Assembly report clears Peter Robinson over Spotlight

Well after a number of attempts the report from the Assembly Standards Commissioner has finally released the report into the BBC Spotlight programme into Iris Robinson in January 2010.

The report clears Peter Robinson of any wrong doing, whilst Iris Robinson has been found in “serious breach” of the Stormont code of conduct by failing to declare two payments.

Speaking about the reports publication the DUP’s Alastair Ross said;

The Committee takes allegations of breaches of the Assembly’s Code of Conduct very seriously. It was therefore in the public interest that an investigation was carried out in order to establish the full facts in relation to the allegations made.

“I am pleased that the Committee has unanimously agreed with the Commissioner’s conclusions and I would urge everyone to read the report carefully.

However, Alliance’s Anna Lo is still sceptical;

This report should have been published years ago. Serious damage has been done to public confidence in the political institutions by the length of time taken to publish this report. Part of the delay was caused by the legal challenges and requests by the Robinsons’ lawyer to remove certain aspects of the report. The Committee was legally obliged to delete parts of the report, some of which I opposed.

It is important in the interests of openness and transparency that this report was published. However, I do feel that the DUP dominated Committee was at times overly cautious in the deletion of some of the contents. I’m concerned that too much was deleted from the Commissioner’s report and what has been published does not do justice to his original report.

The Irish News has reported that Robinson is asking for a full apology from the BBC .

Link to the full report is here

, , ,

  • Dan

    Are we getting an apology from Robinson for the conduct of his wife?

  • chrisjones2

    Does it mention the pussie cats?

  • kalista63

    That’s subject to a claws.

  • I think the point here is that this is a report on a Spotlight programme from 2010. So if anyone thinks there is going to be speedy attention to the most recent spotlight programmes….

  • Joe_Hoggs

    In a normal world this would mean that Iris Robinonson could be facing a jail sentence…..

    Ann Lo is right with regards to it taking too long for this report to be published and what content was removed at the bequest of the Robinsons?

  • Practically_Family

    So the results of an inquiry into allegations of corruption made on a Spotlight program are released in the week that a Spotlight program makes allegations of corruption?

  • chrisjones2

    Oh come on …its hard to fit them all in ….like buses at Donegal Square

  • chrisjones2

  • SeaanUiNeill

    I entirely agree Joe. WE, the public, are seemingly being offered a final report where the published version will be substantially different from the original. The amount of serious doubt at the time should have been sufficient for Peter to have withdrawn from active politics until this matter was cleared up by an objective and full report. He returned to office on the say-so of simple in house legal advice, and the amount of time the report has taken to surface, together with Anna Lo’s comments, does nothing to seriously reassure me for one.

  • mjh

    Taking four years, FOUR YEARS, to investigate and report is a scandal in itself.

  • Sergiogiorgio

    And who funds the costs of the 4 year investigation and the subsequent report….oh yes…its us. Well, that’s all right then.

  • chrisjones2

    …and where are the Shinners, SDLP Alliance UUP or TUV asking questions and challenging?

    Why Stormont doesn’t work 1.1

  • puffen

    The SF and the UUP will not ask, too many skeletons in the cupboard t as regards the rest I do not honestly know, as Nye Bevan said about the Doctors on the formation of the NHS, I will stuff their mouths with Gold, such is life

  • puffen

    That is a sexist comment, but then the Robinsons are not what you would call Liberals,so Peter since you are the head of the house,will you apologise for your wife,

  • Mister_Joe

    And how long will it take for poor Iris to be well enough to help the PSNI with their inquiries?

  • streetlegal

    If there is evidence of wrongdoing against Mrs Robinson, that should now be pursued in the normal way through the courts. The court can then take a decision whether or not she has a mental incapacity which would excuse her from standing trial.

  • chrisjones2

    Silly boy

  • chrisjones2

    Yes…where is all the political challenge – they are silent. Noone dares ask any questions?

  • ted hagan

    What an awful woman. She and her ultra right Christian husband preaching about morality. She’s a grade a hypocrite like a lot of these born-agains, who seem only to worship money and what it can do for them

  • ted hagan

    No,instead we get his creepy party attacking the BBC. What a joke

  • SeaanUiNeill

    A neighbour of mine told me that they have a silent “L” just before the d in “GOD”.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    When I was in the film business, the current term for any news story of studied inconsequentiality or that was possibly intended to distract attention from a serious news story harmful to someone important was “LOOK KITTENS!!!!!”

    So…..plus ça change………..

  • SeaanUiNeill

    The report explains this primarily by the unavailability of Iris Robinson for questioning by the committee, as may be checked by following the links in the main article above. Regarding Peter it states that :

    “The Commissioner has concluded that none of the three allegations against Mr Robinson could, even if established after investigation, constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct. Accordingly, the Commissioner has not given these allegations further consideration as part of the investigation.”

    So it does not say the allegations were untrue, simply that they were not Standards and Privilidges issues as defined within the committee’s remit. The issue of their truth has not been addressed, so, until their truth is entirely evaluated one way or another it seems rather premature for Peter to be demanding an appology from the BBC!!!!!

  • Comrade Stalin

    It’s certainly the first time I’ve seen it suggested that the mental health of a person who has committed misconduct in public office trumps the public interest.

    But of course, who could question the transparency of a report issued (at short notice) by a DUP committee chair, which very conveniently heaps all the blame on the one actor who is permanently out of politics and the public eye. Nothing to see there at all.