ARLENE FOSTER–INTIMIDATED???
Posted By: December 17, 2016
***
Nothing principled in those who are cute
Patrick Murphy. Irish News (Belfast). Saturday, December 17, 2016
The Stormont executive’s increasingly battered reputation – further damaged by Thursday’s astonishing interviews with Jonathan Bell and Arlene Foster – can be traced to its behavior as an Irish, rather than a British institution. Although legally British, its governance and decision-making are a crude imitation of the Dublin government’s long tradition of what is affectionately known as “cute hoorism.”
Liberally translated, the phrase refers to the use of state power and resources for electoral, party or personal gain: a hospitality tent here, a “dig-out” there.
Ireland’s experience is part of a wider post-colonial pattern in which governments of newly independent states maintain the colonial practice of patronage and privilege, usually with a new flag and a stirring national anthem. (Think of how British rule in Ireland was eventually replaced by, for example, Charlie Haughey’s governments.)
The North is not a post-colonial state, but it acts in a post-colonial manner, with the natives now running part of the show. They have displayed remarkable diligence in adhering to the old Stormont’s noble tradition of skewing government policy to benefit friends in high places – and a few low ones as well.
Of course, all governments use power to some extent for electoral advantage, but the British, for example, do it in style: a knighthood here, an arms deal there.
Stormont does it with no style at all, as evidenced by four major scandals from a long and scandalous list: Red Sky, Nama, the Social Investment Fund and most recently, the Renewable Heating Incentive.
In the Red Sky affair, an investigative committee found that former social development minister, Nelson McCausland, had behaved improperly in seeking to extend a public contract with a now-defunct housing firm.
The committee found the decision was ‘politically motivated.’ A DUP petition of concern blocked any assembly action against the minister. Charlie Haughey would have been envious.
Then there was the sale of Nama’s northern properties, now the subject of a criminal inquiry. There have been allegations of a £7.5 million fee finding its way to an Isle of Man bank, destined ultimately for those familiar with Stormont’s greasy till. We still do not know the full story of how the biggest property sale in Ireland was handled.
Meanwhile, Stormont’s Social Investment Fund gave almost £2 million to Charter NI, which is headed by a man linked to the UDA, an organization which the PSNI (but not the Stormont executive) believes is engaged in criminal activity.
That brings us to the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI), a trough full of taxpayers’ money, which attracted the snouts of those with political and business connections to an increasingly dodgy-looking executive.
(Britain has the Nolan principles for behavior in public office. Stormont is guided by the Nolan Show.)
I have worked with (or under) about half a dozen permanent secretaries and some other senior civil servants. All of them were risk-averse, professionally cautious and meticulous about detail, particularly in financial matters.
No permanent secretary whom I knew would have failed to warn the minister of the scheme’s risks. Anyone can make a mistake, but the heating initiative smacks more of political greed gone wrong, than civil service incompetence.
Stormont’s attempt to replicate cute hoorism is founded on its 16 special advisers (Spads), secretly appointed on a salary of up to £90,000.
The argument against direct rule was that unelected civil servants ran the place. Now unelected Spads run the place, often (but not always) without the same understanding of government accountancy, or the same eye for financial and ethical detail. Arlene and Martin have eight Spads between them. The Welsh assembly has eight in total.
Politics now permeates (some might say contaminates) the civil service. Most Spads carry more weight than permanent secretaries on policy direction and in advising civil servants on how to prepare ministerial answers to assembly questions.
We do not know who authorized the many flaws in the RHI scheme, but it is unlikely to have been civil servants. The answer can best be found by following the money to those who benefitted.
All Stormont’s leading politicians (except Jim Allister) supported the introduction of the current Stormont system. This column has long suggested that institutionalized sectarianism is no way to run a government. It facilitates mutual maladministration, often under the pretense of peace and always in the knowledge that a petition of concern can block any investigation.
Bringing Arlene Foster to the Public Accounts Committee, without changing the Stormont system, is the equivalent of stamp collecting. All that will happen is that those in power will have learned the first law of the noble Irish art of cute hoorism. It states that even in Irish politics, arrogance is no substitute for cuteness.
****
Claims require investigation
Posted By: December 17, 2016
Irish News (Belfast). Editorial.Saturday 17 December 2016
On these pages yesterday, Irish News columnist Alex Kane wrote about the ugly face of what passes for normal politics in Northern Ireland.
The viewing public who watched Stephen Nolan’s interviews with Jonathan Bell and Arlene Foster on Thursday night will have seen for themselves not just the ugliness of our political system but the sort of vitriolic, back-stabbing, deeply personal nastiness taking place within the ranks of the biggest party in the north.
The Renewable Heating Incentive saga has taken a number of twists in recent weeks, but few could have predicted that a former DUP minister would break ranks and point the finger of blame at his leader and first minister.
After Mr. Bell’s emotional interview setting out his version of events, Mrs. Foster then hit back in terms that left people in no doubt that she was determined to fight for her position and would use whatever means she considered necessary.
Thus we had her firm rebuttal of Mr. Bell’s allegations in relation to the RHI scheme, but she went much further, engaging in what Jim Allister described as “character assassination” of her party and assembly colleague.
It was a particularly unedifying aspect of the entire, quite remarkable, interview during which Mrs. Foster looked distinctly uncomfortable.
Aside from the jaw-dropping sight of two senior DUP figures tearing lumps out of each other on late night television, Mr. Bell’s claims are significant and need further investigation.
At the very least, the emails, notes, letters and other documents relating to this botched scheme need to be put into the public domain.
Mr. Bell also made serious allegations about the role of special advisers who worked for Peter Robinson and Mrs. Foster.
This is another aspect of the entire affair which is frankly disturbing and if nothing else there needs to be a root and branch review of how these key officials are appointed and operate.
Special advisers hold central positions in government but are not elected, or selected by an open recruitment process. They are there to provide advice, but the suggestion is they wield considerable influence in the Stormont system, particularly those working for the DUP.
Questions also need to be asked about the number of special advisers. Stormont has 16 in total while the Welsh Assembly, dealing with a larger population, has just eight.
Why do we need too many highly paid special advisers and what exactly is their role in the day to day running of government?
There is no doubt the DUP – and Arlene Foster in particular – are damaged by the unraveling RHI scandal.
The opposition parties will seek to exploit this weakness and such is the nature of politics.
As partners in government, Sinn Féin’s position is different and in that context Martin McGuinness’s intervention yesterday, calling for Mrs. Foster to step aside while an investigation takes place, has to be seen as a significant development with major implications for the executive.
***
Arlene’s recall of “whistleblower” approach differs from her deputy’s
Posted By: December 17, 2016
NO LAUGHING MATTER: Arlene Foster’s initial explanation to Spotlight about an email on RHI contradicted that of DUP deputy leader Nigel Dodds earlier this week
Paul Ainsworth. Irish News (Belfast).Saturday, December 17, 2016
Arlene Foster’s explanation for how she handled an approach from a “whistleblower” appears to contradict an earlier attempt by her DUP deputy Nigel Dodds to label efforts to blame her for the RHI fiasco as a “witch hunt.”
The North Belfast MP came out fighting for his party leader this week when he criticized those trying to pinpoint the First Minister as responsible for failing to prevent monumental financial losses through the botched scheme.
Mr. Dodds called claims Ms. Foster was responsible “scurrilous” and said the “endlessly repeated” allegation she failed to follow up on concerns sent to her by a whistleblower was not true.
“Now we know that no such concerns were raised with her,” he said, as a copy of the email was revealed to the public by the DUP that the party said showed no pressing concern over the possible exploitation of the RHI.
However, in Thursday’s dramatic interview with Stephen Nolan, Ms. Foster was confronted with her claim made to BBC Spotlight journalists that a whistleblower did, in fact, make allegations about RHI to her in 2013 that she then passed on to departmental officials to investigate.
The First Minister insisted she had passed on “correspondence” to her staff, but said she was not aware there were no concerns in the email until it was found a period of time after she spoke with the Spotlight team.
She said that as the BBC did not provide her with a copy of the correspondence, she had to “go on memory” when referring to the contents of the email.
“I couldn’t remember what was in the letter,” she told Nolan.
She continued: “Are you seriously expecting me to know the content of every letter that’s sent to me?
“I didn’t have the letter. You have the letter, but you chose not to share that letter with your listeners, Stephen. Something which I regret deeply because of course you could have assisted in all of this and decided not to.”
Following a terse exchange, Ms. Foster insisted the email “wasn’t a whistleblowing letter at all, but was just a letter that came in about energy efficiency.”
When pressed by Nolan that her comments to Spotlight gave the “distinct impression” she believed the email to contain whistleblowing, she apologized.
“I passed the letter and whatever was in the letter to officials. I was being hounded for not following up on that letter. It now turns out the reason I didn’t follow up on the letter was the fact that there were no whistleblowing claims in the letter at all.”
Former DUP councilor Ruth Patterson, and former Sinn Fein councilor Brendan Curran have spoken up in defense of DUP MLA Jonathan Bell
Irish News (Belfast). Saturday, December 17, 2016
DUP MLA Jonathan Bell is “courteous, kind and respectful” as well as being far from the “monster” portrayed in Thursday’s explosive interview with First Minister Arlene Foster, it has been claimed by two representatives at opposite end of the political spectrum.
Former DUP councilor Ruth Patterson spoke up in defense of her old party colleague as others loyal to Arlene Foster rallied to the first minister’s side during the opening of a DUP constituency office in south Belfast yesterday.
In previous years, such an event would have been attended by Ms. Patterson, as it took place in the loyalist heartland of her own constituency.
However, a row over the DUP refusing to put forward Ms. Patterson as an assembly candidate saw her quit the party and run, unsuccessfully, for Stormont as an independent unionist earlier this year.
Prior to her departure from the party, Cllr Patterson was flanked by Mr. Bell when she attended court hearings in 2013.
The outspoken councilor had been charged with sending a grossly offensive electronic communication after posting a Facebook comment about a planned republican march through the Co Tyrone town of Castlederg, in which she responded to another user’s post outlining an imaginary attack on those taking part.
Speaking to The Irish News about her dealings with Mr. Bell, who had criticized her arrest as “sensational,” Cllr Patterson said: “I always found Jonathan to be very courteous, kind and respectful. He never came across to me as being aggressive.
“Arlene Foster would need more evidence to prove these claims.”
She added that Ms. Foster should “step aside” while the RHI scandal is investigated.
“She needs to do what Peter Robinson did,” she said, referring to Ms. Foster’s first stint as acting First Minister in 2010 when Mr. Robinson temporarily stood down over a financial scandal involving his wife, Iris.
Meanwhile, a former Sinn Féin councilor has also defended Mr. Bell from Ms. Foster’s description of him as “aggressive.”
Brendan Curran, a former Newry councilor who left Sinn Féin in 2013, said Mr. Bell was “cordial” with him, despite the history between the DUP and his party.
“He was never aggressive and in fact, was a wry, witty man,” Mr. Curran said.
“The person Arlene Foster seethingly described on TV is not the person I recall from my experience with him.”
Mr. Curran, who said his work with the NI Housing Council led him to cross paths with the DUP MLA – himself a former councilor in both Craigavon and Ards – added: “If this man was the monster she made him out to be, what did she do about it?
“If he was renowned for being abusive or aggressive to women, then why was nothing done about it? It’s very, very easy to take away someone’s character.”
First Minister Arlene Foster says she was intimidated by Jonathan Bell during a disputed conversation.
Allison Morris. Irish News (Belfast). Saturday, December 17, 2016
First Minister Arlene Foster says she was intimidated by Jonathan Bell during a disputed conversation.
Arlene Foster is a woman who prides herself on the strength of character and almost never plays the ‘woman’ card.
It is, however, a sad reality that almost all successful women in business or politics have to surrender a degree of their femininity to rise through the ranks.
After all, any sign of weakness will be seized upon and exploited, the first hint of emotion and risk being labeled ‘hysterical’ and overlooked for promotion in favor of a male colleague.
Have children, and you’re accused of not being up to the job. Don’t have children and risk being labeled ruthless and power hungry.
Arlene Foster did not get to lead the male-dominated Free Presbyterian party of Dr. Paisley and become Northern Ireland’s first minister by being a walk-over. It’s hard to imagine any man being brave enough to tell her to ‘stick the kettle’ on.
So her astonishing claims to the BBC’s Stephen Nolan that she felt bullied by former minister and RHI fall guy Jonathan Bell raised a few eyebrows.
Misogyny is rife in politics and women who are subject to either casual or overt sexism are more likely to remain silent rather than risk damaging their career by being seen as a “troublemaker.’
And so to dismiss the first minister’s claim that she felt intimidated by Bell’s behavior during a much-disputed confrontation is to assume that being a strong woman immediately means you can’t be bullied, and that’s simply not true.
I like to think I’m pretty tough but there are times I’ve felt intimidated by men while trying to do my job and it’s a deeply unpleasant experience.
If this was a result of his alleged bullying will no doubt now be much debated – but it does raise serious questions for Mrs. Foster.
If, and it’s a big if, Mr. Bell was intimidating his female party colleagues then why was he not reprimanded earlier?
Arlene Foster and Jonathan Bell. Photo: Presseye
Sam Mc Bride. News Letter. Belfast. Saturday, December 17, 2016
What just a fortnight ago seemed preposterous – that Arlene Foster could be out of office within months – has over the last 48 hours become increasingly plausible.
Even with the scale of the current crisis, such a scenario is still unlikely. But it is no longer unthinkable.
Mrs .Foster retains enormous support within the DUP and there are scant indications of any significant internal move against her.
By contrast to her predecessor, Peter Robinson, who had under his belt a host of crises and myriad enemies, Mrs. Foster is still a fresh leader with a relatively clean slate.
And – crucially, given that it is the DUP Assembly group which elects the leader – she is particularly popular within that segment of the party, not least because her stunning electoral success in May’s election saw all 38 MLAs retain their seats when several feared for their futures.
By contrast, Jonathan Bell was not a popular figure within the DUP even before his spectacular full-frontal assault on its key leadership figures, both elected and unelected.
Nevertheless, Mrs. Foster is arguably facing a greater crisis than that which enveloped Mr. Robinson after the BBC Spotlight revelations about his wife, Iris.
By contrast to that situation – which, aside from his wife’s affair, centered on the relatively small sum of £50,000 from two property developers – Mrs. Foster is accused of having been central to the construction and oversight of a scheme responsible for waste on an astronomically larger scale.
The consequences of £400 million being stripped out of budgets for hospitals, schools, and roads over the next 20 years are easily understood by voters and highly emotive.
It now seems clear that there will be some form of independent inquiry. At this juncture, the critical decision is what form that takes. There is precedent from Peter Robinson’s era of a QC being brought in to give a legal opinion on the situation – essentially the weakest option, operating behind closed doors and (as in the case of Mr. Robinson) the legal opinion may never be published.
At the other end of the scale, a judge-led public inquiry set up under the Inquiries Act would be in public, would have the power to compel witnesses and papers (including bank statements) and would, if it cleared Mrs. Foster, allow her to conclusively put this episode behind her.
There would be a cost – perhaps more than a million pounds, if hearings were to last for months.
But, given the scale of the squander in this case and the imperative for getting to the truth, that now seems like a reasonable price to pay for restoring confidence not just in the First Minister but in all of Stormont.
But that decision is for the DUP and Sinn Fein to take. The DUP’s clear reluctance for such an inquiry and Sinn Fein’s warm relations with Mrs. Foster’s party over recent months mean that a less far-reaching form of probe is likely to ultimately be deemed sufficient.
***
“Cash for ash” row takes new twist as Jonathan Bell to sue Arlene Foster over comments
Ex-minister poised to launch legal action against party leader, while McGuinness calls for her to step aside temporarily while investigation into RHI scandal is carried out
By Suzanne Breen.Belfast Telegraph.Saturday, December 17, 2016
DUP MLA Jonathan Bell is set to sue First Minister Arlene Foster over comments she made about him when the pair appeared in an extraordinary TV show earlier this week.
An astonishing war of words erupted as they hit out at each other’s handling of the “cash for ash” scheme in separate interviews with the BBC’s Stephen Nolan.
However, Thursday’s clash has taken a new twist as Mr. Bell was last night poised to launch legal proceedings against his party leader.
The former Enterprise Minister has instructed his solicitor Paul Tweed to sue Mrs. Foster for defamation following comments she made during her BBC NI interview.
The First Minister made certain allegations about Mr. Bell’s behavior during the interview relating to his conduct generally and during a meeting with her concerning the botched energy scheme.
She alleged that the Jonathan Bell who appeared in the TV interview “is not a Jonathan Bell that would be familiar to many of his political colleagues, too many of his civil servants that he worked with in the department, or too many in the business community.”
Mr. Bell has robustly denied the First Minister’s claims and has told friends that he is determined to pursue the matter in the courts.
When contacted by the Belfast Telegraph last night, Mr. Tweed refused to comment.
The Strangford DUP MLA has given an entirely different account of the Stormont meeting in which he alleges there was a “hostile” atmosphere of “fear” and Mrs. Foster was “highly agitated and angry” with him.
She has strongly denied his account.
Mr. Bell’s decision to sue Mrs. Foster follows him recently successfully settling a defamation case he brought against Northern Ireland’s Chamber of Commerce and its head, Anne McGregor, in a row over the Brexit campaign. Mr. Tweed also declined to comment on that legal action.
In his explosive BBC interview, Mr. Bell claimed that Mrs. Foster had overruled him from immediately shutting down the catastrophic Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme, which will cost taxpayers an estimated £400m.
Mrs. Foster has claimed that he is making the allegations to mask his own failings and that he wanted to run the scheme for longer than she did.
Martin McGuinness yesterday called on her to “stand aside” as First Minister while the scandal was investigated.
The Deputy First Minister said he was concerned that “credibility of the political institutions is being undermined.”
His intervention came after growing pressure from nationalist grass roots that Sinn Fein takes a tougher stand against the DUP on the issue.
Mr. McGuinness told Mrs. Foster that, in light of “allegations from a former DUP minister that there was corruption”, it was in the public interest that she step down while an investigation was under way “at least until an initial assessment has been concluded into the veracity of all the allegations”.
Mr. McGuinness said that were he in the same situation, he would temporarily stand aside. The SDLP and the Ulster Unionists have already demanded that Mrs. Foster step down.
In response to the Deputy First Minister’s call, the DUP said that Mrs. Foster “does not take her instructions from Sinn Fein, but from the electorate”.
A party spokesman added: “The First Minister will not be stepping aside, but instead is focused on ensuring the full facts about this issue emerge and proposals are brought forward which can make a significant reduction in the future financial burden the Executive would face.”
SDLP leader Colum Eastwood welcomed that Mr.McGuinness had finally moved “to adopt the position of authority that Opposition parties have already taken”. He added that “this is not a time for further equivocation”.
Mrs. Foster faces a Ministerial Exclusion Motion on Monday as the Assembly is recalled for a special sitting to discuss the growing political crisis. The SDLP secured the 30 signatures necessary to bring forward its motion to suspend the First Minister for six months to allow for an investigation.
The motion was supported by Ulster Unionist, Alliance, Green Party, People Before Profit and Traditional Unionist Voice Members.
Alliance leader Naomi Long said that a judge-led inquiry would be “the best way to uncover the truth on behalf of the public.”
UUP leader Mike Nesbitt said that Mr. Bell’s “characterisation of Spads running the show” at Stormont was “consistent with my experience of how the DUP operates.”
***
RHI scandal: Aversion and cynicism to the fore after an extraordinarily depressing week in venomous bear pit that is Northern Ireland politics
Editor’s Viewpoint. Belfast Telegraph. Saturday, December 17, 2016
By the extraordinary standards of Northern Ireland politics, the events of the last few days have been totally remarkable.
The bitter confrontations between former allies and the fast-moving developments which could threaten Stormont are like a TV drama.
We have to ask if our politics is mired in total apathy, or even worse, in aversion and cynicism.
The scale and calamitous nature of the Renewable Heating Incentive scandal and the £400m committed to ‘cash for ash’ is a fiasco. It reflects badly on our governing classes and their failure to prevent this catastrophe. This has had bizarre results, including Thursday’s BBC NI program and the sight of Mr. Bell on his knees in prayer before his interview, as well as the naked hostility of the main participants.
This, in turn, has led to the grave development where Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness has asked Mrs. Foster to step aside during a possible inquiry, and receiving a salty reply that she had no intention of doing so.
All of this underlines that politics here can be a real bear pit, often more brutal and dramatic than the fiction portrayed on television. This latest ‘Stormontgate’ has all the trappings of The West Wing or The Thick Of It, with the details of ‘Spads’, confrontation and back room machinations.
However, is it all that glamorous? There is a compelling case for a public inquiry that might just might, make our politics more effective and transparent.
One wonders, however, if all this will turn off our young, aspiring politicians at a time when we badly need new talent.
McGuinness’s call offers most pragmatic way to move forward
John Manley, Irish News (Belfast). Saturday
Until yesterday evening Sinn Féin had been carefully treading the thin line that saw it voice outrage at the scale of the RHI scandal yet refuse to lay blame at the feet of Arlene Foster, who as minister for enterprise oversaw the scheme that is forecast to cost Stormont £400 million over the next 20 years.
While it left the party open to criticism, there was a general acknowledgment that condemning Mrs. Foster would plunge the institutions into crisis. However, developments over the past 48 hours meant its tightrope strategy was no longer sustainable, as it would leave the party exposed to justifiable claims that it was going soft.
The potentially knockout blow was delivered in a velvet glove, in language that was measured rather than aggressive. Mr. McGuinness ensured he played the ball rather than the man, so to speak.
His remarks are an interesting prelude to Monday’s assembly debate where the SDLP has tabled a motion of no confidence in the DUP leader. The motion is destined to fall because it requires cross-community consent but if Sinn Féin votes with the opposition then Mrs. Foster position becomes untenable.
Arguably, Mr. McGuinness’s call offers the most pragmatic route forward, providing an opportunity to reduce the relentless heat that threatens the combustion of the institutions. The suggestion that his Stormont Castle counterpart take a sabbatical has echoes of how Peter Robinson maneuvered after the Irisgate scandal broke. Then there was a period when the first minister stepped aside and an independent investigation was carried out which ultimately vindicated him – albeit in a private report that was never made public and could never be scrutinized.
The difference with this scandal is that despite Mrs. Foster’s assertion that she can’t be across “every jot and tittle,” she is actually up to her oxters in the RHI and with potential for more revelations to come, it’s possible that when she steps aside, it will be for good.
***
Unionist voters get first up-close glimpse of “the real Arlene”
Newt Emerson. Irish News (Belfast). Saturday, December 17, 2016
Jonathan Bell’s interview with Stephen Nolan, followed by a rebuttal from Arlene Foster, has turned the Renewable Heating Incentive (RHI) scandal into a game of he-said-she-said – which the more powerful side always tends to win. It must be assumed that Foster will brazen this out. The damage she suffers will be long-term, as the unionist electorate gets its first up-close glimpse of ‘the real Arlene’. The resurfacing of splits inside the DUP is also a significant possibility. Foster is was always accepted on sufferance by the evangelicals, who respected Robinson’s faith in her. The Paisleyites were even less impressed. Bell was a close ally of Robinson and his interview featured theatrical religiosity. It is a wonder he did not cite the parable of the fiery furnace.
***
The Executive Office has refused to list all RHI beneficiaries due to “data protection”. Instead, claimants will be asked if they are willing to be named, which seems unlikely. If the DUP thought this was a clever stalling tactic, it was mistaken. Embarrassing examples – such as heating a Ferrari showroom – will now leak out one by one.
A golden rule of government is that whenever anyone says ‘data protection’ you should immediately smell bovine excrement. That seems especially true in this instance as the scheme subsidizes businesses and organizations rather than individuals, yet the slightly better excuse of ‘commercial confidentiality’ has not been cited. Farmers and lawyers had their subsidies published despite cries of ‘data protection’ so there is no reason why the same cannot apply to RHI. Incidentally, bovine excrement is an important heating fuel in India. A post-Brexit opportunity for Arlene Foster’s next trade mission, perhaps.
***
“Cash-for-ash” row is a chance for southerners to be a little bit smug
John Downing. Irish Independent. Saturday, December 17, 2016
The curious thing is that the same stereotype traditionally existed in French society, just as it did here in the Republic of Ireland. I mean the notion that Protestants are more honest, direct and upright in the conduct of their professional lives than their Catholic neighbors.
That theory has it that Catholics tended to leave their religion at the church gate. They felt you would not be discussing your business in the confessional.
It was a strong, if more often unspoken, factor in the presidential election, in still culturally Catholic France, way back in 1995. Lionel Jospin, a Protestant, was unlucky not to beat Jacques Chirac, from a party which was for a long time contentedly allied with Fianna Fáil.
News of a bitter row over a hopelessly over-funded green energy scheme in Northern Ireland, which has stung the British taxpayer for up to £400m (€478m), challenges the stereotype about Protestant rectitude versus Catholic ducking and diving.
The scheme, which was to promote the use of wood-fuelled energy in the North, was found to have serious flaws in half of installations inspected by the North’s Public Accounts Committee.
The row goes to the heart of the Belfast power-sharing administration and the office of First Minister Arlene Foster. There are questions about her role during her previous job as minister responsible for the energy sector when the scheme was set up in 2012.
For some observers of the North’s difficult politics, this most venal of scandals is the extraordinary return to normal politics. A manifestation of some banal work-a-day political doings in the hitherto strife-dominated North.
Before we go any further let’s stress that there are moral questions in play, irrespective of what church, or none, a person may or may not attend. Equally, there are serious implications for the stability of the North’s fragile institutions with potential fall-out for the whole island.
The gravity of it all is underlined by Stormont’s deputy first minister, Martin McGuinness, yesterday calling upon Ms. Foster to “stand aside” as First Minister while this so-called ‘cash-for-ash’ scandal is fully investigated. There is precedent as her predecessor, Peter Robinson, stood aside for a time in 2010 amid other controversy.
Mr. McGuinness said he was concerned the “credibility of the political institutions was being undermined.” But Mrs. Foster replied that she would not be stepping aside and “does not take her instructions from Sinn Féin.” Let’s recall that they are trying to collaborate on the running of a coalition facing many problems.
But anecdotally, one detects other reactions in the southern jurisdiction, which raise issues of culture and history. It begs a specific question: does this scandal provide an opportunity for southerners to feel a little better about themselves?
One of the claims made by a whistleblower was that a farmer in the North was aiming to collect about £1m (€1.2m) over 20 years for heating an empty shed. In another recounting the shed door was open belching precious heat into the sky.
That suggests this scandal could fit either side of the Border. In fact, many people are waiting for a link with the Republic.
Why be partitionist about controversy which has lessons for all communities all across this island and beyond? We have few if any reason to feel smug.
