Exclusive: Previously undeclared text messages show First Minister contacted scrutiny committee chair three times ahead of evidence session
The first minister made three attempts to contact the chairperson of a committee due to question her the following day – information which was not given to MLAs when a list of correspondence was provided “in its entirety” to them by the TEO committee in recent weeks, the News Letter can reveal.
Paula Bradshaw – who chairs the scrutiny committee – made no mention of the messages when she was questioned about a timeline of communications provided by officials.
The assembly has told the News Letter that the Alliance MLA is “confident she did not mislead the committee” as the information “was an area of the committee’s administrative business she was not engaged in”.
A freedom of information request by the News Letter uncovered a text message exchange between Michelle O’Neill and committee chair Ms Bradshaw between October 22 and 23, in which the first minister sought assurances about how her evidence session would be conducted. Ms O’Neill wanted to see the committee’s legal advice, and as well as requesting it through official channels, approached the chair directly.
On the 23rd the Sinn Fein leader was due to appear before the Executive Office (TEO) committee to answer questions on a series of scandals engulfing her party.
The messages, released by the Executive Office, have cast new light on the events preceding the meeting. At some point in the evening before, Ms O’Neill made three attempts to contact Ms Bradshaw by phone – twice by text message and at least one phone call.
Rather than rebuke Ms O’Neill for the approach the Alliance MLA responded saying that she had missed her phone call because she thought it might be “the media” – and said she agreed with the first minister’s request that the meeting be “constructive”.
The first minister’s first text to Ms Bradshaw said ‘Hey Paula, Michelle O’Neill here, can you take a quick call’. After no response, she sent another message saying ‘Hi, I have tried to get you on the phone earlier, I’m sending this to you directly, but have asked private office to forward also’.
She included a request which was also submitted through formal channels, asking for the evidence session to be “constructive” and requesting a prior meeting with Ms Bradshaw.
Ms O’Neill also asked for the committee’s confidential legal advice – but the chair’s response shows no pushback on this. She replied: “Michelle, sorry I did see ur call, but didn't recognise the number and avoided in case it was the media!
“I’m free all morning up until cttee at 2pm, so I’ve asked the Clerk to liaise with ur office to set sthg up.
“Totally agree re need for the mtg to be constructive”.
“See u later on”.
The issue of the correspondence surrounding the controversial prior meeting has been raised numerous times by TUV MLA Timothy Gaston in the committee.
At no point during his attempts to secure all correspondence between the committee chair and the first minister did the chair reveal that she had exchanged private text messages with the first minister.
In the October 23 meeting of the TEO committee, the chair said that the first minister asked for the committee's legal advice “this morning” – not the night before, by text, as the messages show.
In that same meeting, Mr Gaston asked for committee members to be informed “when exactly it [the request for a meeting] was sent, who it was sent to”.
Ms Bradshaw responded: “That's fine, we will put it in its entirety, there is no issue there. Trying to make out that there is some issue there is totally disingenuous.”
In the TEO committee on November 6, Mr Gaston asked for “all the correspondence that has taken place between yourself (the chair), the DALO” (Departmental Assembly Liaison Officer).
Ms Bradshaw responded: “I never engage with the DALO. I never engage with the first minister. I never engage with anybody. I engage with the clerk, who does all the work.”
The News Letter asked Ms Bradshaw how that statement was not misleading to the committee. An assembly spokesperson said: “The chairperson of the committee for the Executive Office is content that all relevant correspondence is in the public domain.
“The clerk to the committee for the Executive Office had communicated the arrangements relating to the first minister’s evidence session to all committee members, as early as possible, given the fast-moving pace of the day.
“It should be noted that, with specific reference to the evidence session on October 23, all official communications and formal meeting arrangements between the first minister’s office and the chairperson of the committee for the Executive Office were managed by the clerk to the committee and the Departmental Assembly Liaison Officer (DALO) for The Executive Office.
“In answering the question on correspondence put to her in the committee meeting on November 6 by Timothy Gaston MLA, the chairperson is confident she did not mislead the committee. The Chairperson noted that this was an area of the Committee’s administrative business she was not engaged in – rather it was tasked to both the clerk and the DALO.”
The first minister did not respond to questions.