UPRG project’s funding withdrawn
As anticipated. In the Assembly the NI Executive’s Social Development minister, Margaret Ritchie, has just announced the withdrawal of funding for the UPRG’s CTI project describing the project as “risk-prone from the start”. [Adds The minister's statement can be viewed here (RealPlayer file)] Update Finance minister, the DUP’s Peter Robinson, has just accused stated that [he believed] Margaret Ritchie had gone against the legal advice to the Executive, and was therefore in breach of the ministerial code of conduct, in making the announcement and the Speaker has suspended the sitting. Meanwhile in the BBC studio, SF’s Martina Anderson said that the Social Development minister “should have been more measured” and criticised the minister for not seeking “collective responsibility” from her Executive colleagues. A BBC report on the minister’s statement here. Further report here. Back in the chamber. The Speaker has quoted the head of civil service [Nigel Hamilton] as having “serious concerns” about the legality of the announcement, and he also referred to conversations with other members of the Executive who had similar serious concerns, but the Finance minister’s point of order is not accepted. During questions, Sinn Féin seem to be focused on critising the minister for continuing to fund the project after devolution – Although Jim Gibney didn’t agree with that criticism. Along with her own party members, the Alliance party has been the most vocal in support of the decision while the DUP are focusing on questioning the legality of the decision and the legal advice she was given – which is described as “privileged information” by the minister. The minister also responded to repeated questioning by SF – “I will not be funding the UDA now or in the future.” More below the foldUpdate Full statement from the Social Development minister via the SDLP website.
And now on the Executive’s website
More This clip from the BBC’s Stormont Live coverage caught the end of the statement, the point of order, and some of the subsequent in-studio conversation as noted above.
I can’t imagine that a copy of the contract would be that hard to get hold of?
Perhaps some of our more investigative posters can get it from Farset or directly from DSD under FOI.
I for one can’t imagine that Margaret Ritchie would be so stupid to take a decision that cannot be defended although anything might be possible at a judicial review.
Although I am no lawyer I have drafted funding contracts in the past ( subsequently aapproved by lawyers), typically the allocation of funds is the gift of the grantor and the conditions in the contract mean that funding can be stopped for the most minor of infringements
Tkmaxx
The SDLP fronting a demand for an Irish Language Act at Westminster would be political suicide.
See previous post on the Sewel Convention.
Or Mark Devenport’s take on it.
Tensions at the heart of government have been laid bare
As they needed to be. We have set up an almost impossible system of government.
This is their first real test and, by his action today, Robinson either wants to bring it down or else to drive the SDLP out, so that Ian (or in a little while, himself)and Gerry can rule the roost.
“The SDLP fronting a demand for an Irish Language Act at Westminster would be political suicide. ”
Nonsense. But you know best obviously.
Good decision but it would have been interesting if the shoe was on the other foot and it was IRA funding would she have made the same decision?
Outsider-
“Good decision but it would have been interesting if the shoe was on the other foot and it was IRA funding would she have made the same decision?”
Yes.
Any other useful, totally theoretical, impossible to answer, questions for us, Outsider?
If Robinson is hinting that, under the Code, this was a “significant or controversial” decision and should have been one for the whole Executive, where does that leave the McSweeney funding issue. Hardly non-controversial.
Cervantes
I think regardless of how the court case comes out it will always end up arrogant bastard 0 silly bitch 1
People wont blame her if the decision is reversed people will only remember for atleast 1 day somewhere in the nIreland government some body had balls, even if they were under a skirt
The SDLPs opposition to the IRA has always been at best rather muffled, they were happy to share power with Sinn Fein without any decomissioning occuring.
Good decision Margaret Richie.
When you taking over from Durkan?
trust the terrorist apologists to try and turn this into a thread about the IRA
Disagree Outsider. I am not nor ever was a member of any party, but I clearly recollect a consistent opposition to any paramilitarism from the SDLP.
Sean
I said this was the right decision by Richie but its unlikely she would have made it if it was funding to directed towards the ira.
Secondly you are the only terrorist apologist arounfd here, some of your posts are a disgrace.
Rapunsel
A couple of things if you are an employer(and I am) you have a duty of care. That means any threat to the future of employees jobs- ie loss of jobs through loss funding or loss of contract means you put them on protective notice. Thats basic – even if you think it may not happen. It appears that may not have happened at Farset -despite the fact that the possibilty of job losses was more than obvious. Why not? What made Farset feel so secure? It cant have been their sponsoring Minister’s resolve. Secondly, if I was in the same situation and lost a contract and people employed were dependent on that contract – I have a duty to second guess if I can secure new business or get a reprieve on existing contracts. Either way my duty of care still requires a protective notice. Farset does not appear to examined either possibilty. What if other projects could have been found in those same targetted areas not connected with outcomes involving a reduction paramilitary activity, criminality or violence? people need to look at this in its totality and in the context of Hanson’s Statement at the time which accompanied the contract. Look to atthe reactions of Sammy Wilson and John Dallat and subsequently the statements of Paul Goggins – Shaun Woodward -Gregory Campbell -Orde- David Forde etc. Even Frankie Gallagher. Everyone was in no doubt this was a UDA sop. If not why was the organisation who advises the UDA politically involved at all? and why did everyone else make reference to the UDA. The context was clear. Go to court – lets see the underbelly of Government. Lets go for discovery across every representation. This is not single party government and God forbid it ever should be. Parties may hold more seats than one another but in our system they dont have more power. Thats NI for you. Take it or leave it.
Joe Canuck
In ‘Northern Protestants an unsettled people’ it reports that SDLP members wore black arm bands on numerous occasions when ira terrorists had been killed.
Tkmaxx,
I clearly remember the Minister, at the start of the 60 days, giving instruction that the employees should be put on notice and that any necessary arrangements be made should the funding stop.
Outsider,
I don’t think any response to your 12.00 AM third hand post is necessary.
It speaks for itself.
Outsider, if you look at SDLP policy it has been consistently about opposition to violence. In taking PSF in from the cold (a group with a mandate, actually supported by a considerable amount of the population and without which a political settlement was impossible) PSF were forced to accept the concept of non-violent, parliamentary politics if they were to get anywhere. If the SDLP had been taking the DUP line in refusing to share power then the PIRA would never have decommissioned because it would never have been in their interest to do so. Working with PSF was a means to an end and that end has been achieved now.
The UPRG/UDA issue is different because they have no real support and the governance of NI does not hinge on them in any way therefore the means have to be completely different. Consider that before criticising the SDLP for being ‘soft’ on PSF/IRA, if they had adopted the hardline approach like the other parties then it is unlikely we should have decommissioning or powersharing today.
A point little mentioned here is the SDLP proposal to have a legally binding clause included in the GFA regarding the decommissioning of weapons which was opposed by, yes, the DUP because powersharing at that time was not politically beneficial to them and they had, and have, no real committment to its principles anyway. The DUP waited until Trimble took the flak, played the waiting game and stoked up Unionist fears then reaped the electoral benefits.
Outsider-
“The SDLPs opposition to the IRA has always been at best rather muffled, they were happy to share power with Sinn Fein without any decomissioning occuring.”
Rubbish. Look at what happened Gerry Fitt when he opposed the provos. Look at what happened John Fee when he opposed the provos. The SDLP has always been prepared to criticise the IRA and SF and take the consequences. It loathed the violent actions of the provisional movement. Even in such trivial forums such as Slugger, do people like myself strike you as provo fans?
El Matador
The answer to your question is a resounding YES.
Outsider I would say the pot kettle thing but its not appropo you apparently support the still violent actions of a thinly disguised gang of thugs who no longer satisfied with what they could steal from the citizenry moved on and tried running protection rackets on the government.
I have a new found respect for atleast some in the SDLP but i wait to see if her own party backs her up or will we see the weasel words start from them as well
I was dissapointed in the reaction of SF but really their actions do not equate with those of the DUP. Maybe the UUP but even then they should have aspired to more
el mat everyone who doesnt slouch around Ballymena selling heroin to kids strikes them as a provo suporter
So that’s an extra £1million for her to spend.
Any chance of any of this shower actually doing a bit of legislating and improving lives rather than the amateur dramatics?
Any legislation passed on that hill yet?
A few fines and a couple of unemployed loyalists is the sum total of Ritchie’s contribution. And she’s lauded as the successful minister?
Like the rest of them she’s done sweet FA of any value. The UDA is still there and I ain’t seen any social developing going on.
Like the rest of them she’s just pissing about fighting the same old battle. Waste of space the lot of them.
the crucial question for me is whether the Ministers decision will hasten UDA decommissioning or not since that seems to have been the point of the whole exercise in the first place.Its all very well getting cheered from the sidelines in a headbutting competition but if you don’t achieve your objective you only end up with a sore head
Sean your are so blinded by your left wing Republican ethos that you are starting to see things that don’t exist.
Where is my posts have I supported paramilitaries.
Secondly I am not from Ballymena, you will be pleased to know that where I am from is dominated by Republicanism.
Outsider
You are seeing facts not in evidence or in truth facts.
I am a republican but a Canadian one
And I am not left wint like most people the older i get and the more I aquire the further right I bend. But I am no right wingnut either I am centre of the road the whole way
I can see the need for social programs but I believe they should be subsistence programs. If you are on the dole then you should be getting squeezed and not have the good things in life. You work for those things or atleast I do!
OK Frank,
I bow to your superior wisdom.
Margaret Ritchie is a total failure because she didn’t achieve total UDA decommissioning in 60 days.
What a joke as a minister she is.
I am delighted that the so called loyalist (sic) paramilitaries will not be getting their money though one suspects the UDA / UPRG CTI employess will not necessarily be heading to the nearest SSA to sign on just yet.
I am as disappointed as I was delighted about the reaction of the DUP – even if it was unlawful there was no need to ambush Margaret on the floor of the house and do the UDA’s dirty work for it.
The one unsurprising thing is that the UUP is totally silent – still nothing on the website.
I hope that DSD finds another way to use the money for the more direct benefoit of deprived loyalist communities many of whose deprivation is to at least a certain extent the result of the malevolent influence of the UDA and others.
The only point I would make given the claims that the SDLP is consistent on such issues is to remind everyone that then DFM Seamus Mallon promised that action would be taken by SDLP against Sinn Fein in the absence of IRA decommissioning but it never came. I make the point not to say that action shouldn’t be taken against the UDA – the opposite in fact to urge the SDLP to be consistent in their punishments against all terrorists.
Where to start…
Let’s go back to my three pillars of democracy:
- functioning market economy;
- rule of law;
- representative democracy.
Let’s look at Margaret’s decision:
- cuts of subsidies where there’s no prospect of reward;
- stands up to gangsters;
- puts democratic representation ahead of self-appointed hard guys.
I reckon that’s one for Margaret on each of the three, rendering her the only true democrat in the Executive.
First, we’ve got to stop even this overall nonsense about “these communities need money”, just on the basis they’re “deprived”. This is liberal-left-lunacy. These communities need to get some self-respect and earn a living – and many of them want to. They should only receive government investment where they are prepared to do get up on their own two feet. There are huge numbers of willing projects crying out for just a few thousand quid to get up on their own two feet and who are unable to access it because the big bucks are going to the big mouths. So it is quite right that such vital funds be withdrawn from the unwilling groups. I hope they know find their way to the willing.
Second, today has illustrated the utter hypocrisy of all Unionism on these matters. Sure, we even had that nice moderate McGimpsey on Let’s Talk telling us all that the time for Loyalist gangsterism had now passed – an implicit acceptance that Loyalist terrorism was, once, acceptable in Ulster Unionist eyes. No one should be surprised by this. Let’s put an end to this malarky that Unionists oppose terrorism in all its forms. It takes more than words to oppose terrorism – when it comes to actions, Unionists are all too willing to jump on certain platforms, protest outside certain blocks of flats, and do dodgy deals.
Third, in some ways the most troubling of all: what is all this crap about illegality of a Minister’s decision? We’ve had Minister’s decisions about John Lewis overturned because the Judge didn’t like them, Minister’s decisions on PPS14 overturned because the Judge didn’t like them – who runs this country, the unaccountable legal eagles or the representatives of the people?
This illustrates how slowly we are progressing along the road to true democracy. And that Margaret Ritchie is many miles further on than her Executive colleagues.
There are a lot of those who have posted on this site who will look very foolish very soon. Do you really think Robinson would have taken the line he did unless he knew what the legal advice was and that Ritchie had acted unlawfully? Anyone want to bet on the outcome. This is not about the UDA this is about a Minister acting unlawfully for party political purposes.
Will those who have been praising Ritchie come back to apologise when the details of her irresponsible unlawful behaviour are made public in the days ahead or is the SDLP allowed to act unlawfully in taking sanctions agains loyalists having in the past refused to vote for sanctions against the IRA. Margaret is going to fall.
The one unsurprising thing is that the UUP is totally silent
Ay, right.
That doesn’t surprise me at all.
UUP – I Ran Away. Or something like that.
We have 4 major political parties.
How many of them have not been either openly associated with paramilitary murderers or stood beside them, even sometimes wearing paramilitary paraphenalia?
Only one by by account.
How many of them are now trying to provide such murderers with a cloak of political respectability?
Go figure.
wait 4 it
who cares if she acted illegally she acted properly and no matter what comes out of the courts she can always hold her head high
maybe even raise the profile of the whole party if they are smart enough to get behind her
no one will care if it is overturned in the courts they will just remembered she stopped them even if it was temporary. If any one will inheirit the shitty end of the stick it will be the NIO or the chearleaders from the DUP. This could be issue that UUP needs if they get off their hands
Comrade Stalin: “Dread, someone has to start somewhere, and I’m glad Ritchie has taken it on the chin and blazed the trail.”
Not disagreeing, but to take a moral stand, one has to have moral authority… something that Sinn Fein, at least on this matter, sadly lacks.
Comrade Stalin: “Next question is, are the UDA going to say “bugger this†and step up the violence ? In which case the next thing we’ll have to deal with the police refusing to do anything about it and “calling upon those with influence†to stop it. ”
If that is how its going to go, then let it go that way. If it takes pulling back the curtain and showing that the munchkins are in charge and that the Executive is naught but a paper-maiche head and related humbug, then lets get it done and over with.
wait4it: “There are a lot of those who have posted on this site who will look very foolish very soon. Do you really think Robinson would have taken the line he did unless he knew what the legal advice was and that Ritchie had acted unlawfully? ”
Second verse, same as the first… someone claims to know more than the rest, blah blah blah. Wonder if this one will do any better than Lofty…
Couple of things.
1) The problem with really good intel is that you can almost never use it, save when the fat is in the fire, since you end up burning your sources. One wonders why, then, the DUP is willing to burn an inside set of eyes to save the UDA’s bacon.
2) This will go to court, when a decision will be made on which side hire the better attorney. Common sense says that Ritchie wouldn’t have gone so far out on this limb without something besides her arm up her sleeve.
wait4it: “This is not about the UDA this is about a Minister acting unlawfully for party political purposes. ”
If you truly believe that, I have a whole selection of bridges available for purchase.
Painting a pumpkin black doesn’t make it round-shot. This is about paying off a collection of pimps and hoods and that is what the populace is going to remember most, followed closely on by how the two parties that claim to be for law and order were either out to appease the hoods or sadly silent.
I think MR will win this one. She already has public opinion, I think she can win in court, indeed may welcome the challange.
She may also have strengthened her hand within nationalism and particularly south Down – primarily because Sinn Fein’s performance was underhand and will be remembered by many nationalists come election time.
Well done Alliance for getting in behind her. This issue is fundamental – do you support democrats or terrorists? I see some soft unionist transfers going to the SDLP before the DUP in south Belfast over this one. UUP should speak up in support of MR.
Read her statement carefully ,last night and to me it is carefully balanced. Not much point in being a minister if you can’t take decisions and it was on record that SDLP opposed( rightly) allocation of oublic funds on sectarian grounds. NIO and the DSD civil servants in cahoots with the UDA thought they could get away with allocating the funds and sure if something good came out of it well and good and if it didn’t , ah well sure it was only £1.2 million. Heard this morning that DSD civil servants may have to be ordered to carry out the work suspending /terminating the contract. Did they have to be ordered last year to devise a sectarian funding mechanism to placate the NIO and the DUP? Don’t think so. There is something rotten in the DSD Voluntary and Commnity Unit , a combination of a lack of accountability developed under direct rule, an attitude of we know better than the minister. Well done Margaret for holding the UDA to account
It’s ironic that SF will bypass the local government by appealing to the colonial administration in London for help.
wait4it. hard luck, a valiant effort (not really but i am being polite). No matter what happens now, in court or on the streets, Margaret has won the day. no question about it.
Dewi – what happens next in these communities? the right and proper thing would be for the weasles in the NIO to take the leash of the cops and get the thugs in Carrickfergus and elsewhere arrested, but two good things in one week might be wishful thinking.
I heard someone from a Kilklooney development organisation on GMU this morning complaining that next thing you know the UVF will be ‘manipulated into decommissioning’ – here’s hoping.
Outsider:
The SDLPs opposition to the IRA has always been at best rather muffled, they were happy to share power with Sinn Fein without any decomissioning occuring.
At least the SDLP required there to be a ceasefire. The unionists voted Hugh Smyth in as the Lord Mayor of Belfast when the UVF were still actively killing. Explain that one to me.
Then look at the unionists siding with thugs at UWC, Drumcree 96 where Paisley said to the police officers “don’t come running to me when they burn you out of your houses” and other significant events through history. Face it, unionists like keeping their thugs handy, in case they need them for a spot of “spontaneous agitation”. I’m damn sure that’s why the unionist ministers in the executive are hesitant to get in behind Ritchie. They’ve been scratching around for the past two months to figure out a way to try to stop Ritchie, and they think they’ve found it with this jumped-up legal rubbish. Let them publish their legal advice and we’ll see who is who. There are plenty of lawyers in the SDLP.
El Mat,
True about Fitt, but it’s a shame the way the SDLP treated him.
IJP,
I like that, “Ritchie is the only true democrat on the executive”. It sums the whole thing up really.
Yeah, I agree wait4it. Margaret Ritchie broke the law, as Peter Robinson(whose penchant includes red berets) said. This is all part of the vile fenian pan-nationalist front depriving good clean living protestant folk of their entitlements. She should have doubled the £1 million odd contributions to that lovable cultural group of law abiding Ulster folk.
“UUP should speak up in support of MR”.
You’d have initially thought that this might be an opportunity for the UUP, but their own ill-fated PUP-pact undermines anything they could say – so silent they will remain, to their shame. And this yet again underscores just how stupid that PUP-pact was.
So, big winners are SDLP, little winners are Alliance. The rest lose.
“Only one by by account.
How many of them are now trying to provide such murderers with a cloak of political respectability?”
Joe, surely you’re not thinking of John Hume, he who gave us the politics of inclusion? Has Margaret Ritchie ditched the Hume mantras?
Margaret Ritchie: “There has been a sustained campaign of briefing against me and attempts to destabilise those around me.
“In the end however, I know in my heart, over and above the complexities of assessing CTI, that the decision I have taken in my conscience is right.”
It’s a long time since we’ve seen that kind of honesty or integrity in politics around here. In fact Nevin, I’d say we haven’t seen a lot of it since Hume took the risks he did to stop the killing.
Hello – earth to Cunningham House? Is there anyone there? Or does the PUP link prevent any favourable comment on this decision?
As for Dundela Avenue using this as an opportunity to score cheap political points about legal niceties let Farset or UPRG take the judicial review – the SDLP has managed to take the moral high ground and instead of trying to join them you are currently unsuccessfully trying to drag them back down to your level. Its not playing well for either of the main unionist parties in among their constituencts where this decision is almost universally popular.
If they continue to behave like this the Alliance will overrun the UUP inside the Pale and the DUP in the country – why is the UUP not jumping on this bandwagon?????
DK, I agree. The UUP cannot say much after their ill fated engagement to the PUP while the UVF are/were armed to the teeth. Did you know that since the “ceasefire” loyalist paramilitaries have murdered around 25 protestants. Why is Robinson doing the dirty work for the UPRG. Let them raise their own legal challange and let the DUP support the democrats.
DUP Democracy no – DUP Hypocracy yes.
As has been clearly articulated many times already on this thread, the Unionists behaved appallingly yesterday. No surprise there then.
But Sinn Fein? Shameful. They deserve to lose a lot of their votes back to SDLP after yesterday’s performance. Between that and the Irish language Act. Disgraceful. Sidling up to DUP (again) instead of showing their support to Margaret Ritchie no this issue. Jesus wept.
Joe Canuck
“If Robinson is hinting that, under the Code, this was a “significant or controversial†decision and should have been one for the whole Executive, where does that leave the McSweeney funding issue. Hardly non-controversial.”
Good point. And nevermind non-controversial (which is somewhat open to interpretation) what about 2.4 of Ministerial Code that requires any matter which cuts across the responsibility of 2 or more Ministers to be brought to the attention of the Executive Committee. How many Ministers are involved with the Causeway?
frank sinisstra
“Any legislation passed on that hill yet?”
Yes, 5 pieces. You been hibernating for a while?
“A few fines and a couple of unemployed loyalists is the sum total of Ritchie’s contribution. And she’s lauded as the successful minister?”
This hardly warrants a response but as you’re wrong, I should point out that Margaret Ritchie was responsible for one of those five Bills. But that fact pales in the face of what she did yesterday.
dane-geld?
Posted by Dread Cthulhu on Oct 16, 2007 @ 07:22 PM
Sick of that word being trotted out all the time on this issue. You need to stop coming out with soundbites and address the fact that Ritchie is potentially endangering a process of change within the Ulster Defence Association that could help cement the peace process. Just as worrying is the fact she is harming communities like mine that need government funding to improve our areas and to ensure parity of esteem with republican communities that seem to have everything they need when we drive by/visit someone in them…
So just to clarify 1 out of 16 staff is a convisted UDA felon and 3 are UDA aplogists. Are the 12 others not being tarred with the UDA brush because of this decision. I think this is going to end up in the courts.
Posted by Ballygobackwards on Oct 16, 2007 @ 04:15 PM
My point proven, this is not a UDA-driven iniative, they just support it.
Another thing, even if every member of the CTI were ex-prisoners, there are UDA, UVF and Red Hand members/ex-members in the North and West Belfast Bands Forum, yet they do good work and sit down and talk with their republican counterparts. In otherwards, it would be fair to say that ex-prisoners have in the past been mature enough and far-sighted enough to be able to sit down with their former enemies for the good of peace over the contentious summer months, so surely these Loyalists should be given the opportunity to do good for their OWN communities…