Tuesday, October 16, 2007
UPRG project’s funding withdrawn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 fold
Update 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.
Pete Baker @ 01:46 PM
meeting suspended pending speaker seeking legal advice seems Margret went against her own legal advice
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:08 PMWell, three cheers and large ones all around. At last a strong decision and by all accounts, or at least going by reactions on this site, a most popular one. Let us now hope that she has the full support of her fellow ministers, if not the whole Assembly. Of course it may now be prudent to re-examine the efficacy of the Minister’s security arrangements so that she suffers no backlash from disappointed gangsters.
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:09 PMDamn! Seems that while typing my post, Steve48 comes in and tells us our pleasure is premature. Why am I not surprised?
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:11 PMRegardless of the wishy-washy weaklings, it is good to see someone stand up and lay down the law.
So much for those prognosticators and prarmilitary cheer-leaders who said she would fold like a cardboard suitcase.
Also, it is good to see the DUP’s hypocrisy on matters of “law and order” out in the open.
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:23 PM“seems Margret went against her own legal advice “
You’ll have noticed Steve that she was careful to say that she had taken legal advice both internally and externally. On Robinson’s reaction, I can see why she got external advice
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:23 PMGood to see Sinn Fein backing Margaret Ritchie at this difficult time in the face of jelly-spined cabinet colleagues and gangsters on the streets.
What’s that?
Oh dear, Martina…
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:25 PMLet us wait and see. Margaret Ritchie seems to have had the nerve to stand up to these criminals. I have said before that I am worried that some weasel way will be found to give these thugs “their” money which is of course our money and could be far better spent in other ways on working class unionist communities. Indeed burning this money publicly would be a better use of it than giving it to unelected, unaccountable criminals to bribe them to be a bit less criminal; whilst in the process strengthening their malign grip on “their” areas.
If they do get this money, I hope it is made quite clear that the loyalist groups are being given money contrary to the will of the unionist and nationalist populations at large. It will also; I am sure be against the will of the majority of working class unionists in those areas still oppressed by these groups.
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:25 PMWell done to Margaret Ritchie. She has more balls than all of the male ministers around her. At last, something with a spine evolves from the primordial mud of Assembly politics.
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:25 PMMargaret Ritchie stops funding to the UDA, then martina Anderson goes on to the BBC and sits nodding with Edwin Poots who an hour previously killed the Irish Language Act.
The rottenness of the partnership at the heart of this Government is at least a bit clearer for a few more people.
Margaret Ritchie is the only one in there with any integrity or courage. Worth more than the whole damn lot of them.
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:32 PMTurgon: “Let us wait and see. Margaret Ritchie seems to have had the nerve to stand up to these criminals. I have said before that I am worried that some weasel way will be found to give these thugs “their” money which is of course our money and could be far better spent in other ways on working class unionist communities. Indeed burning this money publicly would be a better use of it than giving it to unelected, unaccountable criminals to bribe them to be a bit less criminal; whilst in the process strengthening their malign grip on “their” areas. “
While not wanting to diminish your excellent points above, let us at least savor the moment when someone allegedly in power for the good of the people stood up and did something right for a change, to such a degree that most of the population here on Slugger, with the exception of a few UDA cheerleaders, can agree it was actually a good thing.
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:33 PMchamber right and full now….no speaker…way past 20 mins
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:38 PMI absolutely agree that it was the right thing to do. However, it will be interesting to see if the Minister now faces a judicial review of the decision.
I think the problem probably lies in terminating peoples contracts on the basis that this is stopping funding from going “to the UDA”. Do we know if any of the people employed by CTI actually have been convicted for UDA-related/any scheduled offences?
If not, does this not leave them tarred with a brush and virtually unemployable now? Any legal eagles out there got a view on this?
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:38 PMBGB: “I think the problem probably lies in terminating peoples contracts on the basis that this is stopping funding from going “to the UDA”. Do we know if any of the people employed by CTI actually have been convicted for UDA-related/any scheduled offences? “
If I recall correctly, the staff was one-quarter UDA or UPRG, with one ex-hardman and three sock-puppets, including Frankie G.
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:42 PMHay back in the chair now…
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:42 PMSpeaker said nigel hamilton has concerns and the legality of the issue, members of the executive also concerned about statement.
No breach of standing orders and will take no more points of order
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:43 PMSorry, can I work this out? Total staff number? Total g;e UDA convicts?
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:44 PMDread is right.
Let’s just savor it for now.Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:45 PMCan you answer my question then? I am not defending the UDA. I do think that the people who have signed contracts and who are not convicts will have grounds for a JR here.
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:46 PMInteresting to see Martina Anderson giving Margaret no support on this on TV.
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:51 PMShe’s a diamond. I really hope she’s in the Fianna Fail wing.
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:54 PMIf Peter Robinson has turned out to have wrongfully accused Margaret Ritchie of breaking her Ministerial pledge, then his own future must be in some question. In any case his role today as a de facto UDA spokesman is sickening.
If Peter Robinson had a problem, with this decision he could have taken it up with Margaret Ritchie in the Executive. Instead, he decided to bring it up in the Assembly for a few cheap headlines. Shame on him.
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:55 PMMargaret Ritchie just said that the SF ministers had NO COMMENT in the Exec, contradicting what SF MLAs in the House are saying. Some interesting intra nationalist battling going on here!
I do admire Ritchie and I think this plays well to the public.
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:56 PMBGB: “Can you answer my question then? I am not defending the UDA. I do think that the people who have signed contracts and who are not convicts will have grounds for a JR here. “
If 1/4 of the staff is UDA or UPRG and is four people, algebra would express the thought thusly:
1/4 x = 4
To clear the fraction, we multiply both sides of the equation thusly
x = 16
Now, as 1 member is a UDA felon, the staff is 6.25% (1/16) of the staff is directly UDA, with 18.75% being indirectly UDA (i.e. UPRG / UDA sock-puppets), for a total of 25% of the staff.
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:57 PMDread Chthulu: it is good to see someone stand up and lay down the law.
BUT
steve48: seems Margret went against her own legal adviceWell, I hope she *can* lay down the law. However, she can’t make it up as she goes along. So let’s wait and see.
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:58 PMBallygobackwards - As Liam Clarke’s article (available on the previous post) states the CTI is totally independent, and the few UDA/UPRG people who are employed have right through the normal interview process.
As I argued on the other thread, is Richie not in danger of actually re-enforcing the status of the UDA in these communities, by essenially making funding of deprived areas dependent on their actions? I applaud her good intentions, but I just have a fear that the policy could prove to be be counter-productive.
Posted by on Oct 16, 2007 @ 03:58 PM
