Debate contribution: RHI Inquiry Recommendations: Implementation
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 5 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- RHI Inquiry Recommendations: Implementation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4632130
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As we have heard, the Audit Office found that only 26 of 42 recommendations from the RHI inquiry report have been implemented more than four years after its conclusion and at a cost of tens of millions of pounds to the taxpayer, and that, based on the action to date, it is unlikely that all the inquiry's recommendations will ever be met in full — maybe that is the intention. The report uncovered an unacceptable lack of progress but also found that basic record-keeping by Stormont Departments has got worse since 2022, which is shocking but will maybe not be surprising to those who have received some interesting answers to Assembly questions in recent months. At the Finance Committee recently, I highlighted the fact that recommendation 39 of the report has still to be implemented. Recommendation 39 states:
"Any Minister presenting the Assembly with legislation for approval should sufficiently read and familiarise themselves with that legislation".
The fact that not reading the legislation was one of the key defences of the proponents of RHI at the time, and that that recommendation has not been implemented, is absolutely mind-boggling. There was a cacophony of excuses from the head of the Civil Service when I asked her why it had not been implemented. I am still none the wiser. Children are often scolded for not reading their homework, but Ministers who do not read their legislation are told, "Keep on not doing that". The fact that the Executive are incapable of meeting such a basic requirement beggars belief. Another important recommendation that has yet to be acted on relates to the need for a level of independent scrutiny. The RHI inquiry report stated that departmental project boards should have representation from people who are not responsible for day-to-day project management and who can challenge decision-making. Again, the Audit Office says that that recommendation is unlikely to ever be implemented. It is worth remembering that the key architect of the RHI scheme has embarked on a career as a public speaker. Arlene Foster recently advertised herself as a renewable energy expert for a fee of £10,000 a day: you could not make this stuff up. The Executive have not only failed to learn lessons from RHI, but some are literally capitalising on it. The term "failing upwards" comes to mind. The Executive also appear to be obstructing access to key information, as others have mentioned. The Audit Office reported difficulties in accessing sufficient and adequate information as part of its review. Again, that is shocking but, in this place, not surprising. As Members have said, the Executive subcommittee on reform last met in December 2020. Given the endless obfuscation, dither and delay in implementing the report's recommendations, it is time that that subcommittee is re-established and that all the recommendations from the Audit Office report are implemented. It is also worth mentioning that it was recently announced that Moy Park, which was central to the RHI scheme and had half of its poultry houses benefiting from it, had made mega profits. Our public services and citizens should not be at the mercy of dangerous and profitable corporations like Moy Park. People pay their taxes, their rates and their fair share, and Moy Park should do the same. We should never forget that, under the watchful eye of the Executive, whilst empty chicken sheds were heated, thousands of people died every year because of fuel poverty.
572 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.99 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
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.