By David Bell on 20 January 2025The Cost of Political AppointmentsThe recent conviction of Sinn Féin press officer Michael McMonagle for serious child sex offences has highlighted systemic flaws in Northern Ireland’s approach to political appointments. While McMonagle was briefly employed under First Minister Michelle O’Neill’s staffing allowance, subsequent revelations—including a party colleague providing an employment reference—have raised considerable concerns about vetting and accountability.This case exemplifies broader issues—opaque appointment processes, inadequate oversight, and blurred lines between party and public interests—that persist across Stormont and public bodies generally. Reforming these practices is vital to restoring public trust and ensuring adherence to the Nolan Principles of public life.The Accounting Officer for the NI Assembly Commission has now completed a review following expressions of concern about these appointments. Sinn Féin chief whip Sinéad Ennis responded that it was “essential that the use of public money is fully accountable, properly scrutinised and that processes in relation to the use of public funds are open and transparent”. SDLP chief whip Colin McGrath stated that “this situation has undermined public trust and raised questions around the use of public funds.” While the report states that “effective oversight of the use of public money does not start from an assumption of bad faith…”, the behaviour of certain individuals in public office can stretch this assumption to its limits.The scale of public money involved is significant. Between April 2021 and March 2022, MLAs claimed almost £8 million in staff expenses, and allowances for political members of public bodies can start at almost £16,000 per annum.Learning from HistoryThe UK Parliamentary Expenses Scandal of 2009 stemmed from investigations into several MPs’ claims for second homes and childcare expenses. On 27 May 2007, the Sunday Times revealed that Conservative MP Derek Conway had employed his son as a part-time research assistant in his parliamentary office from 2004 to 2007, with an annual salary of £10,000, even though he was a full-time undergraduate student at Newcastle University. Closer to home, the Sunday Telegraph reported on 10 May 2009 that five Sinn Féin MPs collectively claimed nearly £500,000 in second home allowances despite not taking their seats at Westminster because of the party’s abstentionist policy.The expenses scandal finally exposed the “gravy train” related to the employment by MPs of family members. A review by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) in 2017 noted that the practice “can be perceived as providing personal gain to MPs and their families at taxpayers’ expense.” While this was prohibited for all new MPs from that point onward, those ‘connected parties’ employed before 2017 were permitted to keep their positions. For instance, Fiona Paisley served as an administration manager for her husband, Ian Paisley, the DUP MP for North Antrim, from 2015 until he lost his seat in May 2024. In 2022, she made headlines when she received a pay rise of approximately £20,000 from parliamentary expenses for her part-time role.Current Practices and ProblemsThe current framework for political appointments attempts to balance party interests with public accountability, but significant gaps remain. In addition to ‘connected parties’ (usually family members), MLAs must declare when they hire ‘associated persons’—including party members, former elected representatives, and relatives or former employees of other MLAs. However, this information is not routinely made public through disclosure on MLAs’ register of interests. Nevertheless, a Freedom of Information Request in 2023 revealed that following the 2022 Assembly elections, more than 60% of constituency office staff recruited by MLAs were party members. All 24 new Sinn Féin staff appointees were party members, while 22 of 35 Alliance Party appointees were party-connected individuals. The DUP declared 15 associated persons out of 34 new appointments.While the case against appointing ‘connected parties’ is relatively straightforward, the issues related to employing ‘associated persons’ are more complex. The McMonagle review highlighted a fundamental challenge in oversight: the difficulty in distinguishing between constituency work, legislative work, and party-political activities. This inherent overlap between party and public service roles presents structural challenges for effective oversight. Exemptions from the provisions of Fair Employment laws present an additional complexity.Fair Employment legislation in NI exempts elected representatives when appointing staff “where the essential nature of the job requires it to be done by a person holding, or not holding, a particular political opinion”. A similar exception exists for clergymen or ministers of a religious denomination and, until recently, also held for teachers.Beyond Stormont: Public Body AppointmentsThe McMonagle case highlights issues around patronage and oversight that go beyond staffing appointments within the Assembly. In early 2021, a controversy over Sinn Féin’s appointment of an individual with serious criminal convictions to the Education Authority (EA) illustrated how political parties’ power to nominate representatives to NI’s public bodies raises similar concerns about accountability. This appointment prompted the introduction of the Political Appointments Bill, which sought, in vain, to establish new restrictions around such nominations. However, this failed to address what appear to be serious deficiencies in the rules governing the appointment of political members to the EA’s board.The Bill directly compares individuals nominated as political members of the NI Policing Board and the EA, overlooking at least one highly significant difference. Unlike the Policing Board, and indeed any other public body in NI, political members of the EA board are not required to be elected Local Government members, which has been described as a ‘democratic deficit’. Furthermore, the Bill highlights a serious deficiency common to all public body appointments made by our political parties.Accountability GapThe Minister is ultimately responsible for any appointment within their department and will always point out that these “have been made in accordance with the principles and practices of the Code of Practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.” This requires that all stages of the appointment process be transparent, fair, and based on merit. These values are reiterated in the Seven Principles of Public Life (also known as the Nolan Principles), which apply to anyone who holds public office. However, the Political Appointments Bill states that political members of public bodies are nominated by the nominating officers of political parties. This process is, at best, opaque and may or may not adhere to any code of conduct.ConclusionThe McMonagle case exemplifies fundamental weaknesses in managing political appointments across our institutions. At the most basic level, it exposed gaps in the vetting and oversight of constituency office staff. More broadly, it highlighted how the current system of political patronage—from staffing allowances to public body appointments—relies too heavily on the integrity of nominating officers and political parties. While the unsuccessful Political Appointments Bill sought to address issues related to criminal convictions, it failed to confront more systemic challenges regarding transparency and accountability.The issues revealed by this case persist across our institutions. If we are to uphold the Nolan Principles in public life, particularly those related to openness and accountability, we need stronger safeguards and greater transparency in how political appointments are made—whether to constituency offices or public bodies. Ministers of Government Departments must accept responsibility for ensuring that transparency, fairness, and merit are paramount at every stage of public appointments. All public officeholders must “actively promote and robustly support” these principles “and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.”
By David Bell on 20 January 2025The Cost of Political AppointmentsThe recent conviction of Sinn Féin press officer Michael McMonagle for serious child sex offences has highlighted systemic flaws in Northern Ireland’s approach to political appointments. While McMonagle was briefly employed under First Minister Michelle O’Neill’s staffing allowance, subsequent revelations—including a party colleague providing an employment reference—have raised considerable concerns about vetting and accountability.This case exemplifies broader issues—opaque appointment processes, inadequate oversight, and blurred lines between party and public interests—that persist across Stormont and public bodies generally. Reforming these practices is vital to restoring public trust and ensuring adherence to the Nolan Principles of public life.The Accounting Officer for the NI Assembly Commission has now completed a review following expressions of concern about these appointments. Sinn Féin chief whip Sinéad Ennis responded that it was “essential that the use of public money is fully accountable, properly scrutinised and that processes in relation to the use of public funds are open and transparent”. SDLP chief whip Colin McGrath stated that “this situation has undermined public trust and raised questions around the use of public funds.” While the report states that “effective oversight of the use of public money does not start from an assumption of bad faith…”, the behaviour of certain individuals in public office can stretch this assumption to its limits.The scale of public money involved is significant. Between April 2021 and March 2022, MLAs claimed almost £8 million in staff expenses, and allowances for political members of public bodies can start at almost £16,000 per annum.Learning from HistoryThe UK Parliamentary Expenses Scandal of 2009 stemmed from investigations into several MPs’ claims for second homes and childcare expenses. On 27 May 2007, the Sunday Times revealed that Conservative MP Derek Conway had employed his son as a part-time research assistant in his parliamentary office from 2004 to 2007, with an annual salary of £10,000, even though he was a full-time undergraduate student at Newcastle University. Closer to home, the Sunday Telegraph reported on 10 May 2009 that five Sinn Féin MPs collectively claimed nearly £500,000 in second home allowances despite not taking their seats at Westminster because of the party’s abstentionist policy.The expenses scandal finally exposed the “gravy train” related to the employment by MPs of family members. A review by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) in 2017 noted that the practice “can be perceived as providing personal gain to MPs and their families at taxpayers’ expense.” While this was prohibited for all new MPs from that point onward, those ‘connected parties’ employed before 2017 were permitted to keep their positions. For instance, Fiona Paisley served as an administration manager for her husband, Ian Paisley, the DUP MP for North Antrim, from 2015 until he lost his seat in May 2024. In 2022, she made headlines when she received a pay rise of approximately £20,000 from parliamentary expenses for her part-time role.Current Practices and ProblemsThe current framework for political appointments attempts to balance party interests with public accountability, but significant gaps remain. In addition to ‘connected parties’ (usually family members), MLAs must declare when they hire ‘associated persons’—including party members, former elected representatives, and relatives or former employees of other MLAs. However, this information is not routinely made public through disclosure on MLAs’ register of interests. Nevertheless, a Freedom of Information Request in 2023 revealed that following the 2022 Assembly elections, more than 60% of constituency office staff recruited by MLAs were party members. All 24 new Sinn Féin staff appointees were party members, while 22 of 35 Alliance Party appointees were party-connected individuals. The DUP declared 15 associated persons out of 34 new appointments.While the case against appointing ‘connected parties’ is relatively straightforward, the issues related to employing ‘associated persons’ are more complex. The McMonagle review highlighted a fundamental challenge in oversight: the difficulty in distinguishing between constituency work, legislative work, and party-political activities. This inherent overlap between party and public service roles presents structural challenges for effective oversight. Exemptions from the provisions of Fair Employment laws present an additional complexity.Fair Employment legislation in NI exempts elected representatives when appointing staff “where the essential nature of the job requires it to be done by a person holding, or not holding, a particular political opinion”. A similar exception exists for clergymen or ministers of a religious denomination and, until recently, also held for teachers.Beyond Stormont: Public Body AppointmentsThe McMonagle case highlights issues around patronage and oversight that go beyond staffing appointments within the Assembly. In early 2021, a controversy over Sinn Féin’s appointment of an individual with serious criminal convictions to the Education Authority (EA) illustrated how political parties’ power to nominate representatives to NI’s public bodies raises similar concerns about accountability. This appointment prompted the introduction of the Political Appointments Bill, which sought, in vain, to establish new restrictions around such nominations. However, this failed to address what appear to be serious deficiencies in the rules governing the appointment of political members to the EA’s board.The Bill directly compares individuals nominated as political members of the NI Policing Board and the EA, overlooking at least one highly significant difference. Unlike the Policing Board, and indeed any other public body in NI, political members of the EA board are not required to be elected Local Government members, which has been described as a ‘democratic deficit’. Furthermore, the Bill highlights a serious deficiency common to all public body appointments made by our political parties.Accountability GapThe Minister is ultimately responsible for any appointment within their department and will always point out that these “have been made in accordance with the principles and practices of the Code of Practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.”