I beg to move

That this Assembly acknowledges the findings of the Northern Ireland Audit Office’s (NIAO) second report on progressing implementation of the renewable heat incentive (RHI) public inquiry recommendations, published on 15 October 2024, which highlights the outstanding issues and a lack of progress regarding the implementation of these recommendations; expresses serious concern that the Department of Finance has not acted with sufficient pace to fully implement the report’s recommendations; expresses regret that the Executive subcommittee on reform has not met since 2020; calls on the Minister of Finance to urgently accelerate efforts to address the deficiencies identified by the report, ensuring that all recommendations are implemented without further delay; and further calls on the Minister to work with Executive colleagues to re-establish the Executive subcommittee on reform as a matter of urgency and to include clear outcomes for reform in the final Programme for Government.

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and up to 10 minutes in which to wind. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Matthew, please open the debate on the motion.

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Audit Office's update report on the implementation of recommendations from the RHI inquiry and on the broader subject of improved accountability and, indeed, reform of Stormont and its institutions.

When I became an MLA in early 2020, the institutions had been collapsed for three years. In large part, although not exclusively, that was a consequence of the RHI debacle, in which large amounts of public money were put at risk; severe failures in governance, transparency, accountability and Civil Service performance were exposed; and public trust in our institutions was disastrously compromised. Just a couple of months after I became an MLA and just as the COVID pandemic was breaking out, upstairs in Parliament Buildings, Sir Patrick Coghlin, a retired judge, presented his findings in a very long document, 'The Report of the Independent Public Inquiry into the Non-domestic Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) Scheme'. He found that there had been multiple failures at official and political levels.

At that time, the institutions had just been re-established. We were told that we would have a new decade and a new approach. We are now halfway through that decade. The new approach that we were promised was a systems change in government performance, a more fit-for-purpose and professional Civil Service and an overhaul of accountability and transparency at Stormont. Now that we are halfway through that decade and have just had an update report from the Audit Office on delivery against those inquiry targets, it is an apposite moment for the Assembly to reflect on progress that has or, as might be the case, has not been made against those targets and recommendations and also to reflect on how well we have been doing on the connected challenges of accountability and reform.

I intend to touch on not only the NIAO report but broader questions of accountability, reform and good governance. Five years into the new decade that we were promised in 2020, and nine months into the term of the restored Executive, it is remarkably better that we have a functioning Executive and Assembly, but, clearly, that, by itself, is not sufficient to deliver good governance. We need to be robust and honest about where we have, and have not, made progress.

I will start with the findings of the NIAO report. It is clear that most of the recommendations of the Coghlin report from the RHI inquiry, which cost millions of pounds of public money and consumed huge amounts of energy, have either been implemented or are being implemented. However, underneath that headline finding, we see a more concerning picture. The NIAO report says:

"almost forty per cent of the Inquiry's findings have not yet been fully implemented."

Nearly half of the key recommendations of the Coghlin report have not been fully implemented. Of those, there are five recommendations where the NIAO finds that the planned actions that the Department of Finance and the Civil Service have undertaken to complete will not meet the conclusions and recommendations of Sir Patrick Coghlin.

Perhaps more startling is that the Executive subcommittee that was established to implement those reforms and, indeed, deal with the broader questions of Stormont reform and Civil Service reform has not met in four years. Four years. That says a lot about the commitment of the Executive that was created in 2020. Before others pull me up on it, there was an SDLP Minister in that Executive, so there is a degree of collective responsibility, but I hope that colleagues from other parties will be as fulsome and mature as the Opposition have been in taking responsibility for their parties' role in improving how we do things. Those are stark findings.

The report provides a fairly damning assessment of the Executive's seriousness about continuing the work of delivering good governance and delivering on the recommendations of the RHI inquiry report. That bleak picture has been painted. The RHI scheme has become synonymous with poor governance, poor financial management, mismanagement and lack of accountability and transparency here at Stormont. Therefore, it is incumbent on us all to do what we can to prove to the public who sent us here that we mean what we say when we say — people do say — that we are committed to a new approach and to improving accountability and transparency here. We need to redouble our efforts to respond properly — I hope that the Minister, in her remarks, will do so — to what the NIAO said in last month's report, and to re-establish, as our motion calls for, the Executive subcommittee on reform. However, that will not be enough.

I want to talk more broadly about the broad picture of accountability and scrutiny in this place. It is not just about the narrow questions of delivering against the Audit Office's findings. In the past few weeks, we have seen more damning examples of the failure of this place to do accountability properly, including in a Committee, where the First Minister came to give evidence and members were prevented from asking questions. Those were questions that the First Minister had said that she had come to answer, on the basis of transparency, but then refused to answer, citing legal advice. No legal advice prevents any Member from asking a question. Unless there are live court proceedings and a clear legal imperative not to, legal advice would not prevent a Minister from giving an answer. A chilling precedent was set at that Committee. It was particularly chilling to see a First Minister appear to warn a Committee Chair that MLAs should be restrained from asking questions. Whatever your persuasion and whatever party to which you belong, we have to be honest about the seriousness of that precedent. That was deeply discomfiting for me, not just as leader of the Opposition but as a citizen of this place, coming after the RHI debacle. We need to be honest about that.

We also saw a monitoring round being published in the days before a general election. In Scotland, it was made very clear that a financial statement — a statement that was of much less import than the monitoring round here, which was reported by the BBC as being a mini Budget — could not be published because pre-election guidance prevented anything that would compete for news with election candidates. In this place, it was rushed out. In the Great Hall, there was a press conference, at which the Finance Minister, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister presented what amounted to a mini Budget three days before the UK general election.

When I asked the head of the Civil Service about that just a couple of weeks ago at the Finance Committee, she told me that it was not her place to "critique" the actions of Ministers. It is the place of the head of the Civil Service and the most senior civil servants to defend Civil Service impartiality; to ensure that there is proper accountability; and to ensure that standards in this place and in our institutions, including pre-election guidance, are adhered to. If the speech that I am giving is uncomfortable for Members or senior civil servants, that, I am afraid, is not my problem. It is our job to do accountability and scrutiny properly. Since we returned, we have not done that properly. The Opposition intend to continue to do our job.

We have also seen, since we returned, a failure to deliver on reform.

Order. You have started to get to reform, which is in your motion.

I am coming back to it.

I would appreciate it if you could, because —

I am coming back to that.

Yes. You need to lead by example, Matthew. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I intend to speak clearly to our motion. It sometimes makes people uncomfortable when we talk about those things. Transparency and accountability matter, but Assembly reform also matters. That is why the Coghlin report was clear; it stated that the Assembly should consider the steps that are needed to strengthen its scrutiny role. One thing that would strengthen our scrutiny role is preventing parties from being able to collapse these institutions at the drop of a hat.

After we came back, on our first Opposition day, we prioritised Assembly reform. The two big parties united to kill that proposal, but of more concern is the fact that the third party in the Executive, which has talked consistently about reform, has clearly failed to put it on the agenda in the Executive, because it is not mentioned once in the Programme for Government. All of this is about clarity, honesty and accountability to the people who send us here. Before the election, the Alliance Party told the people who sent it here with a handsome complement of MLAs that it was going to prioritise reform. So far as I can see, not a jot or tittle about reform has been placed on the agenda at the Executive. We need to get serious in this place. Our job is not simply to come here and talk through —

Matthew, your time is up.

— meaningless motion after meaningless motion; our job is —

Time is up.

— to do scrutiny and accountability —

Matthew.

— and to improve the reputation —

Your time is up.

— of this place. I commend the motion. Thank you very much.

Excellent.

The RHI scandal represented an outrageous failure of those behind the scheme not only to operate in a responsible and transparent manner but to make themselves accountable and take responsibility for those failures. The ongoing legacy of RHI not only damaged public confidence in the institutions of the Assembly and the Executive but confidence in politics here as a whole. As my party's environment spokesperson, I find it particularly egregious that the scandal damaged the public perception of renewable energy support schemes in general. It was only right and proper that a full public inquiry, which was called by a previous Sinn Féin Finance Minister, was held into the flawed scheme. I commend the civil servants and others who worked tirelessly on that inquiry for three years.

The recommendations that were made as a result of that inquiry were sensible and reasonable, and they represented much-needed institutional reform. Significant progress has been made in implementing those recommendations, but there is no doubt that there is still more to do. To that end, it is worth remembering that the report's recommendations were made on the cusp of a global pandemic. There was then the absence of the Assembly and Executive for almost two years and the endless efforts of the British Government to strip funding here to the bone, all of which made it much more difficult to implement the recommendations.

Against that backdrop, civil servants have still managed to implement a significant number of the recommendations. I understand that the Finance Minister can assure us that the majority of the outstanding recommendations are largely complete and are just awaiting final checks and authorisation. Still, it is important that the Executive forge ahead with ensuring that the entirety of the report is implemented and, crucially, that the public can see those changes being made and see that they are working. Those are crucial issues in restoring public confidence in politics and ensuring that governance here runs as effectively and efficiently as possible.

The Minister and her Department should have the full support of the Assembly in those endeavours.

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.

I said in a debate just before recess that RHI is the subject that causes dread and fear in the Assembly, but it is important that we deal with the past not for the sake of ticking a box or having a report but to actually allow us to move forward and build confidence in the Assembly for the future.

The Audit Office report highlights the ridiculously slow speed of implementation, and that is made worse when the Assembly does not sit. The report reinforces the damage that the collapse of the Assembly has had on the speed of progress and highlights the delays that happen. Work just stops, and we then try to play catch-up in the time when we are sitting again. It is time that we realise real reform of these institutions.

Why is it important to deal with RHI and to fully implement the report and the recommendations? It is not just about looking at the past; it is about learning from the past. Equally, it is about looking to the future and providing confidence. We can stand up and rant like the leader of the Opposition has just done, but we are achieving nothing. We are failing to deliver the change that we require and that the public deserve.

Will the Member give way?

Yes, OK.

I am happy to be accused of ranting

[Laughter]

but I want to ask something specific since we are having a debate about achieving things. The Member's party put out a response to the Programme for Government yesterday. Why did none of that response, which was made public, call for specific, measurable reform proposals to be in the Programme for Government? I am not aware that there are any.

The Member has an extra minute.

Thank you for the extra minute.

We are the party of reform, and we have been talking about it for a long time. The leader of the Opposition stood up a second ago and said that the Opposition have not been working well and that he hopes that they will start now. I think that the rest of us agree with that.

What?

If you read Hansard, I think that you will find that that was what was said.

Change happens when we work together. The public and our future renewables sector need to be given the confidence that the Departments here are over the detail of what went wrong to allow us to learn lessons and provide assurance for the wider investor that, as we move into new renewable schemes, those schemes are protected. While it is easy to have a dig at the SDLP or at the DUP for creating RHI in the first place, the public need to have the assurance that we, as a collective Assembly, are grown-up enough to work to sort out the issues and move forward while building confidence in the Assembly rather than just having a go. We need to be able to close down RHI while respecting and looking after those who legitimately went into that scheme in good faith. I met some of those owners in the past number of weeks. At the same time as learning from the past, we need to make sure that those people are looked after as we go forward and learn the lessons from the 2020 inquiry.

The Audit Office report indicates that 62% of the inquiry recommendations have now been implemented compared with 43%. Diane Forsythe named a couple of those, and I absolutely agree with her that some of them are necessary and fundamental requirements. However, we need to get on with this, implement the remaining recommendations from the report and move forward.

Unfortunately, the debate a couple of weeks ago on RHI highlighted that the Department for the Economy has further to go on this to bring confidence to our Committee, the Assembly and the public as a whole. The PAC report on the lack of progress in the Department of Finance also highlights that. I said in the debate a couple of weeks ago that I want to support the Minister and want to deliver better for people, but there must be transparency from the Departments to build that confidence and to give us confidence. Actually, on RHI, there is a case that the Department needs to go even further and be absolutely transparent about the issues that we are dealing with and bring full transparency to the Committee and the Assembly so that there is no doubt that all the information is in front of us so that we can make a clear judgement that is based on evidence.

I appreciate that there is a bit of political drama when it comes to the three letters "RHI", and that is what you get in this place, but let us not forget — I want to emphasise this — that people are suffering because of that scheme; they went into it legitimately and are now left with the consequences. Our goal should be to learn from this, to see the reform coming through the Assembly and to look after those people as we move towards closure of the scheme.

All Departments should work together to help decarbonise the region and give us a cleaner environment in which to live, which was the scheme's original purpose. We should look after and protect our environment. The energy sector need to see growth, which has stagnated, and our public need to have energy security. We need to expand quickly if we are to meet our renewables target of 80% by 2030, and we do not have time to waste or for there to be more drama and delay. Rather, we need to move on and learn from the past.

Let us therefore keep our focus on the prize that brings about reform and that leaves the past in the past. We should look after those who were caught up in the scheme and implement the Audit Office proposals quickly in order to give people confidence and to grow confidence in the Assembly and in any future renewable scheme that is introduced.

I thank the Members who tabled the motion, which addresses the Northern Ireland Audit Office's second report on progress made on implementing the RHI public inquiry recommendations. The motion also addresses the critical need for good governance, scrutiny and — here is that word again — transparency in the Assembly.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: the RHI debacle damaged public confidence in our institutions and in this place. Institutional failings, alongside a lack of accountability and responsibility from certain corners of our political sphere, not only failed those who signed up to the scheme but unearthed a series of failings of governance in this institution.

The findings of the Northern Ireland Audit Office's second report, which was published on 15 October, actively demonstrate the urgent need for action. As other Members have said, the report is a damning indictment of the lack of progress made on a number of key Audit Office recommendations. The report makes clear that the Department of Finance has not acted with sufficient pace to implement fully the recommendations following the RHI inquiry almost four and half years ago. That should be extremely concerning, especially when we want to restore public confidence in our institutions. We must implement the report's recommendations in full and without further delay. Partial measures or superficial reforms will not suffice. Rather, we need to demonstrate a genuine commitment to rectifying the mistakes of the past and ensure that such failures do not occur again.

A number of key recommendations must be addressed, such as inadequate risk management, oversight shortcomings and issues in Departments with cultural resistance. The report also highlights the fact that the Executive subcommittee on reform has not met since 2020. That is a glaring oversight that must be addressed immediately. The Minister must urgently address the deficiencies identified in the report, including by re-establishing the Executive subcommittee on reform and ensuring that it meets regularly to oversee the implementation of the recommendations. It is time to turn the page on RHI and get our institutions back on track. Only the Minister is holding us back. Let us commit to the proposed reforms and work together to rebuild the public's faith in our institutions.

The following point has been missing from this debate so far. It is important to note that there are many hard-working individuals in the Northern Ireland Civil Service who contribute daily and substantially to society, but they, just like everyone else, are being failed, and the Northern Ireland Civil Service is in serious need of reform and modernisation. When we get an Audit Office report such as this one, the Assembly needs to sit up and take notice. Although the Finance Minister has had a difficult job since she took up her post, not taking notice is one of her biggest weaknesses. I believe that her Department is letting her down badly in that regard. We therefore need strong leadership in ministerial positions in order to get a grip on the situation.

The Audit Office report is damning, and there is a fear that its findings will not get covered adequately in the debate. I will therefore place on record what the Audit Office report states.

In paragraph 19, the Audit Office states:

"The position has regressed for the Record Keeping theme - this relates to Inquiry Recommendation 28, which required regular audits of record keeping to be undertaken."

Paragraph 20 states:

"In the case of 10 of the Inquiry’s recommendations ... we do not concur with the degree of progress reported in the DoF assessment published in March 2024."

The Audit Office is challenging the Department of Finance's own findings, The Audit Office assessed:

"that the actions taken or planned will not result in the ... recommendations being fully implemented".

In paragraph 21, the Audit Office wishes to draw attention to the fact that the:

"Audit Team encountered difficulty in securing timely access to adequate records in support of" the Department of Finance report in March 2024. Here is a report that the Department of Finance produced in March, yet the Audit Office, mere months later, cannot get access to those details and records. That is damning.

Paragraph 22 states:

"Despite DoF having placed its report on its latest assessment outcomes ... in the public domain during March 2024, we found that a complete and readily accessible audit trail of the relevant documentation was largely absent when ... requested ... in April 2024."

One month later, the information and data is absent. Where is the information?

I thank the Member for giving way and for drawing attention to some of the clear failings. Will the Member agree that this stinks of lessons that have not been learned by the Civil Service and Departments across Northern Ireland, given the huge crisis that was inflicted on our people as a result of RHI a few years ago?

The Member has an extra minute.

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. Yes, I concur that there are failings here, and the failures continue. This is not just something that happened in the past where failure was identified and we have drawn a line under it. We continue every day to see failure in this place. Every day.

I will go to two of the recommendations. Recommendation 39 states:

"Any Minister presenting the Assembly with legislation for approval should sufficiently read and familiarise themselves with that legislation and ensure an adequate evidence base is publicly available to demonstrate that the benefits justify any attendant costs."

Only a matter of weeks ago, we saw the Economy Minister introducing RHI regulations, and the cry from every other party in this place was that they did not have enough detail or enough of the evidence required to make the decisions and vote positively for that legislation. We have had the Justice Minister bring half a Bill to the scrutiny Committee and the Assembly. The Minister has not given the Committee all the clauses that she intends to put in the Bill, yet she expects the scrutiny Committee to scrutinise the Bill — half a Bill. It seems that we have learnt nothing from the inquiry, and the Audit Office report proves that succinctly.

Also in the Department of Finance, an interim transformation board is advising the Minister on how it allocates £235 million of available funds over a five-year period. The board has already stripped away 18 of those projects, yet, when the Committee for Finance asks for letters and correspondence from Jayne Brady, head of that transformation board, to the Minister, the scrutiny Committee is denied access to and sight of that correspondence.

The Member's time is up.

That sums it up perfectly.

In any other place in the world, the story of a state-subsidised scheme to encourage renewable heat would be a humdrum filler. It would appeal to a small section of people and would not encourage much by way of interest or remarkable headlines. Yet, somehow or another, only a few years ago, that very matter was the catalyst for the collapse of the Government here, and it has become synonymous with dysfunction, alarming levels of ineptitude and financial inequality. The last Member to speak hit the nail on the head with a number of those examples. One has to wonder, as many Members have said today, what has actually been learned from that process and how much has changed when it comes to dysfunction.

The renewable heat scheme should have been straightforward, yet it exposed Government Ministers who were not across their brief and civil servants who were out of their depth, all of which was finally brought to light by a respected local journalist and a whistle-blower. It is important to note that it was not brought to light by those who were administering the scheme working out that they had done wrong and needed to change it. It was not their effort to say, "We have to put right something that we did wrong". It took a journalist to amplify that and get the change that was required.

In an effort to address the scheme's failings and ensure that they were not repeated, Sir Patrick Coghlin was charged with leading an inquiry into that scheme. His final report set out all of the recommendations aimed at overhauling practices and implementing safeguards to prevent future governance failures. However, a lot of the damage had already been done, because it was not just wood pellets that went up in smoke as a result of RHI. Trust in our political institutions and political leaders went up in smoke, and trust in the Chamber went to pot as a result of what took place.

In the eyes of the public, the saga had all the hallmarks of a Government doomed to fail: political leaders not seeking the common good; the inequality of overseeing a scheme that some could exploit for profit; and the waste of millions of pounds of public money. Given that Sinn Féin collapsed this place over the RHI scandal and has held the Finance Ministry since Sir Patrick Coghlin's report was published, I would have thought that it would be eager to implement the report's recommendations and help to restore trust in politics. It has the ability to do so through the brief that it has. Yet, as has been demonstrated, many, many years later we still have to wait for the recommendations to be fully implemented.

As has been said, 40% of the recommendations are not fully implemented, and five have not even been started. Just as it took a journalist to find out what was happening with RHI, it has taken the Audit Office report to find out that things have not been implemented. It seems that we just do not learn lessons about being open and getting on with the work that we have to do. We know that reform is a slow burn in most places, but, my God, in this place, it is even slower. The Executive's process of reform has frozen solid. That is such a surprise when, so often, it is Executive parties that shout the loudest about the need for reform.

I thank the Member for giving way. He makes important and valid points. Maybe the Minister will shine some light on the fact that the subcommittee that was established to ensure that the recommendations were implemented has not met in this mandate. Does the Member agree that that is appalling, given what was at stake and what was lost as a result of RHI?

The Member has an extra minute.

Thank you. As the debate goes on, we learn about more and more things that have not taken place. Yet, a massive light has been shone on this, and it asks, "What are you doing? Why is this not happening?" That is a disgrace.

As I was saying, one of the greatest disgraces is seeing those who shout most loudly about reform being more than happy to trot in and take their ministerial positions, get their wages and their spads and not ask for a single commitment to reform in return, yet they will often stand up and say that it is their raison d'être. You just have to make sure that people weigh that up.

The public have a very simple message for the Executive: just get on with it. Do the reform that is required and make sure that there is openness and transparency, and let us build the necessary faith that the public should have in these public institutions.

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 —

Time is up, Timothy.

— in the Assembly, I agree with other Members —

Timothy, time is up.

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

OK. Thank you.

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.

I call the Minister of Finance to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.]

I welcome the opportunity presented by the debate to update Members on the action taken following the RHI inquiry report and to set out some of the significant progress made to date. At the same time, I recognise that more work needs to be done. I am committed to addressing the remaining recommendations in the context of wider transformation, including continuing development and change in the Civil Service.

The recommendations of the RHI inquiry informed an extensive body of change in the Civil Service, the bulk of which has been implemented in the unprecedented context of the COVID pandemic, in the absence of functioning political institutions and against significantly constrained budgetary situations. Members will recall that the inquiry report was published just the week before the COVID lockdown was announced. The pace and intensity of the work put in by Ministers and officials to pivot and respond to a global pandemic, including the allocation of some £3 billion of funding to support lives and livelihoods, puts the implementation of the inquiry's recommendations into perspective. The Audit Office makes no reference to that context in its report.

The fact that an Executive subcommittee, comprising six Ministers, met three times in that context over the course of the second half of 2020 is testimony to the seriousness with which the Executive addressed the challenges of the inquiry report. To be clear, however, under its terms of reference, the subcommittee was to meet after the publication of the inquiry report in order to produce an action plan for implementation of the recommendations flowing out of the RHI inquiry report and to agree a final report to be submitted to the Executive for publication. At its third, and last, meeting on 16 December 2020, it completed its preparation of the action plan. Its final report was agreed by the Executive in October 2021.

Of course, a body of work, which drew upon the evidence to the inquiry as it was heard, had already been initiated by my predecessor in the Department of Finance and by officials in the absence of the inquiry's completion. Opportunities for improvement were identified, and policies and processes were subject to review and revision. The programme of work was widespread and included the revision of the ministerial code, the NICS code of ethics and the code of conduct for special advisers. Those changes have been reflected in a new special adviser letter of appointment, a code of conduct for the appointment of special advisers and special adviser induction; the appointment of ministerial private secretaries at grade 7 and the issue of revised private office guidance; the initiation of work to establish a project delivery profession in the Civil Service; a review of the professional development of Civil Service economists through formal learning and managed rotation around posts; and a review of the use of the electronic records management system and records management practice in Departments.

Following the publication of the inquiry report, further work was taken forward, including the issuing of key guidance on project management; the establishment of project, programme and portfolio offices in each Department; the formalisation of SRO appointments; the introduction of the five-case business model for business cases, reflecting good practice in other Governments; the launch of a cross-departmental raising concerns policy framework to improve the handling of concerns, secure consistency of practice, shift culture towards welcoming concerns being raised and inform the NICS board about what those arrangements show us; the initiation of a strategy for the development of the policy profession in the Civil Service, including the development of new, fundamental guidance for policy teams, which has since been used as the basis for the refreshing of the learning and development offer; the revision of the guidance on the use of consultants; and the commencement of a fundamental review of Civil Service recruitment.

Eleven of the 16 recommendations assessed by the Audit Office as not yet implemented are, in many cases, substantially complete already and are only awaiting completion and verification. In respect of the remaining five, substantive change has already been achieved. The Audit Office's assessment is concerned primarily with the external verification of changes that have already taken place. I will address those recommendations now.

The inquiry recommended that Ministers should read the legislation that they bring to the Assembly and that the evidence should be made available. It is incumbent upon Ministers to familiarise themselves with the legislation that they are presenting to the Assembly for approval. The relevant evidence is published at consultation and scrutinised in the Assembly. The question is not whether the Executive intend to implement that recommendation; it is about whether we can ever put in a dedicated audit process to demonstrate that a Minister knows the legislation or the policy that they are introducing. That is part of the scrutiny function of the Assembly.

The inquiry recommended that external members be appointed to project boards. Having external expertise on project boards is explicitly recommended in the relevant guidance, "Dear Accounting Officer" letter 05/23. The substance of the recommendation has been implemented, and we know that external appointments are made. The Audit Office asked whether the Department of Finance should know whether that guidance is being implemented, separate from the role and responsibilities of the senior responsible officer and the accounting officer. We are exploring how best we might take that recommendation forward.

The inquiry recommended that commercial awareness training be rolled out to relevant staff. A significant range of training on commercial expertise has been provided internally and externally. The specific terms of the recommendation were that decisions about who should access that training should be made at a senior management level. We can potentially address that area.

The inquiry recommended that civil servants should understand and know how to use existing governance frameworks. Further work needs to be done on increasing civil servants' understanding of governance frameworks and policies, and we will seek to deliver that.

The inquiry recommended that regular audits of record-keeping should be undertaken. Significant work has taken place on record management, going beyond the recommendations of the RHI inquiry. That work includes a review of information management policies to identify and address any gaps, taking account of emerging findings from the COVID inquiry; a new mandatory records management e-learning training package being rolled out to all staff; and the reconstitution of the information governance board as the senior information risk owner (SIRO) forum.

The Audit Office report identifies one small element of just one of the recommendations on records management that it assesses as unlikely to be implemented. That is to commission internal audit to review the implementation of the new arrangements. It had always been the intention that internal audit should be commissioned to undertake a thematic review of information management, but no date had been set. Such a review will be of value only once the new arrangements have had a chance to be established and effected, so that we look not just at the implementation of the RHI inquiry recommendations but at further recommendations that have come through the COVID inquiry.

I will move on to Civil Service reform more generally. I believe that Civil Service colleagues should be given every opportunity to do the good job that they want to do, and I agree with Paul Frew that many in our Civil Service do an excellent job and should be commended for it. Making effective change in any large organisation is challenging, but effecting change in a Civil Service that is managed in multiple distinct organisations is complex and demanding. From the outset, it has been clear that changing policies and procedures will not, by itself, change the habits of individuals, but changing the culture and behaviours across the Departments can take place only with an underpinning change in the rules. Corporate policies on HR, financial governance and information management have to make it easier to do a good job, not harder. Changes in policy then have to be combined with a demonstration of leadership by those who set the tone. Ministers and senior officials have to demonstrate and uphold the values that we want our colleagues to embrace. The experience of COVID showed us how Departments can move at pace, managing risk and ensuring proportionate governance and controls. Officials can demonstrate their initiative, innovation and commitment while serving the public through the elected representatives who form the Executive Committee.

I very much appreciate the Minister's giving way. I want to ask about the broader question of reform, including removing the veto and stopping this institution collapsing. Earlier this year, the First Minister and the former Finance Minister, Conor Murphy — the Minister's colleague — said that they were up for a conversation about reform, but they thought that it should happen in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee (AERC). That Committee has met once, briefly, and it did not discuss any detail. Would the Minister be open to that reform agenda going into the Programme for Government?

I thank the Member for his intervention. The appropriate forum is the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. As my colleagues said, we are up for considering that conversation. It is important that the institutions function as effectively as possible, and we should all be committed to delivering on that.

For the future, we should look to build positively on the experience of how Departments functioned at pace and delivered more innovative initiatives throughout COVID. RHI has taught us all that we must acknowledge our scale, collaborate and cooperate to achieve and not only uphold good practice in administration and management but understand why it matters. I have confidence in the Civil Service's commitment to its improvement and development. I am encouraged by the plans that the head of the Civil Service has been developing for effective change across Departments.

As part of that change, I will bring recommendations to the Executive on how the remaining work on the RHI inquiry recommendations is to be taken forward. That work will include a consideration of how delivery will be driven forward, overseen, monitored and recorded. I want change to be driven strategically, following a service-wide analysis of what is needed. I believe that the remaining tasks can be part of a wider agenda for change and development in the Civil Service. They can contribute to more significant and substantial projects, such as the work on Budget sustainability, the projects flowing from the transformation fund or the development of the five-year people strategy.

I note the continued interest among Members in the delivery of change in the Civil Service, Departments and the Executive, and I look forward to working together to secure improved government for the communities that we serve.

I call Sinéad McLaughlin to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Sinéad, you have up to 10 minutes.

Thanks, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank all Members who contributed to the debate. Many recognised that the RHI report released last month by the Audit Office was sobering. It was a reminder of the serious failures in governance and oversight that continue to plague the administration of the RHI scheme. It highlights a lack of progress on implementing the recommendations, which were aimed at preventing a repeat of the original scandal, an inquiry into which, let us not forget, cost the taxpayer £13 million, exposed significant failings in our institutions and damaged public confidence in our devolved Administration. My colleague Matthew O'Toole made it abundantly clear that we are dealing not just with the aftermath of a failed scheme but with a failure to learn from the mistakes and to act on the lessons that were painfully laid out in front of us.

Of the 42 recommendations that came out of the inquiry, 26 have been implemented and 16 remain unaddressed, with five of those unlikely to be fulfilled in line with their original intent. The fact that the Executive subcommittee on reform has not met since 2020 is an indictment of our approach to governance. Indeed, the primary consideration of prioritising party over government is laid bare.

Nicola Brogan said that we were navigating difficult times, including a global pandemic, the absence of functioning institutions and Budget pressures, but those are not valid excuses for neglecting our duty to ensure that the scandal is never repeated. In fact, the lack of urgency and attention to reform further erodes public trust, which was already severely damaged by the original scandal. How can we expect the public to trust us when they see that, despite all that has happened, the necessary changes have not been made?

The Audit Office report also brings to light the issue of record-keeping. Diane Forsythe, Paul Frew, Timothy Gaston, Gerry Carroll and all my colleagues who spoke expressed anger and alarm at the fact that record-keeping practices have deteriorated since the most recent review in 2022, making it difficult to verify and monitor the recommendations' progress. I am afraid that the Minister's response on that aspect makes me think that I am living in a parallel universe. It was one of the core issues that led to the original scandal, and it appears that the lessons that we should have learnt remain unheeded.

Actions in recent weeks illustrate poor transparency and poor governance. Regression in that area is a clear signal that there is a systemic problem in our Civil Service. It is a problem characterised by a lack of training and transparency and by gross incompetence in the handling of such a critical matter. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better. They deserve accountability. If we are to have serious government that serves the interests of people, reform is not just an option but an absolute necessity.

David Honeyford says that Alliance is the party of reform. If so, it needs to start prioritising reform around the Executive table. The pace of progress has been far too slow, and the excuses have been worn out.

I thank the Member for giving way. This is a debate on RHI, which is really serious, and we have had very serious contributions from the DUP, from the Ulster Unionists, from me, from Sinn Féin and from People Before Profit about this debate, yet the SDLP — the official Opposition — has chosen to attack Alliance consistently on it. You have had three rants on it, so can I ask when and how and if it is possible for the SDLP to actually scrutinise and actually be the Opposition?

I apologise, because you are obviously uncomfortable with the level of scrutiny that we are giving you.

We were told that the RHI scandal could never be repeated, yet here we stand, debating the very recommendations that should have been implemented by now. It is evident that, without robust mechanisms for oversight and accountability, we will continue to stumble from crisis to crisis. The Executive subcommittee on reform must be re-established immediately, with a renewed sense of purpose and urgency. We need clear, measurable outcomes for reform, and those must be embedded in the final Programme for Government to ensure that the required changes are not merely aspirational but fully actionable and tracked over time. That point was well made by my colleagues Colin McGrath and Daniel McCrossan.

We owe it to the public to demonstrate that we are capable of learning from our mistakes and committed to addressing the deficiencies identified in the Audit Office report. Reforming our institutions is not merely about responding to a past scandal; it is about ensuring that the systems that we have in place can withstand future challenges and deliver competent, transparent government. We must act decisively to restore public trust. That begins with implementing all outstanding recommendations from the RHI public inquiry without further delay. Diana Armstrong also made that point very well.

I thank the Minister for her response, but I urge the Minister of Finance to take the report seriously and accelerate her efforts to address the deficiencies identified by the Audit Office.

I thank the Member for giving way. She makes a valid point, particularly pointing at the Minister of Finance, given that it was the Minister's party that was so appalled by RHI — they shared our frustration with what was happening — that it collapsed the institutions. Does the Member agree that it is shocking that these failings are happening on her watch?

I agree, and I hope that the Minister has heard the frustration across the House today.

In conclusion, I ask all Members to support the motion, because it is time for us to acknowledge the depth of the failures and to act upon them with the urgency and seriousness that they demand. Let us not wait for another crisis to force our hand. Let us take the necessary steps now to protect the public interest and restore the faith in our institutions, which has been severely damaged even in the past couple of weeks. It is only through decisive action that we can show the people of Northern Ireland that their Government are, indeed, committed to learning from the past and delivering for the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly acknowledges the findings of the Northern Ireland Audit Office’s (NIAO) second report on progressing implementation of the renewable heat incentive (RHI) public inquiry recommendations, published on 15 October 2024, which highlights the outstanding issues and a lack of progress regarding the implementation of these recommendations; expresses serious concern that the Department of Finance has not acted with sufficient pace to fully implement the report’s recommendations; expresses regret that the Executive subcommittee on reform has not met since 2020; calls on the Minister of Finance to urgently accelerate efforts to address the deficiencies identified by the report, ensuring that all recommendations are implemented without further delay; and further calls on the Minister to work with Executive colleagues to re-establish the Executive subcommittee on reform as a matter of urgency and to include clear outcomes for reform in the final Programme for Government.

Motion made: That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.]