Sinn Fein release proposed terms of reference for RHI investigation

Sinn Fein released their proposed terms of references for an investigation into the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme.

The Opposition Parties were critical on Talkback with Naomi Long and Mike Nesbitt voicing concerns about the proposals

The DUP response

<blockquoteclass=”twitter-tweet” data-lang=”en”>

Asked by my colleague @FermanaghJulian if she’d accept @sinnfeinireland terms for inquiry @DUPleader said “no”

— Gareth Gordon (@BBCGarethG) January 6, 2017


 

, ,

  • mickfealty

    Bizarre. Naomi Long nailed it when she said she cannot understand why Sinn Fein “cannot bring themselves to call for a full public inquiry”.

    This needs legislation (meaning it is meaningless). It’s almost as though SF was trying to create a retractable paper crisis.

    Or they are just making it up as they go along.

  • JOHN TURLEY

    Arlene is dragging not just the D.U.P but all the people of the North
    back in time to a place it took so long to get away from,playing the
    gender and sectarian card is despicable.She is the first minister and
    needs to have respect for all the people in the North
    No doubt Sinn Fein have played this very bad and have made it easy for her. Time will tell if she can con the electorate. it may be different when it costs the taxpayer..

  • Gopher

    Note the use of the word “protocol” to get the ambiguity up and running from the get go and referenced back to everytime disclosure is mentioned.

  • mickfealty

    There’s plenty of blame to go around John. The regicide attempt originated on the opposition benches.

    http://sluggerotoole.com/2016/12/21/there-are-important-lessons-from-the-oppositions-failed-rhi-attempt-at-political-regicide/

  • Anthony O’Shea

    Its difficult to see any justification in the position of Long and Nesbitt etc. Given that the SF terms pretty much cover every angle. Rather than make it up as they go along it would appear they have carefully considered the advice of experts outside their own ranks. The only difference between the SF proposals and a full public enquiry is that the SF effort will cost far less and be concluded far quicker. It seems people are really just looking for something to complain about rather than seriously consider the document. The default position for many is that if the idea is a SF idea then it has to be wrong. Fair enough, but its clear a public enquiry is not going to happen, its clear that Arlene will have to step aside for a time and its clear that the draft terms have a more than reasonable chance of getting to the cause of the fire. lets go with that and stop trying to dance on the head of a pin.

  • Anthony O’Shea

    There is only one source for the blame over the origins of the issue, and thats the DUP. No matter what way its spun, the DUP caused it and are now actively blocking its investigation. The people are not fools.

    http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/poll-arlene-fosters-leadership-rating-plummets-from-49-to-29-35345193.html

  • Jag

    You have to hand it to SF for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

    SF’s fingerprints are nowhere near the RHI scandal directly, neither its politicians, advisers nor natural constituents; the scheme is predicted to cost £400m+ in overspend in the next 20 years, whistleblowers have damned the DUP, Jonathan Bell has thrown many of his senior political colleagues under a bus, the media has beared down on the scandal with unprecedented vigour, the Opposition is united, and the cross-community is bloody cross, and yet…… SF manage to balls up the response.

    The ad-hoc probe above will fail as soon as the first significant witness tells the probe to sod off. What legal powers does it have to compel witnesses? None, and even if it did have, it would be open to endless legal challenges and appeal.

    What does the above probe do that a proper public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 couldn’t do? Nothing.

    And now, the public will validly question SF’s motives. Is it sacrificing probity in government to preserve this administration. SF will deny it, but even its supporters will find the SF’s position and competence hard to accept.

  • Redstar

    Surely if the Shinners won’t back a public inquiry and probably no one will back this dogs dinner Poundland inquiry they are proposing,- why don’t all parties walk away from the Dup and put the pointless shambles on the hill out of its misery

  • Redstar

    SF sacrificing everything for the sake of clinging onto their role as establishment “bitch” -surely not!!!!!!

  • Jag

    A kangaroo inquiry

  • eireanne3

    Looks like SF is proposing a form of non-statutory Public Inquiry

    http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN02599

  • Redstar

    If you wanted proof that the SF proposed inquiry was a shambles that would never get to the bottom of things, Arlene has now welcomed it!!! ( apart from when she steps temporarily aside)

  • mickfealty

    The model they are describing does not exist Anthony. It’s a fantasy. What it also is, is an intermediate move towards the DUP. Sammy Wilson suddenly purring.

  • Anthony O’Shea

    Is it a model that could be brought into existence?

  • Redstar

    Well Mick now that Arlenes all for it ( minor suspension aside) how rigorous do you think it’s really gonna be

  • articles

    With the return of Stephen Nolan imminent, we are now about to enter the next stage of the “cash for ash” crisis and Stephen is sure to raise the temperature once again, and the expectation from all quarters is high. However continued media coverage at this level is surely not sustainable and when the blame game resumes there will be increasing public pressure to get it sorted beginning with settlement of the Investigation TOR. That is of course unless the blame game can be fuelled by further disclosures. Does anybody know if Nolan is back on Monday?

  • grumpy oul man

    snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
    One lesson they seem to have learned from unionists.

  • JOHN TURLEY

    Spreading the blame may be clever from the first
    ministers point of view,however drawing the IRA and her gender into it is just treating the taxpayers as fools..