Cash for ash scandal: Everybody is to blame, nobody is to blame

Coghlin report has described RHI scheme as a tragicomedy of ‘errors and omissions’

Arlene Foster at Stormont, following the publication of Sir Patrick Coghlin’s report into the renewable heat incentive scheme. Photograph: Liam McBurney/PA Wire

Arlene Foster at Stormont, following the publication of Sir Patrick Coghlin’s report into the renewable heat incentive scheme. Photograph: Liam McBurney/PA Wire

 

The calamitous cash for ash scheme was the scandal that brought down the Northern Executive and Assembly just over three years ago. There was a real fear that Sir Patrick Coghlin’s report into the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme might bring it crashing down again, just two months since it was restored.

There seems little chance of that happening now that the retired court of appeal judge has published his 656-page, 270,000-word doorstop of a report.

So who is to blame? Well, according to the report, it seems that everybody is to blame and nobody’s to blame.

Probably the politician who had most to fear from the inquiry was the DUP leader and First Minister Arlene Foster. The scheme came in under her supposed watch when she was minister at the North’s Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) in 2012.

The trouble was she wasn’t properly watching, a fact she herself acknowledged again on Friday when repeating her apology for her “failings” and saying that, embarrassingly, she hadn’t read the technical legislation but rather the explanatory notes.

Coghlin reprimanded her for that omission but gave her an out by finding that her officials “incorrectly” told her that RHI was value for money. He also chided that she should not have signed off on a document when it lacked the necessary costs information.

That slap on the wrist seemed hardly sufficient to justify any calls for Foster to stand down.

Coghlin gave the DUP special political advisers or spads a fair old rattle and, applying the Ladybird idiots guide to politics, advised that “Ministerial decisions should be taken by Ministers and by no one else.”

But again a surely cheerful DUP press office was able to respond quickly by quoting the report: “Corrupt or malicious activity on the part of officials, Ministers, or special advisers was not the cause of what went wrong with the NI RHI scheme.” The word “not” was in bold and underlined.

Northern Ireland civil servants too were criticised, particularly the officials in Foster’s old DETI department. Coghlin referred to the officials’ failure to spot the “perverse incentive” where the more boiler users spent, the more they earned, getting £1.60 back in subsidies for every pound they spent on boilers.

Coghlin’s bottom line was that the DETI “should never have embarked” on such a “risky”, under-sourced and misunderstood venture.

Sinn Féin suffered a little censure. That was for former Sinn Féin minister for finance Máirtín Ó Muilleoir seeking permission from senior kitchen cabinet member Ted Howell before he would sanction the imposition of cost-cutting measures on the scheme.

Cock-a-hoop

If the DUP hierarchy was relieved, Sinn Féin was cock-a-hoop. Deputy First Minister Michelle O’Neill, whose former agriculture department had promoted RHI when she was in charge, felt emboldened to describe the whole scandal as the “DUP’s RHI fiasco”.

Still, in terms of wider politics, there will be relief that the RHI report is unlikely to wreck the restored Executive and Assembly, even if Sinn Féin, in particular, feels there is capital to be gained at the expense of the DUP.

The security of the institutions appeared implicit when O’Neill said, “Sinn Féin is committed to the political institutions, but they must operate differently from what went before, with a new kind of politics, which is progressive, respectful, and has integrity.”

Overall there is a judicial legal restraint to Coghlin’s report. It is fair, detailed and objective, and while more may emerge as we dig deeper into the report, it doesn’t appear to reflect the public outrage at the scheme.

Coghlin characterises it, in the main, as a tragicomedy of “errors and omissions” and an “accumulation and compounding” of those mistakes.

The Irish Times Logo
Commenting on The Irish Times has changed. To comment you must now be an Irish Times subscriber.
SUBSCRIBE
GO BACK
Error Image
The account details entered are not currently associated with an Irish Times subscription. Please subscribe to sign in to comment.
Comment Sign In

Forgot password?
The Irish Times Logo
Thank you
You should receive instructions for resetting your password. When you have reset your password, you can Sign In.
The Irish Times Logo
Please choose a screen name. This name will appear beside any comments you post. Your screen name should follow the standards set out in our community standards.
Screen Name Selection

Hello

Please choose a screen name. This name will appear beside any comments you post. Your screen name should follow the standards set out in our community standards.

The Irish Times Logo
Commenting on The Irish Times has changed. To comment you must now be an Irish Times subscriber.
SUBSCRIBE
Forgot Password
Please enter your email address so we can send you a link to reset your password.

Sign In

Your Comments
We reserve the right to remove any content at any time from this Community, including without limitation if it violates the Community Standards. We ask that you report content that you in good faith believe violates the above rules by clicking the Flag link next to the offending comment or by filling out this form. New comments are only accepted for 3 days from the date of publication.