As PA Media reports, O’Neill’s comments came after a banner with the word “Traitors” on it was erected at her constituency office in Cookstown, Co Tyrone, at the weekend.
O’Neill broke new ground for her party by attending the event commemorating fallen members of the UK armed forces at the Cenotaph in Belfast, where she laid a laurel wreath. However, she has faced criticism from some people in the republican and nationalist community. As PA reports, more than 100 relatives of IRA members and civilians killed by the security forces and loyalists during the Troubles signed a public statement, published in the Irish News, expressing “devastation” at her decision to attend.
Asked about the statement from republicans criticising her, O’Neill told a press conference this morning:
Of course, it is difficult to hear that, particularly from people who I know all of my life, but I also absolutely accept that they’re entitled to feel how they feel, particularly if they’ve lost a loved one.
So I accept and understand exactly where people are coming from.
However, I can’t be distracted from the role that I play. I want to drive our society forward. I want to build a shared future. I want to take as many people with us on that journey as we possibly can, but I’ve committed to being a first minister for all, and I will live up to that at every turn.
Asked if it was difficult to be called a traitor, O’Neill said:
Look, people are entitled to express their view, and I can accept where they’re coming from, but I also have a role to play, and I’m determined to keep driving us forward.
And here is an extract from the statement signed by republicans.
It is beyond belief that any so-called Tyrone republican would wish to lay a wreath in honour of these forces who caused mayhem and murder on hamlets, hills, villages, and towns – the killing grounds of Tyrone where the cries for truth and justice about collusion, state murder, and counterinsurgency haunt the entire county and hundreds of families.
Have you all totally lost the run of yourselves or is it really power at any cost?
Because when you get to the pinnacle of wherever it is you want to be you’ll have compromised so much, you’ll be no different from the staters and Blueshirts that executed republicans and hounded those who held dear to the words and sacrifices of Tone, Connolly, Pearse, Sands, and Hurson.
Post Office is going to continue to exist in a state like this, can it continue to exist at all?
Badenoch says it can carry on like this, but she says that that would not be best for the Post Office.
She says there are things going wrong on both sides.
She says she does not think the Post Office spent money wisely on Horizon. That would jsutify the Treasury withholding money. But if the Post Office is always reliant on the Treasury, which also has to fund things like health and schools, it will always lose out, she says.
Q: Is the Post Office worth saving?
Yes, says Badenoch.
The challenge is to work out how to fund it, she says. But she goes on:
Should we have a Post Office? Yes, I think it is a cultural institution that’s absolutely essential for us to keep and I support it wholeheartedly.
And that’s the end of her evidence.
her second witness statement.
Second, there is an explanation for why things are slow in government. There is a cautious, risk-averse culture within the civil service, which is systemic and baked-in. This is a rational – and probably inevitable – response to the vast array of statutory and public law demands that regulate the process by which government makes decisions, and reflects the ever-present risk of government decisions being judicially reviewed, undermined and unwound by the courts. The natural reaction to that is to do lots of preparatory work to make sure that all the bases are covered to limit the risk of something going wrong further down the line. There is also an understandable focus on providing value for money when spending taxpayer money (which obviously involves trade-offs). This emphasis on caution slows down decision-making. It’s not that civil servants are slow-going or lazy or don’t care – the risk-averse culture is a natural reaction to the legal demands placed on government. They are required to spend a lot of time considering the various impacts, seeking and assessing various representations, taking into account and weighing all relevant information, making sure all possible alternative options have been thought about, making sure that the entire process is evidenced and so on. As I say, this has become a baked-in, systemic feature of the system. If we want our government to make decisions faster, we need to reduce some of the public law burden – and if we choose not to do so, we must accept that this has consequences for the speed and efficiency of government. Every time we create more public law to hold government to account, it is slower to deliver for people. This is a real issue across government, and needs to be confronted. So whilst it is easy to imagine that government could have clicked its fingers to get compensation out the door, that fails to recognise the systemic and cultural complexity of decision-making in government.
Q: Are you saying, if we want government to make decisions faster, we have to reduce the public law burden?
Badenoch says she is saying that, every time you create law and demand accountability, you slow things down.
Q: Are you saying the rule of law stands in the way of the delivery of services by government?
Badenoch says she is not saying that. She goes on:
The burden of regulation is not the rule of law.
You can the rule of law without an excessive burden of regulation, but if you keep adding more and more rules that will slow things down.
It doesn’t mean that you don’t want the rule of law, but the rule of law has a purpose, and that is to create a fair system which everybody has treated equally, and where everyone can receive justice.
If you keep creating more regulations and people aren’t getting justice, then something has gone wrong, and we should be able to look at that without assuming that this is a criticism of the entire system of the rule of law.
It means that we should be able to look at how we can reform public law. The law is not above criticism. We should be able to say ‘Actually, this isn’t working, what can we do to improve it’, rather than what is happening now where people say, ‘Oh, it’s the rule of law. We can’t touch it. Let’s not do anything.’
Post Office would be a huge challenge. She says people do not want to work there because of the scrutiny they know they will face because it is a public organisation.its readout of what Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron discussed when they met this morning in Paris. It is quite a bit longer than the UK version (see 1.28pm), but not necessarily more revealing.first witness statement where she explains the factors that led to the decision to sack Henry Staunton. Badenoch said:
On 24 January 2024, I received a written submission dated 23 January 2024 prepared by UKGI and Departmental officials, in which I was advised of specific concerns in relation to Mr Staunton’s conduct and his suitability for office. The specific concerns identified in the submission were:
(1) That he had repeatedly attempted to shut down a whistleblowing investigation into his conduct.
(2) That he had engaged in aggressive, intimidating and disrespectful behaviour to other board members and members of the POL executive team.
(3) That he showed continued poor understanding of the public sector aspect of POL’s work and poor judgement.
(4) That he had disregarded proper governance processes as POL’s Chair, most recently by announcing the appointment of a new Senior Independent Director for POL without following formal consultation with the Board, following Board processes or seeking shareholder approval as required.
(5) That he had failed to provide constructive support to POL’s CEO.
Asked why she sacked him, Badenoch refers to her earlier point about being seen to do the right thing. She says she did not want to give Staunton the chance to resign because she wanted a clear story about what happened.
Beer shows Badenoch the submission she received recommending Staunton should be sacked.
Badenoch says this is a good example of what she meant when she said earlier concerns were raised by officials in a “vanilla” form. (See 2.30pm.) She says officials had in the past raised concerns about Staunton with her. But they had not given her the full details.
the full version of the transcript.here, now on the Post Office inquiry’s website.
This is how it starts.
Beer turns to the converation where Badenoch told Staunton he was being sacked, in January this year.
He says Badenoch did not have a transcript of this when she did her witness statement. But the inquiry has now obtained a recording.
Badenoch says she did not know the call was being recorded. She does not know how common it is for a call like this to be recorded. It was probably recorded so they could have an accurate transcript.
Source: theguardian.com
