MEP resorts to Ombudsman
10 September 2007
Jim Allister MEP has confirmed that he is referring excessive delays in responding to his correspondence, by OFMDFM and the Head of the Civil Service, to the Ombudsman, believing that such constitutes maladministration.
In a statement Jim Allister said:-
“As long ago as 1 May 2007 I wrote with pertinent enquiries as to the appointment of special advisers by the incoming Ministers. Despite reminders, I have still not had a reply. Since we are now in the 5th month since I wrote, I am not prepared to tolerate the delays any further. Thus I am referring the matter to the Ombudsman. It seems to me a clear case of maladministration. I am also referring delays of over 3 months by the First Minister in replying to correspondence.
Devolution is supposed to bring greater accountability and transparency to government. Yet, I have to say, I never had to wait this long under Direct Rule for ministerial replies. Just what has the Executive to hide?
On the 18 special advisers, being paid for by the taxpayer, I have enquired as to how many have criminal convictions, whether they are security vetting, what restrictions exist on their access to documents, by what process were they appointed and how much public money is being paid to them. Surely, the public are entitled to know the answers to these basic questions. If this had been happening under Direct Rule, there would have been uproar from the local parties.”
Copy of Mr Allister’s letter of 1 May 2007:
Mr Nigel Hamilton
Head of Northern Ireland Civil Service
Office of First and Deputy First Minister
Block A, Castle Buildings
Stormont
BELFAST
BT4 3SR
1 May 2007
Dear Mr Hamilton
Please advise me of the protocols and arrangements which exist in respect of specialist/political advisers appointed by ministers of the incoming Executive.
Is their appointment in the gift of the individual minister, or are there any objective criteria applied and, if so, by whom. Are there any prohibitions, for example, criminal convictions or family relationship? Moreover, are they subjected to security vetting, or do they have to declare if they have ever been convicted of a criminal offence? Are they required to sign the Official Secrets Act? Is there information to which they can be denied access, and, if so, on what basis? What is the nature of their tenure of office and by what process, if any, and on what basis can they be removed?
Further, please identify each and every such adviser, along with their date of appointment, and advise me of the financial package relating to each, including salary, allowances (including travel), benefits in kind and pension costs and rights. In addition, can you describe the facilities afforded to each in terms of offices etc and advise the cost to the public purse of equipping and running same.
In so far as it is necessary, I rely on the Freedom of Information Act to ground this request.
Yours sincerly
James H Allister QC MEP
