Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Mr Snowden, Mr Rodgers and Ms McConn, you are all very welcome. For the sake of the public record, I will give your formal titles. Ian Snowden is the accounting officer for the Department for the Economy, Richard Rodgers is head of energy group at the Department, and Anne-Marie McConn is head of energy strategy and corporate services at the Department. Also in attendance are Stuart Stevenson, Treasury Officer of Accounts, Department of Finance; and Dorinnia Carville, Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG).

I have to say, Mr Snowden, that I am deeply frustrated by what I am having to do this afternoon. Before we begin what was supposed to be an evidence session, the Committee wishes to place on record very clearly its deep dissatisfaction and frustration regarding the timing of our receiving additional evidence in advance of today's session: we received it just hours ago. Members received the ministerial submission updating the headline energy strategy figures only this morning. In addition, the Committee was made aware this morning, through the Clerk's due diligence, that the Department's energy strategy action plan 2026 had been published over the bank holiday weekend, which will need some explaining as well. Given the clear relevance of both documents to today's evidence session, members are concerned that the Committee was not proactively informed by the Department at the earliest opportunity that the material had been published and/or was being provided today.

The Committee notes 'Guidance on NI Public Audit Process Including PAC Scrutiny', which I ask you and your officials to consider and learn. It states:

I do not know about you, Mr Snowden, but I live two hours away, so I could not read that document when I was driving here this morning. The guidance further states:

We still have not received anything that suggests that that document was published on Friday.

Members are particularly concerned that the relationship between the ministerial submission and the newly published action plan is not entirely clear. There has not been sufficient time to scrutinise the updated figures or for them to be validated through the normal audit processes. It goes on and on and on. Members have not had adequate opportunity to assess how the revised information impacts on the agreed lines of questioning, which, I might add, the Committee team spent quite a long time preparing for. The Committee's role, Mr Snowden, Mr Rodgers and Ms McConn, is to undertake informed and effective scrutiny on the basis of robust and properly considered evidence. How on earth could we carry out that important function when you sent us something late this morning and published a prominent and important document that is very relevant to the Committee and this inquiry late on a Friday before a bank holiday weekend?

Members do not consider that the process has been assisted by the late provision of significant additional material immediately prior to today's session, and the Committee is therefore of the view that it would not represent good use of our Committee time, departmental time, Audit Office resources or Assembly support resources to proceed with an evidence session today without members first having had the courtesy of at least being able to consider the material in front of us. Accordingly, the Committee discussed the matter in closed session this afternoon and agreed that we will reschedule today's evidence session to allow members and the Audit Office sufficient time to consider the newly submitted evidence and any implications arising from it. I am sure that the three of you will appreciate why we are so frustrated, disappointed and annoyed.

This Committee — I say this very firmly, Mr Snowden — will not be taken for granted by your Department, your officials or any other Department across the Civil Service. We are here to provide an important and core public scrutiny function, and I am really, really annoyed that I am sitting here today with my time wasted, the Committee's time wasted, the Committee team's time wasted and the Audit Office's time wasted. We have plenty to be doing, and we now have to rejig our entire schedule — our forward work programme — because of the incompetence of your Department and its lack of communication with this Committee and the Audit Office. I do not know what excuse you will come up with, but I can tell you this: we are all ears. It is over to you.

Mr Ian Snowden (Department for the Economy): I will start by saying that the Department and I personally in no way take the Committee or its work for granted. I became aware late on Thursday afternoon that the most recent updated figures on the energy strategy targets had been made available this month. I asked whether the Committee had been made aware of that. I was advised that it had not, and I said that we needed to make the Committee aware in advance of this session. I thought that it would be inappropriate for us to conduct the session if the Committee had not had sight of the most recent figures. I therefore asked for a paper to be prepared and sent to the Committee. As with all correspondence with Committees, that had to be cleared through the Minister's office. Unfortunately, with last weekend being a bank holiday weekend, it has taken until this morning for that to come through, and I apologise for that. However, I thought that it was important that the Committee had all the available information before we held the session.

The energy strategy action plan for 2026 had been delayed and was published later than we would have liked in the current calendar year. We normally try to publish the plan before the end of March. It was slightly delayed this year because of the mid-term review and the desire to take account of the Audit Office recommendations on the structuring and content of the report. More significantly, on why it was delayed, Anne-Marie's team is also responsible for dealing with the Northern Ireland renewable obligation discount scheme that the Department is trying to implement following the Chancellor's announcement at the end of November about the equivalent discount scheme in England. A lack of resources meant that we had to prioritise that work over the production of the energy strategy action plan. I fully accept and agree with you that we should have been much more proactive in communicating with you when that was likely to be published. That was an oversight on my part, for which I deeply apologise.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): When were you going to inform the Committee of the publication of that document? It is not even in the late submission received today. Explain that to me. It has not even been provided.

Mr Snowden: As I say, that was an oversight. We really should have done it, and I apologise to the Committee.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Who is accountable for that?

Mr Snowden: I have to take responsibility for it.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): There are 135 staff working in that section of the Department. Could no one have lifted the phone to one of the Committee team to say that it was published on Friday, so that the Committee could have at least had an opportunity to consider it over the bank holiday weekend? Could no one have alerted the C&AG ,whose office has been disrespected by your Department? There is no excuse.

Mr Snowden: I am not seeking to make an excuse, Chair. I accept that we messed up on this, and I apologise for that.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): What about you, Mr Rodgers? As head of that sector in the Department, do you have anything to say?

Mr Richard Rodgers (Department for the Economy): Chair, I can only add my apologies to those of the perm sec. It is absolutely unacceptable. You should have been informed, and you were not. I understand that we need to learn the lessons from that.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): I do not think that it is acceptable. I think that someone thought that it would be a good idea to get that published in advance of this Committee hearing in order to cover tracks. I think that that is probably what has gone on. It was done on a Friday evening when no one was really paying attention, and people were looking forward to the weekend. I think that that is also, potentially, what has gone on.

I remind each of you that you are very senior public officials in the Department. Of course, unfortunately for you, Mr Snowden, the buck stops with you, but, equally, the two colleagues sitting on either side of you are responsible and need to ensure that the appropriate processes are followed. We expect the Committee to be treated with the absolute respect that it deserves. We represent the public in Northern Ireland. We are not here to have some kind of buckshee reaction to important items that are costing the public purse a huge amount of money. There are serious issues here, and that is before I even get to the strategy and what is not in it.

I will let members come in. They have a right to comment, given that they travelled to the Building today expecting an evidence session. I hope, Mr Snowden, that you, when you leave here today, will reiterate across your Department that the Committee will not be treated like this again.

Mr T Buchanan: It is disappointing that we came here today to have this evidence session only to discover at a late stage that there was further information that we had not received. You are aware of the Committee's strong feeling of disappointment about the unfortunate way in which the session has unfolded and the way in which people have been treated here. To have brought forward the action plan without notifying the Committee is certainly not good practice. That needs to change in the future. As the Chair said, we are here to do a scrutiny job, but we cannot scrutinise something to do with the issue before us that arrived only late this morning. That is impossible. It simply is not good enough, and it needs to change mightily quickly.

Mr Gildernew: This is not the first time that I have seen this happen. I have seen it in other Committees. It is deeply frustrating, and it needs to change. Committees are trying to conduct their work under a lot of time pressures. We repeatedly see such incidents happening. I do not know whether it is sometimes because of a lack of understanding or a lack of respect, but I know this: it is deeply unprofessional. It needs to change in whatever Departments are guilty of it, but it is a feature.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): It certainly is. If this were the private sector, there would be serious repercussions for such actions, or lack thereof.

Mr Honeyford: If this were the private sector, 134 people would not have the document that was to be put in front of us, to be frank, and, years after a strategy, we would not be in this position. Ultimately, the energy group is in front of the Committee because energy affects everybody outside the Building. It is one of the most critical issues for our economy and for ordinary people, who are paying over the top for energy. We have a strategy that is described as a "shop window" rather than a strategy. We have an action plan that was released on a Friday afternoon. As I said yesterday at the Economy Committee, I was informed via a tweet on Tuesday afternoon that the action plan had been published. It was not announced to anyone in this Building, which is absolutely disgraceful. The action plan does not have any action in it; it is just a list. A primary-school child could list the things that need to happen. There can be no scrutiny, because it is just a wish list. There is no respect for anybody in this Room, for any investor who wants to invest in Northern Ireland or for the public outside of the Building, who are paying more than they should be for energy. The energy section of the Department has been described as incompetent. That is accurate, Ian. This goes beyond incompetence: it is out of control. It is a section of the Department that just drifts for years and then brings you the same answers as it did before. It does not have any grip on the issue whatsoever. To give us information on the day on which we are due to meet is just disgraceful. It is not about the Committee or officials; it is about the public out there. They deserve way better than what they are getting from the Department for the Economy.

Mr Wilson: I share similar views. The Committee has been short-changed. We have been upfront. You were provided with a letter on 17 April, which gave you an immense amount of time, given the scores of staff whom you have at your disposal, to prepare for this meeting. However, you have thrown a smoker, as I like to call it, over the past few days. Was that to buy more time? Was that not enough time? I certainly felt that it was enough, and I do not see why that had to be done at this stage. It created this issue. As the Chair rightly said, we have all travelled significant distances. We could all be doing something better than postponing an evidence session. Had the exorbitant amount of time that was given to you been properly used, that postponement could have been avoided. I do not see why we have been slighted in such a way. In my book, it is just not good enough.

Mr Burrows: I endorse everything that has been said. It is shambolic and incompetent. Ultimately, it is disrespectful to the public, who pay all our wages. You have had weeks to be ready. Wars have been started and finished across the world in less time than you had to be ready for this meeting. It is shambolic. There is no lack of resources, so it comes down to culture and leadership.

There is no point in my repeating what everyone has said, but I will say this again: it would not happen in the private sector.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): It is extremely important, Mr Snowdon, that you and your Department understand that we will not tolerate this as a Committee. I want to reiterate that. I strongly advise that you remind your team of the very clear guidance, the expectation of the Committee going forward and the need to be prepared when we ask you back.

Stuart, as the Treasury Officer of Accounts, is there anything that you would like to add?

Mr Stuart Stevenson (Department of Finance): Yes, Chair. I will make a general comment. 'Managing Public Money' is very clear about the standards of openness and transparency that are expected in public life. Therefore, from our perspective, any relevant information that becomes available needs to be shared with the Committee. That is absolutely essential. I am not aware of any issues around the timing in this case in particular. However, I understand fully the impact that it has on the inquiry and the ability to discuss at length the issues for which the Committee will have prepared. It is understandable. I acknowledge that the Department has, at least, been open and transparent in sharing the information —

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Except the strategy, Stuart, which we have still not received formally.

Mr Stevenson: — albeit the timing is extremely unhelpful. I agree with that, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Only for the Clerk — David as well, of course — we might not even have known about it. It is unacceptable.

Dorinnia, is there anything that you would like to add?

Ms Dorinnia Carville (Northern Ireland Audit Office): No.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): OK.

Mr Snowdon, Mr Rodgers and Ms McConn, regrettably, we are ending today's session. Let me be very clear: when you present before us, there had better be answers to the many questions that we will have about what can only be described as a mess that needs to be resolved by your Department. That is before we even get to your communications.

Furthermore, it would be courteous to issue an apology to the C&AG, her team, my Committee team here and the Committee, because our time has been utterly wasted today, and I am having to tell three senior officials how to do their jobs. It is utterly unacceptable. We will write to you to reschedule, and we will take it from there. Thank you.