Debate contribution: RHI Inquiry Recommendations: Implementation

Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on 5 November 2024.

MLA

Ms Diane Forsythe

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

5 November 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

RHI Inquiry Recommendations: Implementation

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4632042

Read the official Assembly record

Text

When the RHI inquiry concluded, over four years ago, the Democratic Unionist Party accepted the findings and noted that the recommendations that it contained were a "critical staging post" towards fixing systemic problems identified. Whilst it was right that there was accountability at a political level, the RHI report identified a catalogue of errors and opportunities that were missed by many people at many different times. It referenced criticisms that cover almost every aspect of governance by officials. The list includes: accuracy of documents, misleading ministerial advice, skills mismatches between staff, continuity of staff, lack of commercial awareness, a poor culture of record-keeping, questionable financial literacy and many more issues. The recommendations were sensible and self-explanatory. Addressing those weaknesses is fundamental to good governance. Changing behaviours and practices and overcoming what went before promptly should have been prioritised. Two years ago, when the Northern Ireland Audit Office provided its previous assessment of progress, we made it clear that, in the same way that the political establishment had a duty to deal with failings on its part during the RHI period, the leadership of the Civil Service could not simply abdicate responsibility for addressing its failings. That remains our position. The Northern Ireland Audit Office report was published last month, some four years on from the original report and recommendations. It was incredibly disappointing to read its findings that highlighted the fact that some recommendations remain outstanding and that it is unlikely that all the inquiry's recommendations will be fully implemented. Out of 42 recommendations, 26 have been implemented, with a further 11 likely to be implemented in the future, and the planned actions by Departments in relation to five recommendations are noted as being unlikely to fully address the inquiry's concerns. That is extremely disappointing. I will look at the five recommendations, the actions on which are unlikely to fully address the inquiry's concerns. One notes:

"Project boards are an essential element of project management oversight and must include individuals who can challenge and who are not directly responsible for"

projects. To me, providing that challenge is a fundamental, critical aspect of any sort of project management. It is difficult to understand why the Department of Finance would not accept that recommendation. Another recommendation is the provision of:

"clear guidance and training to relevant staff about... handling of commercially sensitive information".

The fact that that has not been rolled out is difficult to understand. Why would you not want to train all staff on what is commercially sensitive? As we all know, anyone at any level of an organisation could come into contact with commercially sensitive information at any time. Another recommendation was that Departments should conduct their own governance reviews and that the leader should "set the tone" for strong governance. The failure to accept that recommendation is very concerning as well, because I agree with the Audit Office that the leader should set the tone and that strong governance requires self-review. The final recommendation that has not been accepted and is not likely to be fully addressed by the planned actions relates to record-keeping. That is very concerning, and, again, a light was shone on that issue in recent months. The progress on the recommendations is highly concerning, and I ask the Finance Minister to explain further in her response to the debate why the inquiry's concerns are unlikely to be addressed. What has changed in the Northern Ireland Civil Service? Why was it not a priority in 2020 to deliver on the significant findings and recommendations for urgent reform? Why are some recommendations being disregarded now? The inquiry and the recommendations are incredibly important to rebuilding public confidence in how our Senior Civil Service does business. What sort of message does it give to the public that, four years on, the changes have not been made, and it looks as though some may never be made? The management of human resources in the Civil Service is a shared service function of the Department of Finance. It is the Finance Minister's responsibility to ensure that the practices are improved. The head of the Civil Service has a key role to play in that. Strong leadership is needed, and I urge the Minister to work closely with the head of the Civil Service to address the matter across all Departments. We must collectively demonstrate that lessons have been learned. The DUP will support the establishment of any mechanisms that will appropriately facilitate the change and deliver the learning and improvement that is needed at the heart of the Civil Service.

761 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:31 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification