NI Assembly defends its controversial McMonagle report - as TUV brand affair 'the biggest scandal since the return of devolution'
The Northern Ireland Assembly has indicated it won’t revisit its report into salaries and expenses prompted by the events surrounding Michael McMonagle – a former Sinn Fein press officer later convicted of child sex offences – saying its focus is now on stopping similar issues arising in future.
This week MLAs backed a TUV motion which said the Assembly investigation had ‘muddied the waters’ over rules for how public funds are used at Stormont and criticised the fact that there were no interviews conducted.
It also called on the First Minister to correct the Assembly record over a claim McMonagle worked as a press officer – despite it since emerging that he was paid by public money to work in Sinn Fein MLAs’ constituency offices.
In the wake of his suspension from Sinn Fein and his subsequent conviction for child sex offences, questions emerged about McMonagle’s employment when the News Letter revealed that he had been employed by Sinn Fein MLAs as constituency office staff, and at one point in 2020 had three jobs, including as office staff for Michelle O’Neill.
The TUV says the events around Mr McMonagle are the biggest scandal since the return of devolution – and has again questioned why nobody has been interviewed over the matter.
The party has raised questions about why the “paper-based” probe did not interview Ms O’Neill and others – but the Assembly said in statement to the News Letter that any future investigation would be subject to the same legal “limitations” as the first.
North Antrim MLA Timothy Gaston says there was nothing to prevent interviews taking place. He said: “As I observed during the debate on Tuesday, there was nothing within the terms of reference of the review provided to me by Ms Hogg, the Assembly's Chief Executive, which suggested that there was anything to prevent Jonathan McMillen, the Assembly’s head of legal services, from interviewing MLAs.
"I noted that no one during the debate - including members of the Assembly Commission - sought to claim there was a prohibition on taking this obvious step".
When asked by the News Letter whether it would conduct a second review, given that MLAs backed the TUV motion which was critical of the initial probe, an Assembly spokesperson suggested it had done all it could within its powers.
“The majority of Members speaking in the debate acknowledged that this review was undertaken in difficult circumstances. However, the non-binding motion did not call on the Assembly Commission to undertake a further review. A number of Members acknowledged that the review had to be conducted within the limitations of the specific responsibilities and powers of the Assembly Commission, and within the legal framework surrounding the claims made under the Determination. These limitations would similarly apply to any further review”, the spokesperson said.
The News Letter asked the Assembly for clarity on whether it is saying that it does not have the powers to interview members or staff. A spokesperson said it “does not have the powers to compel Members or Commission staff to attend for interview”.
Mr Gaston said the only party prepared to speak in defence of the report was Sinn Fein – adding “it is clear from the debate that every other party accepts that Sinn Fein were creaming off public money to fund their press operation - something which is expressly against Assembly rules”.
The Assembly report, published in January, found that Sinn Fein MLAs’ staff have been handled by a centralised HR service provided by the party – and judged that it “strains credibility” that the party wasn’t aware that he held down a number of jobs until years after the event.
There has been criticism of some of the report’s findings, as it apportioned almost all of the blame for the employment scandal on the convicted sex offender himself, and contrasted his character to that of the MLAs – including then-deputy First Minister Michelle O’Neill – who employed him in her capacity as an MLA.
An Assembly spokesperson said: “The debate on 28 January allowed Members to express different and legitimately-held views and opinions on the approach to the review of the use of certain allowances under the Assembly Members (Salaries and Expenses) Determination (Northern Ireland) 2016 (the Determination), its contents and its conclusions. The Assembly did not divide on the motion and speeches across the Assembly reflected that while the majority of contributors agreed with some elements of the motion, they also disagreed with others".
They said the Assembly is now focused on measures to avoid similar issues arising in the future – and that the Clerk/Chief Executive intends to either introduce a number of new administrative measures or recommend to the Assembly Commission where changes are required to be made to the Determination.
“The significance of the unusual step of a specific review having been conducted, a detailed report having being produced and published, as well as referrals having been made to the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Department of Finance and the PSNI, should not be underestimated”, the Assembly said.