Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Colleagues, on behalf of the Committee, I welcome Dr Caoimhe Archibald, Minister for the Economy, and Richard Rodgers, head of energy group at the Department. Minister, welcome back from the United States, and thank you for your work on behalf of Northern Ireland out there. Do you wish to make an opening statement, Minister?

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Yes, please, Chair. I have a statement to make. Chair, over the past week, you and your party colleagues have made numerous false statements in relation to the reduction in energy bills, as announced by the British Chancellor in November's Budget statement, as well as some other matters. This is at a time when many people are extremely worried about the soaring cost of oil and gas due to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. Either you do not understand the situation or you are deliberately seeking to mislead the public. I am here this morning out of respect to the Committee and to correct some of your inaccuracies.

The measures to cut energy bills were first announced on 26 November as part of the British Chancellor's autumn Budget. Ms Reeves stated:

Originally, the reduction in electricity bills was to apply only to Britain. That was not acceptable to me, so, from 27 November onwards, my officials engaged with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) and the Treasury, demanding that local people also benefited. The initial position of the British Government was firmly that the policy would not apply to the North. Over the course of December, my officials, supported by Department of Finance officials, robustly challenged that position and made the case for a comparable reduction in bills here. As a result of our efforts, on 19 December, DESNZ agreed that a 75% reduction of the NI renewables obligation (NIRO) costs here was a comparable policy. On 8 January, the Treasury confirmed that electricity consumers here could also have 75% of NIRO policy costs removed for three years. The policy costs are different in the two jurisdictions, so that equates to a reduction in electricity bills of around £30 a year. I updated the Committee on that work on 21 January, when Mr Honeyford asked me whether there would be a Barnett consequential from the £150 reduction in electricity bills in Britain. I explained that the 75% reduction in NIRO costs would be applied here and that it would be annually managed expenditure (AME) rather than a Barnett consequential.

Having secured the reduction in energy bills, which, I repeat, was achieved only through the proactive efforts of my officials, supported by Department of Finance officials, we then had to agree a delivery mechanism with the British Government. There are, as you know, fundamental differences between the energy markets here and in Britain. In Britain, the reduction can be applied through the maximum price cap mechanism. We do not have that system here. Indeed, the Utility Regulator regulates Power NI as the leading electricity supply company as well as gas tariffs. As a result of that robust regulation, as of 1 April, the combined average electricity and gas cost here will be lower than that in Britain, even with the £150 discount applied there. My officials have worked with DESNZ to determine the fastest route to deliver the reduction in electricity costs locally, and that is to extend the Westminster Energy Prices Act 2022. On 2 March, I wrote to Minister Martin McCluskey requesting that he lay a statutory instrument in Westminster. Minister McCluskey has confirmed that he will lay the necessary legislation — this week, I understand — putting us on course for the legislation to be complete before the summer recess. My Department is working with the Utility Regulator and relevant energy companies to deliver the NIRO policy cost removal for domestic electricity consumers as soon as the British Government have completed the passage of their legislation. I personally discussed the delivery of that support with the chair of the Utility Regulator on 19 February.

In summary, following the Chancellor's statement of 26 November 2025, the North was completely excluded from the reduction in electricity bills. However, my Department and the Department of Finance ensured that people here would benefit from the same policy. My Department identified the fastest route possible to deliver the reduction, and the British Government have agreed to legislate to allow that to happen.

Chair, while my Department has been focused on delivery, you and your party seem to have been focused on peddling mistruths and misinformation. During a radio interview last Thursday, you said that you had not heard from the Minister about what discussions she had had and that all that you had heard was that this was announced in December. You were wrong on a number of points. It was announced in November, not December. I briefed you on the issue at Committee on 21 January 2026. I provided you with written updates in response to questions for written answer on 9 December 2025 and 23 January 2026, and responses to questions for written answer were also provided to other Members. On the same radio interview last Thursday, you were asked, "So, we were formally told, were we, that we were getting £81 million and that the Department was receiving it? Are you telling me that the Department didn't clock that £81 million?". You replied that that was 100% correct. Chair, you were 100% wrong. In fact, we have access to the estimated £81 million only because my officials immediately clocked that the North was excluded from the discount, and we lobbied successfully for it to be extended to people here. Your party leader, Mr Robinson, was also spinning fake news or misunderstood the situation when he said that "£81 million is sitting there" waiting to be given to consumers.

Mr Brett, you have also argued that, rather than providing an average £30 reduction to all households, which is the policy approach set out by the British Government, the funding should be targeted differently, As late as Friday, you issued a public statement calling on the support to be used for households that depend on oil for heating. Chair, those statements show that either you do not understand how our public finances work or that you are deliberately trying to mislead people. The reduction in electricity costs is to be provided by a specific type of public funding called annually managed expenditure (AME). AME is tightly controlled by the British Government and is used to deliver schemes here that align with those in Britain. The £81 million is notional. It is not funding that we control. It is an estimate of how much will be required to apply the comparable scheme that my officials and I have secured for people here over the next three years. Mr Robinson seems to believe that it can be drawn down all at once. Chair, let me be very clear on that point: Mr Robinson is wrong; it can be utilised only over three years. Chair, you seem to think that this is discretionary funding that can be utilised as we wish. Again, that is wrong. Any deviation from the scheme in Britain would need to be agreed with the British Government. It is irresponsible to build up people's hopes by stating that this funding could be targeted differently, which would mean a reduction in support to all households under the current scheme. I am sure that you know, Chair, that there is a big difference between the British Government's reportedly being willing to talk about local flexibility and actually guaranteeing it.

As I am sure the Chair knows, the category of funding that is controlled by the Executive is called the departmental expenditure limit (DEL). It is worrying that the DUP seems to be confused about how AME works, but it is not the first time that it has been unable to grasp the distinction between DEL and AME: when the British Government decided to fund the renewable heat incentive (RHI) through AME, the DUP thought that, because it was demand-led, it was a case of, "Fill your boots". Today, it seems that the DUP's leader and the Chair of the Economy Committee remain unclear on how it works. Sadly, it appears that the ignorance is not confined to this issue: in a radio discussion on the issue on Friday afternoon, the Committee Chair criticised the absence of the renewable electricity price guarantee (REPG) scheme, which, in his words, is "nowhere to be seen". Members, I am happy to tell you where it is: I submitted a paper on the renewable electricity price guarantee scheme to Executive colleagues on 2 February. The paper has been blocked from getting on to the Executive agenda by the Committee Chair's party colleagues, so, perhaps, Chair, you could ask your party colleagues to get a move on with it.

I also take this opportunity to address the Chair's confusion about the warm homes discount. You said in a radio interview that you did not understand how the scheme would increase bills here and that you did not know whether we would receive Barnett consequentials from spending on the scheme in England. The warm homes discount is a Britain-only scheme that has operated there since 2011. It is funded through levies on British electricity and natural gas consumers. The Chair has suggested that it is being withheld from people here. Once again, that is wrong. It has never applied here and was not introduced by successive DUP Economy Ministers. Indeed, in 2021, the then Economy Minister, Gordon Lyons, stated:

Chair, the reality is that my Department has worked diligently to secure the average £30 reduction to electricity bills. The scheme would not even have applied here were it not for the efforts of officials in my Department and the Department of Finance. It will be delivered to households as quickly as possible. That will be possible only when the British Government lay the necessary legislation.

In parallel, I continue to make the case to the British Government for additional support for those who have been impacted by rising costs due to the war in Iran; a war that the DUP initially supported but about which they are a bit more circumspect now that the economic consequences are becoming clearer. It seems that the DUP is seeking desperately to distract from its original cheerleading stance. I have spoken to the relevant British Ministers on a number of occasions over the past couple of weeks on the issue of support for those impacted. That included a meeting with Minister McCluskey on Saturday evening, at which I again highlighted the need to engage with my officials and I to ensure that any support mechanisms can be applied here as quickly as possible. I expect to hear more on that over the course of today and tomorrow.

I hope that I have provided clarity. It seems reasonable to expect that there will no longer be the misleading information that has been communicated by some. I will remain focused on securing as much support as possible for people who are worried about their energy bills. Thank you. I am happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Thank you very much indeed for that, Minister. You said that I do not understand what I am talking about. Were you surprised that, on Tuesday, the most senior official in your Department did not know that the £81 million existed? That is the reason why you have been brought before the Committee.

Dr Archibald: As I set out, the £81 million is notional. It is not an amount of money that is sitting there waiting to be allocated. As —.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Did your party colleague the Minister of Finance mislead me when he said —?

Dr Archibald: No, he did not. The pertinent words in that —.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Sorry, Minister, let me finish. I did not interrupt you when you went into a personal rant against me. Let me finish my question to you. Is that OK? Thank you.

The Minister of Finance said:

That should be "for" rather than "from" — clearly a grammatical error. Did the Minister of Finance mislead me?

Dr Archibald: No, he did not. The —

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): So, he stated that £81 million —.

Dr Archibald: — pertinent words are "set aside". It is a notional amount of money —

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): So, it has been set aside.

Dr Archibald: — based on the scheme designed by my officials. That is what the cost of the comparable scheme in Britain will be. The cost will depend on the scheme.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): So, £81 million has been set aside.

Dr Archibald: It is the notional cost of what will be required to deliver —.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): So, £81 million has been set aside. There we go.

Dr Archibald: It is the notional cost of what will be required to deliver the scheme.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): You said that the scheme has been designed by your officials.

Dr Archibald: It is not a cost that has been set aside.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Sorry, Minister, you just said that the scheme had been designed by your officials. According to your ministerial colleague the Minister of Finance, officials from the Department for the Economy still have not completed a business case. Is that true?

Dr Archibald: The business case is a work in progress. Richard, do you want to speak to that?

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Before you bring Richard in, Minister, we are here to talk to you, not to your officials. The business case from your officials has not been completed. Is that correct?

Dr Archibald: For there to be a business case, the legislation needs to be completed. Once the legislation is completed, the business case will be completed and submitted to the Department of Finance and the Treasury.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): You are saying that the Treasury has said that you cannot submit a business case.

Dr Archibald: Richard, go ahead.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Sorry, Richard, I do not mean to be rude, but we are here to question the Minister.

You are saying that a business case cannot be completed until legislation passes in the summer recess.

Dr Archibald: The legislation and the delivery mechanism, which is being worked through —.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Which you have not done.

Dr Archibald: It is not the case that it has not been done. It is being worked through with the Utility Regulator and the relevant energy companies here.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): It is either done or it is not, Minister.

Dr Archibald: This is a complex area of policy. Finding a mechanism to deliver payments to people is complex.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): It is not that —.

Dr Archibald: Any member of the Committee who is familiar with the situation that we had when trying to apply energy price support following the Ukraine crisis will be familiar with the difficulties in trying to make that happen.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): We have confirmation that the business case, or the delivery mechanism, has not been completed by your Department — that is a welcome confirmation, Minister — and that £81 million has been set aside. Those are both facts.

Dr Archibald: They are not facts.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): You went on to say that you updated the Committee in January on the progress that you had made. Do you have a copy of what you said to us then?

Dr Archibald: I said —. I do not have a copy of it in front of me.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): OK. I can read it into —.

Dr Archibald: Hold on, maybe I do.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): I thought that you just said that you do not have a copy.

Dr Archibald: That —.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): I can read it to you. I am just conscious of time.

Dr Archibald: Go ahead.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): At the end of your remarks, you said:

Your permanent secretary went on to say:

In fact, Minister, your permanent secretary was incorrect when he said that this was going to be a Barnett consequential. As you just lectured me in your opening statement, it is clear that your Department did not understand. May I ask, then, in relation to —?

Dr Archibald: Let me just clarify that: I was very clear that it was AME that was being used.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): You were clear, but your permanent secretary was not, so that is where the confusion —.

Dr Archibald: I assume that I had been briefed by Richard and his team on that prior to coming to the Committee.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Well, according to your permanent secretary, at the exact same evidence session —.

Mr Kearney: On a point of order, Chair. It is the Minister giving evidence this morning, not the permanent secretary of the Department, so why do you not focus your questions on the Minister and get clarity from the Minister as opposed to creating rabbit holes, as you have done over the past fortnight with the attacks that you have mounted on the Minister?

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Would you tell me, Mr Kearney, under which Standing Order you are raising that point of order, or are you just trying to defend your colleague, who cannot answer questions?

Mr Kearney: No, I am putting a challenge to you, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): OK.

Mr Kearney: The art of the Chair is to facilitate a meeting, not to dictate a meeting.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Your colleague agreed to have this meeting. Your Minister and you agreed to —

Mr Kearney: Yes, so focus on the Minister as opposed to someone who is not here.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): I notice that you did not —

Mr Kearney: You had your shout last week with the permanent secretary.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): I notice that you did not ask the Minister to make those comments to me and not to people outside this Committee. If we can just get back to the meeting, because people want to understand what is happening here.

Minister, we now have confirmation from the Minister of Finance and from you that £81 million has been set aside. You claim that you got that. When did you first get correspondence from the Treasury to say that that would apply here in Northern Ireland?

Dr Archibald: On 8 January.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): On 8 January, so no letter was sent from the Treasury to the Department of Finance on 4 December confirming that there would be a scheme for Northern Ireland.

Dr Archibald: The conversations, as I indicated, had been ongoing since 27 November.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): That is not the question.

Dr Archibald: Excuse me, are you going to let me respond? We had confirmation from DESNZ on 19 December about the scheme that would apply, and that was based on the conversations that there had been across Departments to secure it. Confirmation came on 8 January that the 75% in the NIRO cost reduction would apply here.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Did you see the letter from the Treasury on 4 December?

Dr Archibald: I do not usually see letters to the Minister of Finance that come from the Treasury.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Have you seen it yourself?

Mr Delargy: On a point of order. Again, Chair, you are going way off on a tangent. You are supposed to be having a conversation with the Minister for the Economy. You are asking questions of the Department of Finance and of the permanent secretary —.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): I am not asking questions [Inaudible.]

Sorry, Pádraig —

Mr Delargy: I have not finished my point of order.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): We are moving on.

Mr Delargy: No, you are not, because I —

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Yes, I am moving on.

Mr Delargy: — have not finished my point of order.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): I am Chair of this Committee.

Mr Delargy: I have not finished it.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): OK, so, tell me what Standing Order —

Mr Delargy: My point of order —

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): What Standing Order is your point of order on?

Mr Delargy: — is that you are asking questions of the Finance Minister —

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): OK, we are going to move on.

Mr Delargy: — and asking questions of the permanent secretary in the Department for the Economy, who is not here.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Minister, could you answer the question?

Mr Delargy: Please let me finish my point of order.

Dr Archibald: I do not know what the question was.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): No problem at all. Have you seen the letter from the Treasury?

Dr Archibald: The correspondence from the Treasury in relation to that matter on 4 December will have indicated that AME could be utilised here if a comparable scheme could be developed. It was confirmed by DESNZ on 19 December that a comparable scheme had been developed. Then, on 8 January, the Treasury confirmed that it was also content with the comparable scheme that had been developed.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): That is a long way of answering. Have you seen it or have you not seen it?

Dr Archibald: As I said, I do not normally see correspondence between the Treasury and the Finance Minister.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): OK, you do not normally, but have you seen that one?

Dr Archibald: Pardon?

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Have you seen that letter — yes or no?

Dr Archibald: I do not believe that I have.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): You do not need to ask your official. Have you seen it?

Dr Archibald: No, I do not believe that I have seen the correspondence.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): On 4 December, the UK Government confirmed that AME funding would be made available. We are now —

Dr Archibald: For a comparable scheme to be developed.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Yes, and you still have not done a business case for that scheme.

Dr Archibald: The comparable scheme has been confirmed. It is the process and mechanism for making the payments to people that are being worked through with the Utility Regulator and the companies that will be required to deliver it. I do not see what the particular issue is with that.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): You were told three months ago that you had a scheme, and your Department still has not drawn up a scheme. That is the issue.

Dr Archibald: The Department has —

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): There are people here waiting for your Department to draw up a scheme. You then went on a 10-minute rant. I do not mind you attacking me personally or other people who are not here — that is fine — but you still have not been able to ascertain why your Department has not developed a scheme. Minister, when I asked your permanent secretary about this last week, it was as if he had never heard of it. This is a major issue.

Dr Archibald: You are absolutely right: it is a major issue. It is a major issue that people here would not be receiving payment for had my officials, along with Department of Finance officials, not secured their ability to do so.

We have been working diligently on that since the scheme was announced in November. Developing the process is not simple and straightforward. It is technically complex to make those reductions to people's bills here, and having a mechanism to do that has been worked on consistently over many, many weeks.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): In your statement, you talked about the REPG scheme and said that my party is blocking it and that I need to learn my facts. Minister, when did you first tell this Committee that that legislation would come before the Executive?

Dr Archibald: I am sorry; what do you mean?

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): What I mean is the continued changing timeline from your Department when it comes to legislation. The REPG —.

Dr Archibald: As the Chair —.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): I just want to clarify this so that you know. You told this Committee on a number of occasions that the REPG scheme would be brought to the Executive in paper form last summer. You then said that it would be before Christmas, and you are now confirming to this Committee that you submitted it in February. Minister, if you are going to lecture me and my party about time frames, you might want to stick to some of your time frames.

Dr Archibald: With respect, Chair, you said that it was nowhere to be seen. It clearly has —

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): I do not see the Executive paper.

Dr Archibald: — been delivered to the Executive. It is not as if progress is not being made. The Chair has been briefed on many occasions about the issues with the REPG scheme, which we initially thought could be delivered through secondary legislation, only to later get legal advice that primary legislation would be required. That has been one of the significant factors in getting it to the stage that we are now at. We need to have the policy intent agreed by the Executive to allow the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) to start drafting the legislation. Hopefully, that will happen in the very near future.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Hopefully, Minister, because time frames in your Department seem to slip and slip. The REPG scheme is delayed, and you told us that the 'good jobs' Bill would be introduced to the Assembly before December. You have not —.

Mr Delargy: On a point of order —

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): You have not [Inaudible.]

Mr Delargy: — this is supposed to be an emergency meeting about one topic, and you are going on about a series of topics that have nothing to do with that.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Just like the Minister did in her opening remarks.

Mr Delargy: Chair, when I am making a point of order, I am allowed to make it.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): No, you are not, because you have not —.

Mr Delargy: Sorry, I am.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): No, you are not. You are not. We are going to move on.

Mr Delargy: You are meant to finish about this issue. Please speak to this issue. As my colleague said, you are the Chair of this Committee. You have brought us here for an emergency meeting about one particular issue, and you want to talk about all issues in the Department. Focus on this issue.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): First of all, Pádraig, I did not bring you here. You might forget, but, on Wednesday, you voted to have your Minister here. I will ask whatever I want, Pádraig; I am the Chair of this Committee.

Minister, given the continued delays, I encourage you to, rather than engaging in personal attacks on me —. Your record of dither and delay speaks for itself.

Dr Archibald: I reject the Chair's assertions. If he thinks that legislation is delivered overnight, he is sadly mistaken. As he —

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Not when you claim that you are going to introduce it and do not.

Dr Archibald: — knows, we have a really ambitious programme of legislation. We intend to introduce eight Bills in this mandate, which compares to one Bill in the past 10 years, while his party colleagues were in charge of this Department.

Mr Honeyford: We have five minutes, so I will be really quick. I am not interested in the party political DUP/Sinn Féin fight here.

Dr Archibald: David, this is not party political.

Mr Honeyford: It has been made so. I am not interested in it. I am interested in vulnerable people and working people here who are hurting and need help. There is money there. You talked about the support scheme. Yesterday, the UK Government announced £50 million in funding but said afterwards that it is for one million households. We only have 400,000 households with oil heating. That is about £20 a house. What is the plan, between those two — there are two — to target that money to the most vulnerable and to working people in Northern Ireland?

Dr Archibald: We have not yet seen the details of what has been announced. I think that it will be announced this morning at 10.00 am. I had a conversation with Minister McCluskey on Saturday evening, and he was not clear about what the mechanism for delivering the financial support would be because that is Treasury-led, and he was talking to me about the energy supports. The figure of £50 million that has been put out there is not a huge figure and will not provide the level of support that people need. We need to see the detail of how the British Government intend to deliver it in Britain to understand whether there will be direct read-across to here or whether we will have to design something. We all have some level of PTSD about designing schemes to get payments to people, so we will wait and see the detail of it when it is announced.

Mr Honeyford: To clarify, the £50 million works out at about £20 million for Northern Ireland, if you work out the number of homes that use heating oil. It is considerably less than £50 million. Is that confirmed?

Dr Archibald: Yes.

Mr Honeyford: My second point is that people have been absolutely robbed blind recently by the spike in energy prices and because there is no regulation of oil in Northern Ireland. Is there any plan to bring in such regulation to protect people here?

Dr Archibald: I am on record as saying that I have not ruled anything out on that. We need transparency in pricing. Our oil providers argue that they are price-takers in that they are subject to the prices that the global market demands. One thing that I discussed with Minister McCluskey on Saturday evening was that regulation issue. It may be more appropriate for the regulation to be done at British Government level, but I will continue those engagements and conversations, because, as I said, we need transparency about what people pay so that they can have confidence that they are not being ripped off.

Mr Honeyford: Will that come forward?

Dr Archibald: They are considering that.

Mr Honeyford: OK. My final question comes back to the fact that the cheapest way of putting money into people's pockets is to drop the price in the first place. Two issues have been conflated today: the spike in the price of oil and the cost of electricity. Electricity on the island is key, and the North/South interconnector is critical to cheaper prices. Is the Department supporting efforts to deliver that for people here as soon as possible?

Dr Archibald: As you probably know, construction in the North has commenced, but the timeline in the South changed last year.

Mr Honeyford: Is the Department pressing for it to happen together, on an all-island basis?

Dr Archibald: We continue to engage with our counterparts in the South on all of that, yes.

Mr Honeyford: Thank you.

Mr Delargy: Minister, thank you for coming in today. It is clear that the DUP either does not understand how the funding can be rolled out or is deliberately misleading the public. At a time when everybody sees gas and oil prices rise and ordinary people and households feel the pressure, that is a dangerous strategy. To conflate two issues, as David mentioned, is factually inaccurate, and doing so means that this meeting and what the DUP have put forward so far are based on a false premise.

In the past week, we have heard Arlene Foster saying that money should be taken from worst-off in our society and the DUP trying to roll back on its agenda of militarisation, supporting war, the breach of international law and the undermining of ongoing diplomatic efforts. What we see now is purely duplicitous: on the one hand, the DUP says that it supports ordinary households and ordinary people, and, on the other, it supports an agenda that, by driving war, drives up prices and increases hardship on ordinary households. I thank you for clarifying all the points, Minister.

When it comes to the questioning, Chair, in your interviews, you made a point, saying, "When you're in a hole, don't keep digging", but that is what you have done today. What we have heard is complete clarity on the fact that the Department for the Economy and the Department of Finance have pushed for and enabled the payment to happen. However, it is a small payment in the grand scheme of things. It is important that people do not leave the meeting with the understanding that ordinary households will be supported. That will not happen unless we have a unified position on the Minister meeting the British Ministers to push forward an agenda of financial support for our ordinary people and households, given that prices are rising due to the DUP-supported policy of militarisation.

All the questions that I had have been clearly and ably answered today. I have no further questions, but it is important to put that on record.

Ms Forsythe: I am disappointed to be surrounded by three Sinn Féin members who have, as David said, made a party political attack on the DUP. Minister, I am disappointed by your comments. It is a bit patronising to say that anyone in the DUP does not understand finances. I am a chartered accountant; I have been qualified for 18 years; I worked for 10 years in public-sector finance; and I understand exactly the difference between the types of funding.

Four of your senior officials — the permanent secretary, two deputy secretaries and the director of finance — were before the Committee, and, when this was put to them, none of them had heard anything about it. Can you understand that it looked to us as though your officials did not know what they were doing?

Dr Archibald: I will clarify. Richard, who is in charge of it, was not here. Given the format of the question, I can understand why the permanent secretary did not immediately recognise what was being discussed.
Anybody can have a lapse in knowledge around a particular topic —.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, is the director of finance not involved in making business cases to the UK Treasury?

Dr Archibald: She would be working with the officials who are leading on it, so yes of course —.

Ms Forsythe: She sat here and said that she knew nothing about it when the permanent secretary asked her.

Dr Archibald: She did not recognise what Mr Brett had put to them. Clearly, the work is ongoing —

Ms Forsythe: There are not too many opportunities where the Finance Minister has said that £81 million is set aside. I think that there is such a lack of opportunities in the current financial climate that your director of finance should have been able to answer us on that. For that reason, I hope that you understand how we, as a Committee, are entirely frustrated as to the responses that we got and what it led us to believe.

Dr Archibald: It is worth pointing out that Richard was here the week before, and the crisis in pricing had already commenced. Absolutely no questions were put to Richard about this particular topic, which could have been ably and clearly responded to. I wonder why that was the case.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): I was not here.

Ms Forsythe: It was a financial issue, put to the most senior officials: the permanent secretary and your two deputy secretaries and your director of finance.

Dr Archibald: In fairness to the director —

Ms Forsythe: I would have thought that, in that context, four of those senior officials should have been able to answer that question.

Dr Archibald: — two of the officials were dealing with education.

Ms McLaughlin: This has been exhausting to listen to. It is really unseemly, and I am sure that the public do not care about party political fights.

Dr Archibald: Can I just clarify that it is not a party political?

Ms McLaughlin: It is, across the Committee.

Dr Archibald: No, it is not.

Ms McLaughlin: It is really awful. We need to concentrate on how we respond to this global crisis that affects the price of energy in homes right across our country. We need to be able to target support to the homes that are really deprived, to those who need it most. I have not really heard how we are doing that, Minister.

What is your response to how we are going to target help and support to those who most need it, without universal payments being made that will have no impact at all on those who need it most? We are just sitting here, with Sinn Féin and the DUP shouting and trying to score points over one another, about who said what and when. It is really unseemly and disappointing, and I am really angry, to be honest, to be part of this, this morning. It is an awful way to deal with something that is so utterly serious.

No end to this is in sight, when you see the blockages that are happening and how this crisis could develop even further. The Executive need to come up with a plan to support people. That is what we should discuss today.

Dr Archibald: I do not disagree with you, Sinéad. However, I really take issue with it being painted as a party political issue. The Chair of the Committee made assertions that are incorrect, about me and my officials who have worked for months to get this scheme delivered.

I assume that, when you talk about support for those who need it, you mean in relation to the current energy crisis. As I indicated, we need to see the detail of what will be announced this morning by the British Government. I have emphasised over and over again that we need to have engagement so that whatever is announced there can be applied here as quickly as possible. I have also raised the issue with the British Minister responsible and said that if this situation continues, we need to see support additional to what has been announced. We already know the trajectory of gas prices, which will impact on everybody's electricity costs. The scale of what we could be facing over the coming weeks and months is really concerning. I will continue to do my damnedest to ensure that we get support to those who need it.

Ms McLaughlin: Minister, I know that it is really important that we listen to the statement that will come from Downing Street at 10.30 am. We will listen to it with interest, but the Executive and you have a role to play. What are your plans, and how do we target those who need support most? It is about targeting support, rather than just waiting for the UK Government. Whatever today's announcement is, how will we get support to the people who need it most? That is an Executive responsibility, it is your responsibility and that is what I want to hear.

Dr Archibald: I do not disagree with you that the Executive have a role, but we need to see the shape of the announcement. What the Executive are able to do very much depends on what is announced, the mechanism that the UK will use for making payments in Britain and what we will be able to use for here. It is not a case of just coming up with something and hoping that it will match up: we need to see the detail and be able to respond. We will endeavour to respond as quickly as possible because we understand the pressure that people are facing.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Minister, I am conscious of your time. Are you happy for me to bring in your colleague Mr Kearney?

Dr Archibald: Yes.

Mr Kearney: Thanks, Phillip. This meeting has been unedifying, but that is because it was set up to be a political trap. Sinéad, you trailed the meeting in a highly party political way, which is not untypical of the approach that you take, but do not wash your hands of what we have been dealing with this morning.

Diane, I did not attack the DUP. I contested the approach being taken by the Chair to the convening and conducting of the meeting.

I wish to revert to a specific question, and I have only one. Minister, in relation to the electricity support scheme, you made the point that the business plan follows the drafting of the legislation. Can you or Richard indicate the kind of focus or discussion that there has been between your officials and the British Government officials who are responsible for drafting the legislation with a view to expediting that as soon as possible before the summer recess?

Dr Archibald: We need both the legislation and the delivery mechanism in order to complete the business case. I understand that the legislation is being laid this week by the Minister who is responsible in Britain with the assumption that it will be completed before summer recess. Obviously, it has to go through the processes in the British Parliament, but we are pushing for that to happen as quickly as possible. Richard, do you want to add anything?

Mr Richard Rodgers (Department for the Economy): It is important that the delivery mechanism is ready to go once we have the law to allow it to happen. That is what we are working on.

Mr Kearney: You have a focus on the operational plan for delivery of the scheme. OK.

Mr Rodgers: It is to ensure that people get the reduction to which they are entitled.

Mr Kearney: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Minister, a final question from me: on what date did the Department receive confirmation from the UK Government that legislation would be required?

Mr Rodgers: It was part of the discussions.

Dr Archibald: It was part of the discussions that led to the agreement on the approach that was to be taken. It was to consider —.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): On what date did they officially confirm that?

Mr Rodgers: It was part of the ongoing discussions in November and December.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): I ask that because you said that I was confused. Not once in all the written responses to me that you referenced in your opening statement did you mention that legislative change is required at Westminster. In fact, when you updated the Committee at the end of January, you did not mention legislation. I am keen to understand when you, Richard, received confirmation from your counterparts that legislation was required.

Mr Rodgers: The Minister wrote to Minister McCluskey on 2 March, I think, to confirm that we had agreed with officials in DESNZ that that would be the fastest route.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): So, on 4 December, a letter from Treasury confirmed that Northern Ireland would benefit from the scheme, but you did not write until 2 March about legislation.

Mr Rodgers: Yes. Confirmation of the funding only arrived on 8 January.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): And you did not write until 2 March.

Mr Rodgers: That was the confirmation. All those discussions were ongoing to find the fastest route. The reason that we went down that route was to get the money out to people as quickly as possible.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Why did it take two months to —.

Mr Rodgers: It was not two months. It is about working out the whole business case for delivery.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): You just said that a business case was not complete.

Dr Archibald: This is part of it.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Was it two months or not? You just said, "It was not two months", but it was two months. You said that it was 8 January, and then you said that you wrote on 2 March; that is two months.

Dr Archibald: On 20 February, the Department and DESNZ confirmed the approach that was to be taken regarding the Energy Prices Act. There has been ongoing discussion on how to deliver the scheme for a number of weeks. As I said, they are not easy matters to —.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): I get that, but I am asking about the timeline, Minister. Richard just said that it was 8 January, and now you are saying February. I am just trying to —.

Dr Archibald: No, we got confirmation from Treasury about how we could use on the money on 8 January. The process about delivering that was part of continued discussions between our officials, DESNZ and Treasury to come to an agreement on the particular piece of legislation in order to ensure that it could be delivered.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): When did they confirm that to you?

Mr Rodgers: It was confirmed, finally, in correspondence at the beginning of March.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): March. OK. There was no correspondence from Treasury between 8 January and 2 March, is that right?

Mr Rodgers: The discussions were between us and DESNZ.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): OK. No problem at all. How many customers in Northern Ireland currently use oil?

Mr Rodgers: Around 500,000.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): OK. The extra time that you have given us is much appreciated.