Debate contribution: First Minister's Recent Statements

Debate contribution by Ms Michelle O'Neill on 7 October 2024.

MLA

Ms Michelle O'Neill

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

7 October 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Questions for Urgent Oral Answer

Heading

First Minister's Recent Statements

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4579460

Read the official Assembly record

Text

On the issue of the photo, I understand that people may perceive it differently, but I can stand over only my own actions. My statement of absolute fact is that I did not see Michael McMonagle on that day. I was focused solely on the child and the campaign, of whom and of which I have been a big advocate the whole way through. I very much regret that the family is being brought into the middle of this day and daily. I just want to say that. At the Executive Office Committee, when I was asked that question and was speaking from memory, I said that I did not engage with anybody from the British Heart Foundation. Clearly, however, I can see — it has been brought to my attention — that I greeted Fearghal McKinney. I am happy to put that on the record, thereby correcting the record. Hopefully, that provides that information. That senior member of HR is no longer employed by the party, but they are a party member.

I accept that the Chief Constable clarified his position, and I accept that position. I confirm that what I put out publicly relates to when I became aware of it: whether that was the timeline that I set out for when we knew about the press officers having given the references without asking for permission or the HR officer confirming to the British Heart Foundation, a year later, the clarification point that it had asked for. Everything that I have put on the public record is from within that time frame and when I knew about things.

Those are two distinct cases. In one, an investigation started by the party would have ended with a ruling of gross misconduct. The former HR person is no longer employed by us, so any employment action that we took would have been retrospective and based on what we know now, which we did not know then. That is the very distinct difference.

I have been very clear both today and when I spoke with Fearghal on Saturday that we would not want to damage the reputation of an excellent charity that does sterling work to promote heart health. I look forward to a constructive relationship with the charity, but I have been unequivocal about any reputational damage caused to it. I apologise for that.

If there has to be a review of passes, so be it. That is what we should do. We should always keep policies under review. The passes should have been returned. There is no other way to explain that: they should have been returned. If the Assembly has to look at the policies and procedures on the cancellation of members' passes, I am absolutely up for that.

Yes, absolutely. That is important. I will absolutely not be found wanting in playing my part to make sure that we have policies that are as effective and up to date as possible and benchmarked against best practice. I think that we all share in that. I am attempting to answer all questions that Members have today. Let us consider whether talking to the Committee is also required. I am trying to put on the record all the answers to the questions that Members have posed to me today. Hopefully, those answers will shed light on anything that people were perhaps unclear about. I want the public at home to be assured that safeguarding is paramount to me. I take it very seriously in not only my departmental work but my party capacity. I will do everything to ensure that this is got right.

Mr McMonagle was probably employed by different MLAs at different times to fulfil different responsibilities. I am happy to answer any questions on the role that he played during his employment with any of our team. We want to be as fulsome, open and transparent as we can be, and we will do so with whatever the relevant body is in the Assembly.

Yes. Leadership and responsibility absolutely matter when it comes to areas that are as sensitive as child protection. I share that concern. We have our own child protection policies and our human resources handbook, but, when we reflect on the past week and everything that has happened, there is no doubt that we need to ensure that those are as up to date with the best practice as we possibly can. I am very much committed to ensuring that it will not happen again. I will do whatever I can, including, in particular, looking at references. That is crucial. As I said, in this scenario, two people gave references without permission. They were not condoned. They were not endorsed. They were not given permission to do so, and they should not have done so. That is a wrong — an absolute, fundamental wrong. They should not have given the references in the first place.

That is always the case. It does not arise just on this occasion. That is a fundamental commitment from our party in terms of our own child protection policies and our own HR rules, and I just would be careful about not straying too far into accusing people of something that we did not know — in this case, a serious error on behalf of the HR manager in which to fail to provide the information to me that the British Heart Foundation had contacted the office, but, outside of that, that is as far as that goes.

The Member must have misheard me. I said that I am attempting to answer all the questions today, not that I am running out of time to answer questions. I have put publicly on record how, through our internal processes, we have responded to this issue. I have said that I take it seriously — with considerable seriousness in the issues themselves. Michael McMonagle is a monster. Michael McMonagle did what he did, and he is being dealt with under the full force of the law, and rightly so. The two former Sinn Féin press officers should not have done what they have done. They should not have provided references. They would not have been given permission to give references. I do not condone that for anybody, particularly in this kind of case, and I will reflect on the issue of references in our HR guidance and our policies, but, outside of that, I am trying to give full answers today to all the questions that are being asked of me.

Well of course I am ready and willing to work with the Commissioner for Standards, if that is what, they feel, is appropriate. There is no grey area here. That is an absolute. I am trying to stand up and answer all the questions today. I have just offered to the Chair to speak to the Chair about whether or not it is appropriate to come back to the Committee, given that I am trying to answer all the questions today, but I am happy to engage with the Chair.

As the Member will know probably from his own party, whenever someone is disciplined, that is not for wider public consumption. That is an employment issue between an employee and the employer, so I was very mindful of that. So I am very confident and, as I said, I stand over the fact that I did not see Michael McMonagle in the Great Hall. I accept that, when you look at that photograph from that angle, it could perhaps look as though I perhaps should have seen him, but I did not see Michael McMonagle that day. I would not stand here and make that statement if it were not true. I did not see that individual on that day. I was solely focused on talking to the family and solely focused on the actual reason why they were in the Great Hall in the first place, which was around trying to get the organ donation legislation over the line.

No, she did not know, because Aisling did not even start until months after he was actually suspended, so how would she even know that that is the case? I have asked Aisling that question. If we had known that Michael McMonagle was there that day, we would have said it. That is the case: we did not know. I did not know, and I have tried to clarify that for everybody today.

Yes. I am not trying to say any different. That is correct. That HR manager was the person who had to manage through the disciplinary hearing. That is correct, because they were, in fact, the HR manager. The question of the serious omission only arose last week, when I was contacted by the British Heart Foundation, which told me that it did, in fact, send the email. I only became aware of that issue last week. I can say that, on 20 August 2021, when Michael McMonagle informed the press officer here at that time that he had been arrested by the PSNI, decisive action was taken. We immediately acted. Our child protection policy and our human resources handbook were deployed, and he was immediately suspended from party membership. He was also suspended from his employment as a press officer. The child protection policy kicked in immediately. Everything was done according to that policy. So, we acted decisively. This other issue has arisen because people gave references without asking for permission and because the HR manager was asked for clarification after McMonagle was charged, but did not bring that information forward. That is where the issues that we are speaking about today have arisen.

We have not spoken about it at this stage, but I can say that I am evermore determined to lead the Executive Office. I am evermore determined to carry out my role as First Minister and to deliver on all the commitments that we have set out in our Programme for Government. We, as an Assembly, have much work to do here. I am determined to play my part, to work with others, to deliver for people, to deliver on the Programme for Government commitments and to take on the big issues of the day. That is what I am determined to do and focused on in my work as First Minister. I will work with the deputy First Minister, the rest of the Executive and colleagues in the Assembly to continue to do our best for the public that we collectively serve.

That is not relevant to the topic that we are discussing today.

1,773 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:22 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