Minutes of a private meeting between Paula Bradshaw and Michelle O'Neill raise serious questions about scrutiny body's independence
Minutes of a private meeting between the First Minister and the chair of the committee meant to be scrutinising her have emerged – and show that Michelle O’Neill came armed with the questions MLAs had sent in advance and attempted to deflect questions about safeguarding onto another department.
According to the memo, seen by the News Letter, the minutes weren’t written up by the Executive Office until five days after the meeting happened – and after they had already become a matter of controversy in the media.
The minutes raise serious questions about the credibility of the Assembly body set up to hold ministers to account. They paint a picture of a relationship where the First Minister called the shots, and was allowed to help set the terms of engagement.
At one stage Ms O’Neill’s top civil servant, the Executive Office permanent secretary, suggested “delaying or postponing the session” and asking MLAs to agree to “hold the meeting in closed session or with the Committee’s legal support present”.
Not only was the committee chair invited by the witness to a private meeting in advance – but the witness had advance questions, prior knowledge of the committee’s legal advice and was able to help set boundaries about the conduct of the meeting.
It also appears to suggest a level of agreement between the First Minister and the committee chair that questions about child safeguarding – the entire purpose of her appearance – were only “tenuously linked” to the work of Michelle O’Neill’s office.The document shows the Sinn Fein leader and Paula Bradshaw had a “discussion” on the questions which had been submitted in advance.
The First Minister’s officials’ note of the meeting states “It was noted that some were tenuously linked to the work of TEO e.g. safeguarding where the policy responsibility belongs to DoH”. She repeated this argument in the evidence session itself.
The sending of questions in advance has been one of the most controversial aspects of the entire debacle – with MLAs asked to explain in what other context a witness would get advance questions from their would-be interrogator.
After Paula Bradshaw initially said only two questions had been sent to Michelle O’Neill in advance, the News Letter revealed that there were in fact seven specific questions sent.
Prior sight of the questions – and a prior discussion about their legitimacy – helped enable the First Minister to have a strategy in place to bat away questions, which she did.
The minutes also show that Paula Bradshaw discussed the legal position the committee had been advised on with the First Minister.
The chair is noted to have told the First Minister that “in respect of questions that may fall outside of the vires, the Chair cannot stop the questions being asked, it is for FM to decide if she wishes to answer or not”.
There have been repeated assurances that legal advice was not discussed – with the exception of noting the legislation which governs committees. The vague minutes do not state that the legal advice was directly quoted, but the account tallies with a portion read out in the committee.
Alliance MLA Connie Egan referenced the legal advice the committee had received, saying: “The legal advice said that witnesses could not be compelled to answer if it was felt it was not within the vires of the committee – not that the chair had to rule it out”.
The minute now appears to show this aspect of the legal advice was discussed with the First Minister ahead of her appearance, although it is not clear who provided it to her.
The document also reveals that Ms Bradshaw told the First Minister “if questioning becomes repetitious or aggressive the Chair will intervene”.
The evidence session last month was supposed to scrutinise the first minister over her party’s handling of child safeguarding issues and other scandals which have hit the party in recent months. However, Ms O’Neill refused to answer any questions she deemed not relevant – and a largely confused and chaotic committee struggled to respond.
The chairperson Paula Bradshaw ruled questions out of order, despite legal advice stating that it was for the witness to decide whether they wanted to answer them. The chair of the Executive Office (TEO) committee later promised that minutes of the controversial private meeting exist and she would release them.
In yesterday’s meeting of the troubled committee, North Antrim MLA Timothy Gaston told Ms Bradshaw: “I felt that the way you chaired the meeting, you almost once again shielded the witness. It was up to the witness if they wanted to answer the questions or not. And at times you involved yourself in situations where you didn’t need to be, instead of letting the member ask the questions whether they be hard or whether they’re not.”
Ms Bradshaw responded: “It was nothing to do with that. It was to do with the remit of the committee and you know that.”
Mr Gaston said the reputation of the committee was “trashed” over the way the first minister’s appearance was handled.