; we have to do it. We have to be part of the net zero target that Westminster is pushing. We in Northern Ireland want to be part of that, to deliver those targets.
I have a quick question on the recommendations. Since the RHI public inquiry was completed, only 18 of the 44 recommendations have been delivered. Is the intention of the Department to deliver, or can it deliver, on the other recommendations? That is a quick introductory question, and then I will ask something on net zero.
Mike Brennan: I will bring in Richard in a second on delivering net zero commitments going forward, Mr Shannon, but yes, some of the recommendations are still being progressed, and we do not need Ministers or an Executive to move them forward. For example, there are issues that the NICS, the civil service, has taken forward, working with the likes of the Audit Office, on developing the project delivery expertise within the service and looking at how the process around business cases and the five-case model can be fast-tracked. There are a number of things that we as officials can seek to move forward on and expedite, working closely with the Audit Office—those things will not be hindered, shall we say, by the political framework that we are operating in—but there are others that we will need Ministers and the Executive back to sign off on.
I entirely take your point about renewable energy and looking forward. There is no other option here, and we need to move and expedite things as quickly as possible. As you know, the Executive did formally sign off on an energy strategy, and its central pillar is new programmes going forward to deliver on our decarbonisation agenda. I will bring in Richard to give a few examples.
Q31 Jim Shannon: Mike, let us do this next question first, and then I am happy for your colleague Richard to respond.
I think we all recognise, and perhaps even some sceptics recognise, that there is a need for us to be part of the green energy plan. You cannot ignore it: the things that are happening around the world don’t happen by accident. What is happening is nature’s way of telling us that we are doing it wrong. When I say we, I mean human people around the world, in all places. So we have to act. We have the closure of coal-fired power stations, but we haven’t seen forms of renewable energy being promoted with the same zest and zeal, whether that be wind turbines on land, floating energy, hydrogen or biomass. They all play a part in renewable energy, although maybe in a small way.
The Ulster Farmers Union and the earlier deputation said—I know this because I am a member of the Ulster Farmers Union; I declare that interest—that there is a commitment from the Ulster Farmers Union and the farming bodies to make a commitment to net zero. Unfortunately, some of the things that they want to do they are unable to participate in and be involved with. When Richard, Mike or Laura answer this, I am really keen to see how we can encourage that green energy process, which the Ulster Farmers Union representative referred to.
Way back when the RHI scheme was assessed by a Northern Ireland Government Minister, they said they were committed to reducing emissions by 6% to 7%. That is often forgotten about. The farmers union can play their part, but as their representative Christopher Osborne said—hopefully you will have heard his comments—he has a frustration, which I share, that we want to do it better.
I have one last point, very quickly, on the contract for difference scheme, which I have tried to promote here through debate and through questions to the Minister, and on which the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee will do an inquiry and report in the very near future. We need and want to be part of the contract for difference scheme. I understand that 98% of the people who were questioned have replied to say that they want to be part of it. There is a methodology for that to happen.
Those are my questions. I am sorry that was a wee bit hurried, but I really wanted to try to get everything in so that Richard and yourself could reply. Thanks so much.
Mike Brennan: You covered a lot of issues there. I will try to be quick. We completely share the commitment to net zero; in fact, the Climate Change Act imposes a legal obligation on Departments to deliver on that. As you know, it focuses civil servants’ minds when they have a legal obligation to do something. From that perspective, you can rest assured that all best endeavours will be done, not just by this Department but by all NI Departments, to deliver on the decarbonisation agenda.
I know you have corresponded with us on the CfD issue and I know your interest, and I will bring in Richard in a second. To give you some reassurance, and a degree of confidence—this ties in to the Chair’s earlier comments in relation to business confidence—I have been very, very reassured about engagements over recent months, particularly with the likes of the Northern Ireland investment summit and the work of the special economic envoy to Northern Ireland on prospects for green energy investment here on a range of commercial developments. There are some incredibly exciting opportunities. Richard can maybe divulge some without giving names, to give you some insight into the opportunities that Northern Ireland has to be at the cutting edge of delivering on the net zero agenda. Richard, maybe you want to give Committee members some insight into that work.
Richard Rodgers: As Mike said, Jim, you covered an awful lot of ground in your question there. Certainly, when the Executive approved the energy strategy in December 2021, the first thing we did as a Department was to establish action plans for the calendar year 2022 and then 2023, to try to say to people when it was published, “This is what we are actually doing.” We are indeed covering an awful lot of ground.
On the particular areas of renewable electricity you mentioned, you will of course be aware that earlier in the year we carried out a consultation on an electricity support scheme and, as you indicated, contracts for difference is the preferred route. It is the preferred route because, first, it provides the investable opportunity for the investor and, as was mentioned in the earlier session, there has not been as much investment since the support scheme ended some years back. It is important that we are able to implement the contracts for difference scheme as quickly as possible.
Secondly, it provides protection for consumers, because it establishes the price we will pay for the electricity that is produced from wind and solar. That has worked well for offshore wind across in GB. We need to get that in place so that consumers here are not subject to the spikes that we have seen through things like global energy commodity prices—we are trying disconnect ourselves from those so that we pay a fair price for the wind and solar energy that we produce locally.
The intention is to publish the high-level design of the contracts for difference support scheme at the beginning of 2024. Alongside that—this was mentioned in your question and in the earlier session—we will consult on heat decarbonisation and the way forward. That should come out just before Christmas, but it will certainly be out at the beginning of 2024. Further to that, we will consult on energy efficiency, because it is about energy efficiency first. It is about using less energy to produce the power, heat and transport needs we have.
That work is all progressing at speed, but we will run up against a block when we come to need the enabling legislation. We are working with colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero in London on things such as heat network legislation, which has been passing this year in the energy security Bill there, to ensure that we can get that done here in the absence of the Assembly. That is an example of how we have thought outside the box, if you like.
One other thing, to bring to an end my initial comments on this, is that in Q1 of 2024 we will be establishing a new business support scheme for energy decarbonisation. It will be an Invest to Save scheme, it will be delivered by Invest NI, and it will be a capital support scheme, so there will not be the revenue challenges that have been well discussed already this morning. The capital support scheme will provide grant support for businesses to invest in energy solutions that, first, reduce their energy cost and make it more stable and, secondly, reduce their carbon emissions. That will be launched in Q1 of 2024. We hope to increase the capital available, and that will be dependent on the budget position, which my colleague the permanent secretary knows is very stretched in Northern Ireland as we speak.
Jim Shannon: Those comments are very welcome. This will come out when we do our inquiry, obviously, but I said this in the debate on this very subject in Westminster Hall back before the recess. I am aware of two companies that are anxious to invest in renewable energy in my constituency of Strangford. Obviously, you will be well aware of the potential for tidal power in Strangford and Portaferry and the narrows. As an example, SeaGen did a pilot scheme—which I am sure you will be aware of but perhaps not directly involved in—and its results were good. Now that time has moved on, the energy created is cost-effective, so there is potential for that to happen. I am sure the Department will feed into our inquiry and the investigation we will be doing sometime in the new year. Your input there will be much welcomed. Thank you so much.
Chair: Thank you, Jim.
Q32 Stephen Farry: Good morning to our witnesses from the Department. In terms of some of the evidence from the first panel, I am concerned about AME money that has not been fully recouped and is potentially available to Northern Ireland. Is that currently the situation? If it is, are you trying to design policy to get around that at some point? Can you set out the situation in terms of the financing?
Mike Brennan: As you know, Stephen, the concept of AME and this idea that it is free money was aired quite a lot during the RHI inquiry. I am sure that my colleagues in the Treasury would be aghast at the concept of free money. There is no difference between a pound of annually managed expenditure and a pound of departmental expenditure: it is exactly the same from the taxpayers’ perspective. This idea that there is £33 million, £35 million or £37 million per annum of AME sitting there and people can, to use an expression that was used previously, fill their boots and try to construct a scheme that spends as much of it as possible—that methodology, that belief, that rationale cannot be allowed to continue.
Colleagues mentioned that we currently have a business case with the Department of Finance for tariff revisions. The key driving principle in constructing those tariffs is adhering fully to managing public money concepts such as affordability and delivering value for money. The underlying rationale for that is deciding what tariffs are needed to get to 12%. If it gives a number of £20 million, and there is a notional AME budget of £35 million, that does not mean that £15 million is free to be used elsewhere in Northern Ireland. It is a notional target set by the Treasury. Northern Ireland Ministers in the Executive do not have any discretion over that money to utilise it for any other purpose.
Q33 Stephen Farry: Just to confirm, then: is a 12% return, or in that region, what the Department aspires to and what it calculates to be a way forward for a viable scheme?
Mike Brennan: I will bring colleagues in on this, if they want. The underlying principle is that, from April 2024, tariffs have to be set at a level that allows participants to get back on track to earning the 12% internal rate of return that they had expected when they joined the scheme. That is where we are going. Essentially, you take that tariff and multiply it by the number of participants, which gives you an aggregate quantum of money, whether it is £20 million or £50 million of AME going forward.
Q34 Stephen Farry: I am conscious that everything I ask and everything you answer is caveated in the context that there is no Assembly Executive in place to take decisions around this. How concerned are you, given the evidence from the previous witnesses, about the impact of people exiting the scheme as it currently sits and reverting to using various fossil fuels as alternative heating measures, and about their impact, accordingly, on climate change targets?
Mike Brennan: As I said earlier, I have some concerns about what was said in the first session this morning. I will bring colleagues in, but to give you a specific example, one of the witnesses said that 800 participants had left the scheme. That is not our figure.
Richard Rodgers: The official number is that 230 participants out of just over 2,000 have left the scheme, of whom 100 have left since the new tariff was put in place in 2019. It is fair to say that there has been reduction in usage, because effectively the tariff incentivises people only to use the heat that they need. That was part of the cost controls that were put in.
A comment was made during the first session about the growth in the use of LPG; indeed, part of the outcome of the introduction of RHI back in 2014-15 was the growth of the poultry sector in agriculture. That was not what the scheme was designed to do: it was designed to switch people from using fossil fuels to renewable heat. It is no surprise to hear that there has been an increase in LPG, because there has been an increase in chicken production. It would have been great to see a lot more of that coming from biomass or renewable fuel but, unfortunately, we stopped at around 2,300 participants—you can look at the inquiry report to understand why. There were intended to be far more but, unfortunately, the scheme closed in 2016, and the legacy is there. Enough said, really.
Q35 Chair: It pays to ask a stupid question sometimes, so I will ask one. In GB, we have renewable energy schemes that are working and delivering towards our net zero targets. Why not just use that model in Northern Ireland? Am I being daft?
Mike Brennan: I don’t think that is a stupid question at all; we have often thought, in this Department, that it has a lot of merit, not just for equity or fairness reasons but for simple administrative reasons. The Department has an energy group of just over 100 staff who are trying, in some ways, to replicate national policy, whereas the Department in Whitehall has thousands and thousands. We seem to make life overly complex, and trying to differentiate between a reserved matter and a devolved one causes difficulties at times. My own view is that it is an eminently sensible question to ask.
Q36 Chair: Thank you very much. I wish you well in resolving it. Sometimes simplicity is the best course of action.
The theme of the first panel—this was put very well by Mr Pollen in particular—was not just the loss of trust but the sense of a loss of certainty, which then affects the business investment climate, not just in respect of this scheme but in other potential Government schemes, or existing Government schemes. What steps are you taking to acknowledge that loss of trust and to try to create that sense of certainty? I know it is difficult without an Executive—you will tell me that, of course—but how do we do that as a functioning Government, which we still have to be? How do you do that in the light of those concerning comments from the first panel?
Mike Brennan: I am not sure that I share or recognise Mr Pollen’s observations. From my perspective, if you stand back and look at the Northern Ireland economy, if you put aside what I would call the political shenanigans and the budget crisis, the private sector and the local economy here is actually getting on rather well. Yesterday’s labour market stats show that our unemployment rate is almost half the national level. The employment rate is growing. The issues in the local economy are around a lack of available skills and trying to make inroads into productivity. The local economy on one level is doing quite well: the private sector is quite robust.
On the evidence in terms of investment intentions, as I said earlier, my take on the international investment summit and the work of the US special envoy and the delegation he brought across is that they were incredibly impressed at the potential of Northern Ireland as an investment opportunity. A lot of the subsequent work that Invest NI have been doing with the delegations and the client companies has been very encouraging, particularly in the green energy space. Richard was out and about with many of those companies; I will bring him in in a second and he can give you some insights, particularly about the US companies and their perceptions about some people actually saying what they can do. As for the evidence in Northern Ireland in terms of an investment opportunity, there is evidence that we are starting to deliver. Richard, do you want to come in on that?
Richard Rodgers: Yes. I will start my comments by quickly saying that there are 80,000 businesses across Northern Ireland looking for clarity. Hopefully when we launch the Invest to Save energy support scheme in the new year, that will help to provide the clarity that some of them seek, which Roger described.
The engagements with stakeholders from outside of Northern Ireland, from across GB, the US and Europe, is really encouraging, because they have come to see the small entrepreneurial and innovative businesses in Northern Ireland that are leading the way on net zero technologies. Companies such as Camlin are a first-tier supply chain to the local electricity asset provider, but 95% of their income comes from GB and across Europe and the rest of the world. They provide smart solutions for monitoring electricity networks that provide real-time information. It is bringing the electricity networks into the 21st century. That has been led by a development company in Lisburn. It is second generation now, it is a small company and is a great example of a vibrant small and medium-sized enterprise.
Companies like Catagen, for example, are at the leading edge of the green hydrogen economy. They are looking at a different way to produce hydrogen—not electrolyser technology but thermochemical, thermocatalytic technology. Their DNA is in the testing of catalytic converters in the automobile industry, so you have an example of the DNA that is in this region. In fact, if you go all the way back to the end of the 19th century, whenever Belfast was the powerhouse of the island, effectively the technologies and the skills that we need for the net zero revolution are the very skills that made us great back in those days: advanced engineering, shipbuilding and textiles. That is in the DNA of our people. As Mike said, it is our challenge now to ensure that skills are developed in our people here to be able to support the innovative entrepreneurs and a really world-leading research base.
One of the things that the special economic envoy from the States has brought is a connection to the national energy labs in the United States—labs like Argonne and Pacific Northwest. They are entering into collaboration with our local institutions at Queen’s University and Ulster University, and at the further education colleges that then work with our SMEs. I think the picture is much brighter and much more positive than we heard at the start this morning.
Mike Brennan: In summary, I see no evidence that, in terms of investment opportunities or intentions in the green space, a reticence is a consequence of RHI.
Chair: Thank you very much indeed. I think Carla Lockhart wanted to come in.
Q37 Carla Lockhart: Thank you for your evidence. I asked this question of the previous panel, so I am going to ask it of you as well, just so we are clear that their understanding and your understanding are the same. It is in relation to the difference between what an average user is getting in Northern Ireland under the current tariff, vis-à-vis what a user would get in GB.
Sarah Brady: It is difficult to answer that question entirely, because the users in Northern Ireland and GB are so different in terms of size, composition, make-up and alternative fuels. I guess our main point would be that it would be a false comparison to make. Our focus has been on bringing forward the new tariff, getting that business case away to the Department of Finance and talking to people like the Northern Ireland Office to see what can be done to bring forward a new tariff to increase payments here in Northern Ireland.
Richard Rodgers: The comparison to the example of payments being made in Stranraer of £50,000 a year must be seen in the context of what the Northern Ireland scheme looked like. The participants were required to tell us how much they invested in their boiler plant at the beginning, and we have since audited that and inspected that. The typical cost of the boiler itself is £35,000. The regulations of the scheme were designed to deliver a rate of return of 12% over 20 years. That includes amortising that £35,000 over 20 years, with the IRR of 12%. There is no possibility that that annual payment of £50,000 would be at all appropriate. It certainly would not be value for money for someone who had invested £35,000 in a boiler. In fact, analysis we did to support the 2019 tariff showed that, by 2019, 83% of installations had already recovered the capital cost of their installation. That does not, however, say that the tariff at 1.7p should not be increased. We have made that clear, and we are doing all we can to see that increase to a higher rate brought in on 1 April 2024. That would be more commensurate with the increase in the difference in fuel costs between biomass and kerosene over the past four years.
Q38 Carla Lockhart: So do you agree that there needs to be an increase? Do you agree that it needs to be somewhere in the region of the GB scheme and that it basically needs to replicate the rates that are available in GB?
Sarah Brady: We agree that there should be an increase, and that is what we are working towards, but we do not agree that it will be a replica of the GB scheme. We have looked at the circumstances of the people in Northern Ireland, and the costs and the alternative fuels in Northern Ireland. It would be a Northern Ireland-specific solution.
Mike Brennan: For example, there are also differences in capital costs between, say, Larne and Stranraer. Therefore, the rate of return required in Scotland would be different, because you would have to have a higher figure to get the return back over the 20 years of that capital investment. There will have to be differences in the tariffs between Larne and Stranraer to reflect those differences in things like capital costs.
Q39 Carla Lockhart: It would concern me greatly if we are trying to do a further bespoke Northern Ireland scheme and trying to get Executive agreement on that. We know what has gone before in all this. I do believe—I said this at the last panel, and I am happy to stand over it—that we need to replicate GB, and that is what our folks in Northern Ireland deserve. I would be keen to see that progressed.
In relation to your next steps, you said at the beginning that there were papers that Ministers wanted to take to the Executive. Can you expand on that statement? Were they taken to the Executive? Were they blocked? Given that there is a party that has said that the scheme should be closed in its entirety, how do you envisage getting agreement for this? Would you not agree that, actually, it would be much easier, simpler and cleaner for the UK Government to have Northern Ireland brought under the umbrella of GB in all this?
Mike Brennan: It will obviously be for Ministers to determine a way forward. All we are trying to do at this stage is to put forward what we believe to be the tariff level that needs to be in place to allow existing participants to earn their 12%. As I said, while the Executive was there, first of all, it did agree to take forward a consultation process. The consequence of that consultation was a series of engagements with Ministers on how to move forward. As you say, there were differences of views. I cannot go into too much detail of what the Executive’s specific discussions were, but there were detailed briefings with Ministers on issues around costs and deliverability around each of the options. I think it is fair to say that there was not a centrally agreed position. Then, obviously, when the First Minister left in early 2022, it meant that there was no agreed position on how to move forward. That is why we are in the quandary we are in now.
Richard Rodgers: To be clear, the option of closure remains on the table, but it is not one for the permanent secretary. It is one for the returning Executive. However, it is important that in the intervening time we pay the appropriate tariff that gets us back on to the 12% internal rate of return track.
Q40 Carla Lockhart: I absolutely support that because there are people who are severely disadvantaged. That it is having an impact on Northern Ireland advancing its renewables side of things, but also on our agrifood sector, if you look at the health and wellbeing of even the poultry sector when the scheme was being used by many farms and growers across Northern Ireland.
I go back to the matter of there not being an agreement. Would your assessment be that if Stormont were back up and running in the morning, you would get that agreement? I am not certain you would. Therefore, have there been any discussions with the UK Government or the NIO/Secretary of State around taking forward something that can sort this out once and for all?
Mike Brennan: If we were to find ourselves with an Executive in the morning, from our perspective, the first thing we would have to do in relation to RHI is put a paper to them that set out the options available. First of all, we would set out the current state of play, and then we would set out the options to them and costings attached to the options. Obviously, the options would range anywhere from closure through to a range of tariffs. That is the stuff that we have in hand because it has helped us shape the tariff proposals that we currently have with the Department of Finance in a business case.
So, yes, we have been having discussions with the NIO about how to move this forward, because there is an equity issue, there is a fairness issue. We have to reflect the findings from the Court of Appeal back in February about moving forward. In the absence of an Executive and Assembly, the only option open to us is to discuss with the NIO about progressing a solution—an interim solution through a tariff change—through Westminster.
Chair: Thank you, Carla. I thank the panel for taking part in today’s hearing. We are very grateful to you. We will digest the evidence that you have produced for us today. This is very much a forward-looking approach. We want a full and final outcome for everybody concerned and we want to see the economy of Northern Ireland develop in a net zero way that will be good for businesses and all residents. In that spirit, we will say farewell, and thank you very much indeed for your evidence.