³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Justice Minister Naomi Long has clashed with the committee that scrutinises her work over the transparency of her department's finances.

In an exchange of letters seen by the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ, the minister accuses the committee chairman of misleading the assembly.

The committee retorts by claiming the Justice Department's failure to provide it with information has been "disturbing and unacceptable".

It comes after MLAs debated the Stormont budget on 5 May.

Then, the justice committee chairman, the DUP's Paul Givan, told MLAs Mrs Long's department had put in bids for extra funding for the Covid 19 pandemic and other areas without - in his words - doing its "internal housekeeping".

Mr Givan complained about his committee not getting estimates of the sums required to meet these pressures.

The next day the justice minister wrote to Mr Givan, accusing him of "crossing the line between the expression of legitimate political opinion and misleading the assembly".

Mrs Long called on Mr Givan to retract what she described as his "inaccurate" assertions.

The minister argued that in some of the areas where the justice committee had been looking for precise costings there remains "significant uncertainty".

Mrs Long wrote: "It is clear that following the issues around Covid-19, all departmental budgets are now very much in a state of flux and that it will take some time for the dust to settle."

She added she was "extremely disappointed" by the justice committee chairman's approach.

However, Mr Givan replied making it clear he has no intention of withdrawing his remarks.

He wrote: "It is both my own view, and the view of the committee, that the comments were not unfounded and therefore will not be retracted."

In his response, Mr Givan states that the Justice Department did not inform his committee it was bidding for nearly £39m to help it combat Covid-19.

Instead, Mr Givan says, the committee got a detailed breakdown of the bid from its counterparts on the Stormont finance committee, who had been provided the document by Conor Murphy's Finance Department.

Mr Givan describes the failure of the justice department to provide this information directly to his committee as "unacceptable".

Both letters conclude by stating that each side wants to work in a more constructive manner with the other.

However, the tone of this correspondence, so soon after Stormont's return, could signal a potentially abrasive relationship ahead between the justice minister and the scrutiny committee she has to deal with.