Dramatic public inquiry evidence reveals Arlene Foster tried to delay ‘cash for ash’ cost controls The public inquiry into the financial scandal which toppled devolved government in Northern Ireland has heard a series of bombshell […]

The public inquiry into the financial scandal which toppled devolved government in Northern Ireland has heard a series of bombshell revelations or allegations about civil servants, Northern Ireland’s former first minister and powerful DUP special advisers.

The probe into the supposedly green energy Renewable Heat Initiative (RHI) which incentivised boiler owners to keep their boilers running heard that one company was literally promoting the scheme in its marketing leaflets as “cash for ash”.

Counsel for the inquiry, David Scoffield QC, said that another boiler company had realised within four weeks of the scheme’s launch in 2012 that it was lucrative to install multiple smaller boilers to get a high tariff and run them for long periods of time to make a significant profit.

The i politics newsletter cut through the noise Email address is invalid Email address is invalid Thank you for subscribing! Sorry, there was a problem with your subscription.

It was stressed that both companies were merely aggressively pointing out the nature of a government scheme which people were being urged to join but Mr Scoffield said that a key question for the inquiry would be why it took another three and a half years for civil servants – at the point where they were desperately attempting to close the out of control scheme – to realise the perverse incentive at the heart of their scheme.

Today, on the third day of the public inquiry chaired by retired judge Sir Patrick Coghlin, Mr Scoffield revealed that former first minister Arlene Foster, who as Enterprise Minister set up the scheme without the cost controls in the GB scheme, had attempted to delay the belated introduction of those cost controls three years later on behalf of a constituent.

Foster’s Spad passed sensitive document to RHI relative

The inquiry was also told that Andrew Crawford, who for years was Mrs Foster’s special adviser, had passed sensitive departmental information about the looming cost controls to family members who were either current or prospective RHI claimants.

The inquiry was also told of allegations – which in one case are strongly denied – that some DUP Spads worked to delay the introduction of cost controls in 2015 and in one case erroneously believed that overspending on the scheme could be to Northern Ireland’s “advantage” because he believed the Treasury was picking up the bill – not Stormont.

Companies immediately spotted perverse incentive

The inquiry was told that one firm actually tried to market the scheme to Stormont’s Department of Justice for a new police training college it was proposing to build as a means of making profit.

Less than four weeks after the scheme was launched, the company, Sheridan and Hood, told the department that it could have free heat for 20 years and make a profit of £894,000 over the same period if it installed multiple 99kwh RHI boilers.

Mr Scoffield said that at this stage an installer had “identified that it was possible to make a large profit and the way to do this was through multiple smaller boilers at a site”.

He said that the company was “making absolutely no bones about this in trying to win work for itself” and added that there was “no suggestion that it was doing anything wrong – it was acting as you might expect a commercial company to act”.

Department thought claims too good to be true

However, the department ultimately turned down the proposal, believing, in Mr Scoffield’s words, that it effectively “looked too good to be true” and that officials at that department had believed that if the company’s figures were accurate it was a “cynical” approach to the scheme.

Mr Scoffield asked: “If heating contractors were able to work out within a month of the scheme being launched that the tariff payable was higher than the cost of fuel, and that the more fuel you used the more income you earned, how is it that the department responsible for the scheme did not figure this out for a further three and a half years?

“The situation appears all the more curious because as we have seen Mr Hood’s companies were making absolutely no secret of the fact that this was how they understood the scheme to operate – and the evidence suggests other companies were doing the same.”

Foster made last-minute request for constituent

The inquiry was told that Andrew McCormick, the permanent secretary of Mrs Foster’s old department, had said in evidence to the inquiry that he had been phoned by Timothy Cairns, who was the DUP special adviser to Mrs Foster’s successor as Enterprise Minister, Jonathan Bell, on 13 November 2015 – the Friday before the planned Assembly debate on the introduction of cost controls.

Mr Scoffield told the inquiry that, according to the senior civil servant’s evidence, Mr Cairns “asked if it would be possible for the debate on the reduction in the tariff to be delayed by a week or so. Dr McCormick’s recollection of the conversation is that Mr Cairns referred to a concern that not enough businesses in Fermanagh [Arlene Foster’s home county] had been able to apply.

“He certainly feels, he says, there was a reference to Fermanagh and…that the call was on behalf of Arlene Foster.”

The inquiry was told that Mr Cairns later told Dr McCormick that Mrs Foster “had raised the issue on behalf of a constituent who had six biomass boilers that were not yet ready to meet the conditions for accreditation under the scheme.”

Foster quickly dropped request

The inquiry was told that from Mrs Foster’s evidence she accepts that she enquired about the possibility of delaying cost controls at that point on behalf of the constituent, who was a salesman for Hegan Biomass, which installed boilers – but that once she was told about the huge public spending implications such a move would have, she immediately dropped the request.

Mr Scoffield said: “Mrs Foster told us that following a phone conversation with a constituent, a Mr Steven Harron…she phoned Mr Cairns and enquired about the possibility of ‘moving back by about a week or so the introduction of the tiered tariffs” but that after being briefed about the cost implications she accepted that the amendments tot he regulations should proceed.

Mr Scoffield said that the inquiry had sought further information on the situation from both Mr Cairns and from the DUP leader.

Mr Scoffield is still making his opening statement to the inquiry in which he is referring to some of the key pieces of documentary evidence which the inquiry has gathered, ahead of witnesses being called to give evidence under oath.

Woman who tried to raise the alarm named against her wishes

Today also saw the official naming of the businesswoman who in 2012 had attempted to raise concerns with both Mrs Foster personally and then with her officials but whose warnings were not heeded by the department.

Janette O’Hagan has been referred to as a “whistleblower” although she has said that was not the most accurate description and that she regarded herself as a “concerned citizen”.

On Tuesday, Mr Scoffield revealed that Sir Patrick had rejected Ms O’Hagan’s application for anonymity, a decision which he said was because it did not meet the legal test for anonymity.

Mr Scoffield said that Ms O’Hagan had not sought anonymity at the time when she initially contacted the department.

Ms O’Hagan was inadvertently identified on social media in December after the DUP published one of her emails to Mrs Foster. Although the party blacked out her name and the name of her business, there was sufficient information to lead to her name becoming known, although it was not reported by the media.

The inquiry will continue tomorrow and expected to run for at least another six months. Mrs Foster is not expected to be called as a witness until the very end of the inquiry.