Debate contribution: Public Appointments

Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on 22 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Colin McGrath

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

22 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Public Appointments

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5638019

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

The motion goes to the very heart of whether people trust this place or not, because, when they look at public appointments in Northern Ireland, too many people no longer believe that the best person gets the job. Too often, what they believe they are seeing is political networks rewarding political insiders. Northern Ireland has seen that culture before. For years, politics here developed a reputation for nepotism, with political offices being staffed by relatives or family members, and that grated with the public. Much of that practice was challenged, because people understood something fundamentally important, which is that the use of public money and appointments to public positions should never become extensions of party machinery or political dynasties. Although some of that old culture has diminished, a new perception has emerged in its place. Increasingly, the concern is not about who gets employed in constituency offices but about who gets appointed to boards, who gets a position of influence and who get a seat around the table where public money and public services are discussed and where public policy is shaped. Again, people are noticing a familiar pattern. When a DUP Minister of Education appoints a sitting DUP councillor as chair of the Education Authority, people take notice. When Sinn Féin Ministers appoint Sinn Féin representatives to public bodies, people take notice. Even today, a DUP Minister has appointed a DUP councillor to a public board. Sure, keep it all in the political family. When politically connected figures repeatedly emerge to take up appointments that are overseen by their own parties, with little independent oversight and limited scrutiny, people draw their own conclusions. Ministers cannot simply dismiss those concerns by saying that a process was technically followed, because the issue is bigger than process. The issue is one of confidence. Do people genuinely believe that such appointments are based on merit? Do they genuinely believe that the best person is getting the job or that political access, party proximity and party loyalty matter most? That is the question, and it is a dangerous question for democracy, because trust in institutions is already fragile. Public appointments should not operate as political rewards. They should not be consolation prizes. They should not be a vehicle for parties to extend their influence through arm's-length bodies (ALBs). They should be about one thing and one thing only: getting the best person into a position in which they can deliver for the public. It should be the person with the strongest skills, the greatest expertise and the clearest ability to improve outcomes, not the person with the right party membership card. These appointments matter enormously. These bodies oversee huge sums of public money. They influence education, investment, infrastructure and public services across the North. What makes the issue so important is that it speaks directly to a wider problem that is facing politics today: trust. People were promised government that would be open, accountable and focused on delivering for the public. They were promised better. Instead, too many people are seeing a system in which the same parties hold power, make the appointments and then insist that there is nothing wrong. What we have is not working. Confidence in public appointments has been weakened. That matters, because public appointments are not just some side issue. As I have said, these bodies oversee our schools, investment agencies, public services and significant amounts of public money. The public deserve confidence that positions are being filled by the best candidate available. We saw the issue arise recently with the controversy surrounding summer schemes for children with special educational needs. Families were, rightly, furious. Children who rely on those schemes were facing the prospect of losing vital support. When questions were raised, it became clear that the board responsible is heavily populated with representatives from all four Executive parties, yet, when concerns were raised, we were told that they were somehow not political appointments but political representatives. The public are not fools; they understand how politics works, and they understand influence. They also understand why scrutiny matters. If parties are happy to celebrate appointments when things are going well, they cannot suddenly distance themselves when difficult decisions are taken. Accountability cannot be optional. If appointments are not genuinely merit-based, public confidence collapses. That is why the absence of a Commissioner for Public Appointments for more than four years was so serious. The independent watchdog responsible for protecting confidence in the system simply was not there. At precisely the moment when confidence needed to be strengthened, oversight disappeared. Leaving the office vacant for so long sent entirely the wrong message. At a time when transparency needed to be reinforced, scrutiny was weakened. The SDLP believes that public service should be open to everyone. Talented people from every background should feel that these opportunities are genuinely accessible to them. Appointments should be determined by ability, competency and integrity, not political patronage dressed up as procedure. The Executive often talk of restoring confidence in politics. Confidence is not restored through speeches. It is restored through actions, when people can see that public appointments are based on merit, expertise and integrity; when positions that are funded by taxpayers are genuinely open to everyone and genuinely awarded to the strongest candidate; and when independent scrutiny is welcomed rather than avoided. That perception matters. If people believe that public bodies are being stacked with political allies, trust in our institutions suffers. What we have is not working, but it does not have to be this way. We can do better. We can build a public appointments system that commands confidence because it is transparent, independent and beyond reproach — a system in which the public can once again believe that the best person, not the best-connected person, gets the job. That is how we rebuild trust, strengthen confidence in devolution and begin to build something new.

986 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:06 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification