Mere fact of Inquiry must not let Murphy off the hook - Allister
07 January 2011
Commenting on the announcement of the twin-track inquiry arising from the DRD/NIW handling of the water crisis, TUV Leader Jim Allister said he had a number of observations:-
- The acknowledgement that the Utility Regulator could not in fact investigate DRD’s role, despite earlier foolish claims to the contrary by Minister Murphy, demonstrates that either Murphy was being disingenuous in pretending the Regulator could perform such a role, or, it demonstrates his continuing lack of grasp of his brief. So, I welcome the fact that he has had to back down on this issue.
- I am concerned that the terms of reference, as drafted, will not permit adequate investigation of whether the Minister’s precipitive removal of experienced directors with his own inexperienced placemen, including the absentee Dublin chairman, contributed to the crisis. There is also the inconvenient truth that the Regulator drove down investment on Water infrastructure; the contribution thereof to the present crisis is hardly going to be adequately investigated under this aegis.
- Permitting Murphy’s guardian and protector, McGuinness, to handpick one of the two ministerial investigators will not result in the robust and independent investigation that is required. A Sinn Fein placeman investigating a Sinn Fein minister is not an inspiring or confidence building spectacle, but then for Sinn Fein that is not the priority!
- The fact that a form of investigation has been established does not dilute the need for Murphy to resign forthwith. As the minister responsible for NIW and the lamentable failures of recent weeks, he needs to go now. But, instead, I fear, this inquiry will become a new protective shield for Murphy and an excuse for some, particularly their primary partner in coalition, the DUP, who don’t want to face the political discomfort and fall-out of forcing a Sinn Fein minister to resign. Hence, I anticipate this inquiry will be used by some as an excuse not to force a No Confidence motion against him in the Assembly. Inquiry, or no inquiry, the reality is that Murphy has lost irretrievably the confidence of the public and should go now. Likewise, it is the obligation of every MLA, who cares anything for the turmoil that their constituents were put through because of his failings, to force the issue with a No confidence motion when the Assembly resumes on Monday.
- There is a certain lack of clarity, which could allow refuge for issue avoidance, in the term of reference relating to Murphy’s role:
“Assess the effectiveness of the governance arrangements and responsibilities of those involved in relation to the capacity to deal with the incident, also considering the role and responsibilities of the Minister and the Department in this respect.”
Is this an attempt to allow fault to be found with the structure of the prevailing ‘goverance arrangements’, but exonerate the Minister from hands-on responsibility, even though those arrangements were of his making? What was required was a term of reference unequivocally examining whether the Minister, as head of the department in ownership of NIW, had done all he ought and whether his actions and inactions contributed to the crisis.
- The history of inquiries in DRD is not encouraging. In August 2010 the Shortridge inquiry was established to investigate the Paul Priestly issue. The report has been with the Head of the Civil Service for 2 months, effectively buried. Will the same happen here, on the premise that the more time passes, the more memories of Murphy and NIW’s failings will fade?
