Private meeting controversy: Alliance accused of 'preserving the status quo of a lack of transparency at Stormont'

The private meeting – which took place hours ahead of a committee where Ms O’Neill was die to give evidence on Sinn Fein safeguarding scandals – has been mired in controversy for weeks now. Ms Bradshaw’s committee staff took no notes of the meeting, with the official record left to the first minister.

That record has been described as a “narrative” by a DUP committee member – and a News Letter request for the handwritten notes taken at the time has been rejected by the first minister’s officials. When the TUV asked for the committee to request the notes this week, the deputy chair of the TEO committee, Alliance MLA Stewart Dickson, claimed it would “create a very serious chill factor” for a civil servant if their notes were released.

He said such a move would be “totally and utterly inappropriate” and that there needs to be “a level of confidence” between the department and committee.

His party colleague Paula Bradshaw said the released minutes were a “complete record of what happened that day”. However, the minutes are not a complete record as while they highlight issues which were discussed, they do not say what arguments were made on either side and what – if any – agreement was reached on key points.

For example, the document shows that Michelle O’Neill and Paula Bradshaw had a “discussion” on the questions which had been submitted in advance, and on media reporting of questions that were likely to come up. There is a recorded view that some of them are “outside of the committee’s remit” – but it does not detail whether that was the view of the first minister, the chair, or both.

Despite that, MLAs from Alliance, Sinn Fein and the SDLP had no further curiosity about the meeting and objected to the notes being disclosed.

North Antrim MLA Timothy Gaston said “there seems to be no party more committed to protecting the establishment and the status quo” than Alliance.

He said if Stormont is to change “a basic starting point should be a commitment to open and transparent government”.

“However, instead of that we have seen a Sinn Fein First Minister and her Junior Minister actively shielded from questions - some of which remain unanswered to this day - by an Alliance chairperson and private meetings behind the back of a so-called scrutiny committee between the chair and the witness.

“Yesterday I put forward a sensible and reasonable proposal which would have enabled the committee to regain some respect in the eyes of the public and illustrate that it was prepared to stand up to the Department when I proposed that we demanded the contemporaneous record of the meeting. Officials know that such records can be demanded as a result of the Covid inquiry. We also know from the Covid inquiry that the notes made at the time provide a more fulsome record of events than the sanitised minute. Significantly, the minute of this meeting was only typed up after the minutes became a matter of public controversy.

“However, the committee chose not to demand the notes. I am disappointed by this and believe it reflects poorly on seriousness of the committee to challenge the department we are supposed to be holding to account.

“It is telling that far from “leading change” the Alliance chair and deputy chair were most anxious to preserve the status quo of a lack of transparency at Stormont.”

FOI expert Martin Rosenbaum said the way the meeting was recorded by the executive office was “a completely inadequate record” – and that handwritten notes are of even more value when the official minute is “vague and insubstantial”.

He said the issue goes “right to the heart of what this committee is doing”.

The approach across the Executive differs to the release of these notes, with DUP education minister’s department releasing them in relation to another controversial meeting, relating to Paul Givan’s meeting with the Loyalist Communities Council.

Martin Rosenbaum told the BBC’s Nolan Show that handwritten notes aren’t automatically exempt from being released – departments need to decide on a case by case basis.

In response to the News Letter’s FOI request, the first minister’s private office said contemporaneous notes are “being withheld” as they fall under an exemption which they say “relates to the operation of a Ministerial private office”. The refusal letter continued: “Any note taken by the Minister’s Principal Private Secretary (PPS) clearly relates to the operation of a ministerial private office. Taking a handwritten note is a purely administrative task, being the necessary first step towards the production of the official note of the meeting. In TEO’s view the content of a handwritten note is therefore clearly exempt” from disclosure.

Mr Rosenbaum said: “That’s not enough, that’s not a complete statement of the law. It’s possible that you could hold back something that is to do with the workings of a ministerial private office as they’re saying. But only if its considered to be against the public interest.

“So if you’ve got a particular case… maybe a very controversial meeting, people might want to compare the handwritten notes against the official record, to check that the official record is complete and accurate. It may well be, under those circumstances, in the public interest that that should be out, so that the public can properly scrutinise whether or not the official record is correct”.

He said in this case there is “a very strong public interest for releasing them” saying that the situation around the meeting seemed “very peculiar and unusual”.

The News Letter asked the Alliance Party the following questions:

- Can Mr Dickson explain how the release of government documents (in this case handwritten notes) would "create a very serious chill factor" for the civil servant who wrote them?

- Is it now the Alliance Party's position that notes taken by civil servants should be beyond the reach of both scrutiny committees and journalists?

The party did not respond.