Saturday, October 20, 2007
“As soon as I was in receipt of that legal advice, both external and internal..”
If anyone was thinking that the weekend would see a calming of the fractious Executive they can think again. The Northern Ireland Finance minister, the DUP’s Peter Robinson, has added to the comments made on Thursday by the Deputy First Minister, SF’s Martin McGuinness, and accused the Social Development minister, the SDLP’s Margaret Ritchie, of lying about passing on the legal advice. As with the earlier comments, close attention may be required to the detail of what is being said. Adds More of that advice here.
Mr Robinson deepened divisions today accusing Ms Ritchie of having lied about passing him the legal advice she obtained prior to making her decision to cut funding.
He quoted Ms Ritchie of stating on BBC TV: “I am very clear that I agreed and the Executive agreed on Monday night of last week that I was to obtain legal advice and share it with the First and Deputy First Minister and also the Finance Minister.
“As soon as I was in receipt of that legal advice, both external and internal, I supplied it to those three individuals.”
But firing his fresh broadside, Mr Robinson said: “This is a lie. Firstly no legal advice was handed over to be me before it was announced on Monday that the DSD minister was making statement to the Assembly. I first heard she was making a statement through the press.”
He said that on hearing she was making a statement he sent her a letter asking for the legal advice she had undertaken to supply, and claimed “some” pieces of the advice was passed to his office.
Mr Robinson said the dates on the documentation showed Ms Ritchie had been holding some of the advice for a week without passing it on.
I’d suggest that the “some of the advice” being referred to would be the internal advice… which would make the following line pivotal to the accusation.
“As soon as I was in receipt of that legal advice, both external and internal, I supplied it to those three individuals.” [added emphasis]
Also worth noting is the BBC report’s final line on those contested minutes
This, [Mr Robinson] says, is regardless of last week’s controversy over the minutes of an executive meeting on the matter.
Pete Baker @ 06:37 PM
Pete,
Then surely that would mean she made the announcement she was making a statement before she had all the legal advice? She made a decision before the advice was in? Or as Robbo says she didn’t hand anything over until he went asking for it?
Transparency is the absent thing.
Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 07:21 PMIs the fact that Margaret Ritchie was out of the country (in Brussels, I think) for a significant part of the time in question of any relevance in this?
Bit hard to pass something on if you’re not there!On a separate point, is Prime Minister Robbo losing the run of himself? He has dug himself into a deep hole with the public, would he not be wiser stopping digging and starting to mend fences?
People have little grasp and/or interest in what they see as technicalities. All they recognise is that the DUP and SF are clubbing together and using any means they can to stop a minister from witholding government money from the UDA. It isn’t playing well. I have not met a single unionist in the last few days who isn’t raging at this, and especially angry at PM Robbo.
I need hardly add that the same thing applies to every nationalist and republican I have spoken toPosted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 07:23 PMI find the whole thing so riling that I actually am trying to grasp the technicalities of this, Penguin. And I have a technical question.
On Tuesday, in his quote-unquote point of order, Robinson said this in his first, immediate response to Ritchie’s statement:
“Mr P Robinson: I am on a point of order.
The announcement she has made is contrary to a process set out by the Executive, and the decision is not consistent with the advice offered by the Departmental Solicitor’s Office and senior Crown counsel. I believe her decision is also a breach of the ministerial code and the Pledge of Office. In such circumstances, I wonder whether it is sensible for Members to ask questions based on such a statement.”
My question is, how would Robinson know Ritchie’s decision was “not consistent” with the advice of McCloskey unless Ritchie had already shared that advice with Robinson? Robinson doesn’t seem to be saying Lockhart’s advice wasn’t handed over, he’s claiming “no legal advice was handed over,” and I don’t understand the claim.
Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 07:31 PMFrank
Robinson’s complaint appears to be centred on the date on the, presumably internal, advice.
Having sought external legal opinion I wouldn’t have thought an announcement of a statement would be made before that external advice was supplied.
If Robinson believed he was due to be consulted before that decision was made then I could see why he wouldn’t wait for the advice to be passed on, but would instead chase it up as soon as he heard about the statement.
But that brings us back to the contested minutes..
With the additional accusation that an Executive Minister has lied.
Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 07:31 PMPete,
An allegation of a breech of the Ministerial Code. Quite an easy one to confirm.
Is their a sanction for breaking it or is it an aspirational document?
IMC for Ritchie?
Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 07:36 PMSusan, you need to read the whole text to see when Robinson supposedly got part or all of the legal advice from Ritchie.
Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 07:36 PMPete Gregory Campbell made some mention of him and David Hilditch only getting a partial report of the advice in the Assembly session last week.
Worth a back check:
In circumstances where a Minister gives a briefing to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of a scrutiny Committee of the House immediately before an important decision that that Minister is about to announce, what redress do the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of that Committee have in ensuring that they get satisfaction in the future?
That occurred today, 30 minutes before the Minister for Social Development made a statement on the important decision on which she has just been taking questions. That briefing included a specific reference to legal advice that she obtained that supported her decision. However, it has transpired that that was not the case.
The technicalities are important.
Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 07:37 PMsusan
The point of order came when the statement was actually made. Presumably, by that time, the advice, both internal and external, had been circulated to those concerned.
Frank
Just to add. And Margaret Ritchie appears to believe that she wasn’t required to share the legal advice until she had all the advice available and, possibly, also had made a decision.
Back to those contested minutes again..
Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 07:40 PMAdditionally only getting legal advice on a statement made with a 60 day deadline after the deadline expired seems a tad incompetent.
I’d suggest she should have taken legal advice before making the initial statement on how the money was danegeld.
Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 07:41 PMMick
“The technicalities are important”
Indeed. But that would be a different technicality from the one raised by Robinson - Campbell and Hilditch aren’t in the Executive.
Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 07:43 PMPete, here’s Robbo’s statement.
Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 07:57 PMOther than the fact that she seems to have promised to do so, why did Margaret Ritchie have to share the legal advice with Oberstrumfuhrer Robbo as well as the Chuckle Bros?
Does the finance portfolio give automatic superiority over other ministers to the holder? Or was the DUP not too confident that Big Daddy Chuckle would fully understand the legal complexities and possible political ramifications of the lawyerly advice?
Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 07:58 PMThank you for clarifying that, Pete, I was getting lost. Is there also an agreed timeline of the dates when Ritchie first sought the external and internal advice, and when she received it?
I suppose I should just scroll down to that Tele piece with excerpts from the advice from McCloskey and Lockhart and see if I can answer my own question.
Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 07:59 PMNevin
That’s an earlier statement.
susan
I’ve not seen a time-line yet.
Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 08:04 PMPeter Robinson is making a very serious and derogatory attack on another person’s integrity which he has failed to support with the evidence. Lying implies intent to deceive; and Robinson only has a basis to claim that the minister did not do as he understood she gave a commitment to do, not a basis to claim that there was deliberate deception in the alleged failure. Indeed, it’s doubtful that Robinson even has a solid basis to claim breach of promise based on the wording of the minister’s actual promise as cited by Robinson and whether or not she fulfilled it. If there is to be a court action, it may well be that it is a defamation of character action brought by Margaret Ritchie against Peter “The Punt” Robinson.
Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 08:10 PMPenguin,
Ministers seem to have a responsibility to inform Robbo of anything with budgetary implications.
Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 08:10 PMDubliner,
Ritchie made equally serious allegations without presenting evidence - altering minutes.
Until we get transparency it’s just the word of eight against three in one case and the word of one against other in the next.
You can’t call the honesty yet in either case, well you can if you approach the issue with bias.
Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 08:14 PMFrank, did Ms Ritchie call any named individual a liar? I don’t recall her doing that. If she didn’t, then there is no direct comparsion to a very direct attack on the integrity of a named individual sans any evidence to support the claim.
Peter Robinson is highly vulnerable to court action here.
Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 08:19 PMDubliner,
Groups, including the DUP, SF and civil servants, have protection exactly the same as individuals from libel/slander. So the comparison is valid.
Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 08:28 PMwhat robbo’s done is to draw the whole debacle into a series of technicalities and time-lines.
In chess terms it’s called “creating complications”
this is what you do when you’re in a losing position. Its a well known method!http://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-Imitates-Chess-Garry-Kasparov/dp/0434014109
Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 08:34 PMThis is the 2nd time Robbo has accused other members of the Executive of breaking the ministerial code, the previous time was over the free care for the elderly vote. It ended up being a fuss without outcome that time.
Is the Ministerial code a toothless document?
Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 08:39 PMFrank
Surely if it is only to do with budgetary considerations, Margaret Ritchie would only be bound to advise Oberstrumfuhrer Robbo if or when she had made a decision, not explain how and why she had reached that decision and ask permission.“Groups, including the DUP, SF and civil servants, have protection exactly the same as individuals from libel/slander.”
I don’t think you can be held to have libelled or slandered individuals that form a group if the the said group consists of more than a certain number of people (6 I think).
With that number and above, the liable or slander is adjudged to be spread so thin as to be meaningless in terms of having liabled or slandered individual people. Hence, for example, if you were to say the DUP and Sinn Fein are no better than Nazis then each member of those two parties could not launch proceedings against you.Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 09:01 PMJust as a historical footnote, in Purdy’s ‘Room 21’ she refers to previous problems in the first Executive regarding minutes. Both McGimpsy and Empey were quoted as having problems with de Brún demanding accurate minutes. Other quotes from <i>insiders<i> described it as ‘pedantic’, ‘wringing little issues to death over wording’.
Pity they didn’t learn the lesson then and go for a stenographer or audio records.
Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 09:03 PMPenguin,
How many of them sit on the Executive or take minutes there?
Though, think ‘McLibel’ and you’ll have an easy demonstration of how your understanding isn’t true.
Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 09:06 PMFrank
I’m not trying to score cheap points, just recounting what I understand the position to be.If you accuse a group of something that, if it were a single individual, would ordinarily leave you open to legal proceedings, there has to be a limitation on how many people can reasonably claim to have been personally liabled/slandered. As far as I am aware that number is 6.
Posted by on Oct 20, 2007 @ 09:14 PM
