Debate contribution: Commitment to the Proper Use of Public Moneys

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 28 January 2025.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

28 January 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Commitment to the Proper Use of Public Moneys

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4764231

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I will speak relatively briefly on the motion, which we will support, should it go to a Division. It is important to acknowledge the gravity of the issues that we are discussing and the importance of us all taking seriously our responsibilities in the proper discharge of our duties on spending public money, using it properly and being accountable for how we use it as resource. It is clear that the practices that came to light are bizarre, to say the very least. It strains credulity way beyond breaking point that the First Minister was not aware of the employment status of that person. If she was not aware, that calls her competence into question, given that she is head of the Government here. It is simply surreal that an individual — this is before you even get on to the specific issues around that individual — was contracted to work for 80 hours a week by multiple Members of the Assembly and by Sinn Féin directly. A reasonable observation is made in the report commissioned by the Assembly Commission that there is "no bright line" between party political activities or between political activities and legislative and constituency duties. We are all politicians, and we all know that there is a difference between the FAPP scheme and constituency allowances. We also know that there is a difference between people who are employed to work for a political party and are perceived to work directly for that party as either press officers or direct central policy staff and people who work for individual MLAs, even if, at times, they do work that is communications-based or policy research. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is absurd and insulting to people's intelligence to pretend that there is not some distinction between people who are centrally employed to be press officers for a political party and people who work individually and are contracted to work individually for Members. That insults people's intelligence a little bit. I understand the limitations that were placed on those who authored the report, and I do not in any way impugn their motives, because they were operating within limitations. However, specific questions are raised by the matter. It is important that we all take seriously our responsibilities when we sign off every individual claim. Whether it is for a paper clip or for the employment of a staff member, we are making a very important legal undertaking that the money is being properly discharged. We need to provide the public with full confidence. I think that people who are reading the details of this will not have full confidence that that money has been properly discharged. The challenge is that the matter goes yet again on to the pile of things that have damaged confidence in our politics and these institutions. Although there are, of course, lessons for all of us to learn in how we discharge our duties, there are clearly specific practices that have been long and well rehearsed in Sinn Féin on centralising resources and structures and how that is managed that have contributed to the findings of the report. They are concerning, and they are specific and distinct to that party. Therefore, it is for that party to address those and to build confidence in the public that public moneys are being discharged properly. It is important to say, as others have done, that an audit mechanism is already in place. That is true. It is also the case that the repeated collapses of this institution and scandals such as this one simply serve to damage the public's perception of us.

We cannot continue to inflict damage on people's perception of us.

Yes: it is important that there are "regular and robust audits" of what people do. Obviously, that should not be around simply dancing on the head of a pin, because, occasionally, in constituency casework, people will draw attention to the fact that Sinn Féin, the Ulster Unionists or the Alliance Party has a particular view on a particular constituency issue. That is not a problem and should not be conflated with what was discovered in the report, which was a concerning centralisation of resources and management and an absurd lack of control, including from the head of Government in this place. I hope that, in future, we do much better. When I say "we", I mean one political party specifically.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:55 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