Former Spad denies DUP protected party official
Witness says no bid to deflect attention from Foster’s aide Johnston
A FORMER DUP special adviser has said he doesn’t believe there was any attempt by the party to protect its most important unelected official — Timothy Johnston — from controversy over RHI.
In his witness statement to the inquiry, Richard Bullick denied there was a “DUP line” on deflecting attention away from Mr Johnston, who at the time that the cash-for-ash scandal broke was a special adviser to First Minister Arlene Foster.
He is now the party’s chief executive.
It has been claimed at the inquiry that Mr Johnston was involved in delaying RHI cost controls, which he denies.
Mr Bullick said he did not believe that the allegations in relation to the DUP chief executive were “fair or accurate”.
The former permanent secretary in the Department of Trade, Enterprise and Investment (Deti), Dr Andrew McCormick, told the inquiry that “the DUP was very concerned to deflect or discredit any possible reference to Timothy Johnston”.
It was also suggested to the inquiry that the party had “acquiesced with the necessity” of naming its special adviser Dr Andrew Crawford as “the instigator of the delay” in introducing RHI cost controls.
But in his witness statement, Mr Bullick said: “I do not believe there was any ‘DUP’ line on these matters.
“Andrew McCormick made clear his belief as to the role played by Andrew Crawford on these matters. He also made clear what he would say if pressed on the matter.
“He was not asking for agreement or acquiescence on the matter.
“Despite being aware of Andrew McCormick’s views on this subject, we had managed to avoid anyone being specifically named since mid-December.
“It was clear from the position of Andrew McCormick that if pressed this position was not going to be sustained at the PAC (Public Accounts Committee).”
Mr Bullick said he did “not believe there were any discussions about deflecting or discrediting any possible reference to Timothy Johnston”.
In relations to the allegations against Dr Crawford, Mr Bullick said: “Even as of today I am unclear as to the precise role of Andrew Crawford, if any, in the decision to delay cost control measures. It will be for the inquiry to consider and weigh the likely conflicting evidence.”
The inquiry asked the former DUP special adviser why David Gordon — who was then Stormont’s chief spin doctor — believed it necessary to draft a denial regarding RHI allegations for Mr Johnston or his lawyers.
Mr Bullick said: “David Gordon clearly believed that what was being said about Timothy Johnston was untrue and defamatory.
“I assume given his extensive knowledge at this time he felt such a note would be helpful to Timothy Johnston.”
Former Deti special adviser
Timothy Cairns had referred in correspondence to his personal willingness to shape a statement to help the party narrative when dealing with the RHI fallout.
When asked about this, Mr Bullick said it was “an expression used by Timothy Cairns”. He did not believe it was ever “used during internal party discussions” and nor did “such a narrative exist”.
The former DUP special adviser said he saw “no evidence” that “anyone acted with improper motivation” in relation to RHI.
He said: “I have concluded that at the heart of the matter was the department’s failure to properly understand the operation of the scheme and the incentives which existed.
“This was not due to any particular wrongdoing of any of the officials who were involved in the administration of the scheme but is inherent in the approach of the public sector when dealing with such matters.”
Mr Bullick said this “overarching failure” contributed not only to the flaws in the initial model presented to the minister for endorsement but also to “the failure to understand the concerns of the whistleblower or indeed the necessity to introduce cost controls in a more expeditious way”.
He continued: “The allegations in relation to political wrongdoing, or for that matter the misunderstanding as to the funding arrangements, are very much secondary when compared to the fact that RHI had been created in a way which (could not be) understood until it was too late.”
Mr Bullick said it appeared that at the very start — and it may have been due to an administrative mistake — that there was “a misunderstanding that the cost of the pellets was higher than the subsidy”.
He continued: “That was perhaps the initial error but it was far from the last. On many occasions since then, one would have expected that this error would have been detected by someone at some level but this was never the case”.
Mr Bullick said the issue of the whistleblower, staff changes in the Department of Trade, Enterprise and Investment, pressure to keep the scheme open and other events “could have all been footnotes in history” if there had been “a proper appreciation of the inherent flaws in the scheme”.
Mr Bullick said the only legitimate criticism he believed could be made of officials was that, when confronted with the RHI disaster, they were “too eager to rely on proper process in order to rectify the problems rather than to proceed in a more unorthodox though more expedient manner”.
David Gordon clearly believed that what was being said about Timothy Johnston was untrue