Ultra Vires?
Which means "beyond the power". That's how Peter Robinson alleged Margaret Ritchie acted when she cut the UDA- linked Conflict Transformation Initiative this afternoon. On Stormont Live we watched as Ms Ritchie talked about not placing the law breaker above the law abiding. She also told MLAs about the personal pressure she has been under and what she described as "a sustained campaign of briefing against me".
But no sooner had she taken her seat than Mr Robinson was on his feet, expressing criticism of the UDA but claiming that Ms Ritchie had ignored the government's own lawyers in cutting the contract. He claimed Ms Ritchie may have broken her pledge of office and the ministerial code.
The proceedings were suspended amidst some disarray, whilst the Speaker sought legal advice. As I write the debate on the matter has just resumed and the temperature has not cooled down.
I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
What is Margaret Ritchie and the DSD doing? For a start Margaret Ritchie has failed to address simple problems at local level. Regarding the DSD they dont know their arm from their leg. DSD have no part in getting involved in political dealings. This has been fully vindicated in this fiasco. DSD should sort their own house out instead of dabbling in big boys business. The DSD cannot manage their staff effectively, manage their offices effectively, have a proper Personnel Office, raise staff morale and stop making errors regarding people鈥檚 benefits and get on with the business of being a Department for Social Development instead of being the Department for Social Disasters.... Come on guys get it sorted.
What exactly is Peter Robinson's problem? He should be backing Ritchie all the way to the House of Lords on this one.
Missing comments again. Even worse this time - they're mine!
It is really important that Executive Ministers operate within the Ministerial code and within their legal powers. On the outside we do not have enough information to make a judgement on Robinson's assertions. If the Courts get involved it would be the end of the Executive. However, there must be a question about the process used by Ritchie to make the decision - irrespective of what the decision is. Did she operate within the terms of her own Departmental Equality Scheme and carry out an Equality Impact Assessment and consult on the outcome of that appraisal? If not then her decision is open to challenge through the Equality Commission and also through the Courts. Direct Rule Ministers used to ignore Equality schemes while Nationalist parties demanded adherence to them. How stands this decision in relation to the way it has been taken? Has it been through the equality process or not?
This is the same Peter Robinson who took to his feet in the House of Commons to make claims of financial impropriety against a member of the Sheridan Group.
The contract was pulled by Government from Sheridan in respect of developing the Queen's Quay after Robinson's claims made under parliamentary privilege.
Judicial review anyone? Litigation anyone?
UDA DON鈥橳 KNOW THEIR CONTACTS FROM THEIR CONTRACTS鈥
With reference to your entry (鈥楿ltra Vires鈥?) and the piece by 大象传媒 NI Home Affairs Correspondent, Vincent Kearney (鈥楬ow UDA Cash Carrot was Pulled鈥) I would respond as follows:
For any agreement between parties to have meaning, the essential element is that those parties are of like mind. This does not now appear to be the case - if in fact it ever was 鈥 between the NIO and the leadership of the UDA.
For a 鈥榗ontract鈥 to have substance, there needs to be something for something. Gratuitous arrangements are not normally enforceable under Northern Ireland law. If, according to the UPRG (UDA) decommissioning was not part of the bargain 鈥 then at law no contract may exist that is capable of being breached.
The impression (received) by the IICD in their Report of 19 January 2006, paragraph 2, suggests that decommissioning was indeed part of the bargain - the IICD being a third party consideration -
鈥淲e have now held several meetings with the UPRG, including some in which a UDA representative participated. While these have not led to firm decommissioning proposals we are advised that the UDA is prepared to address the issue of arms in the context of a satisfactory consideration by the British government of its community鈥檚 socio-economic concerns鈥.
It is clear from the history under Direct Rule that the government did not commit to writing down a requirement for decommissioning as a condition. To do so would have meant that government was entering into a formal agreement 鈥榯o buy guns鈥 from an organisation that is in possession of illegally held weapons and therefore such agreement would have little credibility at law. Was the government under Direct Rule relying upon the expressions contained in the IICD Report referred to above? 鈥 it would seem so.
Minister Ritchie should write to the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr Peter Hain, asking for clarification, as the IICD Report of 19 January 2006 was addressed to him and another.
I was talking about water water 3 and camera shy awards.
A lot of serious questions but I understood that Ministers could no longer ignore the majority decision of the Executive. Surely there is a Minsterial Code they signed up to. If this has to go to Court it will surely do much damage to the Executive. I understand that Margaret Ritchie said recently that she visited Protestant/Unionist areas and witnessed greater poverty and poorer living conditions than she witnessed in Catholic/Nationalist areas. We need to get the resources into these areas without the help of Paramilitaries.
Cheers.
Mark
ASSEMBLY SPEAKER OUT OF ORDER
Having examined the Hansard transcript of proceedings surrounding Margaret Ritchie鈥檚 Statement I noted an aspect of the Speaker鈥檚 performance that deserves to be highlighted.
Following Margaret Ritchie鈥檚 Statement, Mr Speaker adjourned the Debate to seek advice on a Point of Order (POO) raised by Robinson and, on resumption, pronounced that there had not been a breach of Standing Orders by the Minister. Hansard records his words as follows:
鈥淢eetings have been held with a number of people and groups in order to try to bring some clarity to the issue. I have spoken to Nigel Hamilton, the head of the Civil Service, who has some concerns. In fact, he expressed some serious concerns on the issue鈥檚 legality. I have also spoken to other members of the Executive, who also expressed some serious concerns about the matter and about the Minister鈥檚 statement. However, I have considered Mr Robinson鈥檚 point of order, and I am satisfied at this time there has been no breach of Standing Orders.鈥
Given that the Speaker booted Robinson鈥檚 POO into touch, there was absolutely no good reason for him to publicize the legality concerns of those he had consulted. Those concerns chimed with the views expressed in Robinson鈥檚 POO and I believe the Speaker acted improperly in relaying them to the Assembly and in naming Nigel Hamilton. In effect, the Speaker was saying that the World and his dog were agin鈥 Ritchie. Moreover, how unwise was it to make public that the Head of the Civil Service had concerns about the Minister鈥檚 decision, thus dragging him into the political arena? Bad form, Willie Old Boy, bad form.
This link to the Assembly Website sets out the Role of the Speaker
In light of the above, Willie Hay鈥檚 ability to do the job is highly suspect. I think there鈥檚 a case for bringing his shortcomings to account through the substantive motion mechanism (see Website, Paragraph 3). Alternatively, it could just be the case that Willie needs some training to do the job. Maybe the Assembly Commission could organise for him to undertake a NVQ in Speakership. No, on reflection, I鈥檇 go for the substantive motion option, making sure that it mentions the requirement for the Speaker to be impartial.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed Tuesday鈥檚 proceedings in the Assembly Circus; there鈥檚 no doubt that Margaret Ritchie was the Star Turn.
Stick it to 鈥榚m Margaret, Stick it to 鈥榚m!
Susie
Carryduff
A man who lived on the Shankhill Road for many years, who knows swathes of Protestant Belfast and who voted DUP (I say this to show that he is not anti-DUP) told me that the DUP Ministers have misread the minds of the Protestant working class in regard to Margaret Ritchie. He asserts that they want her to get the UDA off their backs and see her as a genuine lady who is taking a real stand against the Paramilitaries. It is assumed that if she gives the money to the political friends of the UDA they will spend it on their own programmes. They want some direct means of delivering aid to the needy. Sure, he is only one person expressing himself but he has a good feel for things in Loyalist areas. I think that Peter Robinson should consult with the needy as well as his lawyers to get a feel of what is going on. He should also consider a probable image of an assertive caustic man trying to beat down a plucky intelligent woman. Dangerous play and could seriously damage the Executive.