Debate contribution: RHI Inquiry Recommendations: Implementation

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 5 November 2024.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

5 November 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

RHI Inquiry Recommendations: Implementation

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4632105

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Every time Stormont collapses and comes back, the public are assured and promised that it is the dawning of a new day for the institutions and that things will be different this time around. Following the publication of the RHI inquiry report, the then First Minister, Arlene — now Baroness — Foster, in a debate in the Chamber, pledged:

"I want to ensure that this can never happen again. We need better systems and people with the right expertise to be involved in the policy design of complex issues. Scrutiny functions must be improved, and professional project management must be implemented. We must rebuild trust across all levels." — [Official Report (Hansard), Bound Volume 127, p94, col 2].

The Baroness has moved on, but many of the problems identified in the RHI report, as the motion rightly outlines, remain. The Audit Office report makes damning reading in that regard. For the sake of time, I will only read into the record recommendation 5:

"It is four years since the Inquiry’s recommendations were published, and almost forty per cent of the Inquiry’s findings have not yet been fully implemented. This includes five recommendations where the NIAO assessment is that planned actions are unlikely to fully address the Inquiry’s recommendations, but DoF does not concur with this. In light of the above position, and given that the Executive Sub-Committee has not met since December 2020, we recommend that DoF takes the necessary steps to have appropriate mechanisms put in place to provide suitable oversight of full implementation of the Inquiry's recommendations. In addition, we recommend that those oversight arrangements include a formal re-evaluation of the way forward on the five recommendations where there is disagreement, as well as urgent approval of measures that will ensure a significant increase in the pace of implementation for any remaining outstanding actions."

The Audit Office report is particularly concerning when it comes to record-keeping in this place. Paragraph 19 of its executive summary states:

"DoF has now confirmed that it believes the arrangements in place across NI Departments are sufficient to meet the Inquiry’s recommendation and, at this point, there is no firm commitment to undertake an audit of record keeping. Nevertheless, following on from our 2022 assessment, we continue to conclude that this is required in order to fully address the Inquiry's recommendation in this area."

I also highlight the section of the Audit Office report that says:

"The Northern Ireland Assembly's Chairpersons' Liaison Group has considered how the Assembly Committees' scrutiny role can be strengthened in response to an RHI Inquiry recommendation."

Paragraphs 1.9 to 1.11 of the report highlight the fact that that group was set up as the result of an RHI report recommendation that the Assembly consider:

"what steps are needed to strengthen its scrutiny role, particularly as conducted by Assembly Committees".

The group's report said that it wanted to strengthen the Assembly's scrutiny role — really? — and ability to "delve into the detail" — really? — through "appropriate questions" — really? Have we seen that in the Executive Office Committee? Heaven forbid some questions might be classed as difficult by the Chairperson. My experience since coming to the House is of the Statutory Committee for the Executive Office, which does not believe in scrutiny; rather, it protects witnesses from questions. It is a Committee that has a system whereby the Chair meets a witness who is due to appear before the Committee without consulting, much less gaining the approval of, the Committee. It is a Committee that thinks that it is appropriate to submit questions to a witness in advance rather than using the powers at its disposal to compel a witness to appear. It is a Committee that is more interested in protecting the process than in delving into the detail. I remind the House that the only legislation to arise from the RHI inquiry came from my predecessor, Jim Allister. In recent days, I have heard some Members claim that, because his Act introduced a requirement for Ministers to have a record of meetings, Committee Chairpersons are not expected to keep such a record. I want to nail that falsehood ahead of tomorrow's Committee meeting: it deliberately misleads.

The fact that a Minister is required to keep a record does not absolve Committees from having their own record, particularly when, as the report highlights, departmental record-keeping remains appalling. From my short time —

— in the Assembly, I agree with other Members —

— that it appears we have learned nothing from the RHI debacle.

758 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