Adopting a Political Fund: Trade Union Asset or Liability?

Introduction

Adopting a political fund is a significant decision for any organisation and this particularly so for trade unions. Many people, insofar as they ever think about the matter, may casually regard the adoption of a political fund as presenting organisations generally with both opportunities and challenges.

The Dual or is that Doubtful Nature of Political Funds

The supporters of a political fund have long argued that if NIPSA had one, it would enable our trade union and trade union activists to provide resources to support campaigns, lobby political parties and representatives and influence party political policy decisions. The benefits we are told would potentially lead to a strengthening of our trade union's influence not only over politicians, political parties and provide us with a greater say in their political decisions but reinforce our interests and our negotiating position with employers, as a result.

Sounds great, right? I mean, what could go wrong? The truth is that there is much more at stake for trade unions, in terms of their independence, democracy, unity and finances than at first may be apparent. The argument from those in favour usually runs along the lines that most other trade unions have a political fund and are fine, so why shouldn't we, as if that makes NIPSA some kind of weird outlier. The truth is most of the main trade unions in Northern Ireland are generally UK-wide and headquartered in Great Britain and most not only have a political fund but, moreover, are officially affiliated to one political party - the UK's Labour Party. Whereas NIPSA is based entirely in Northern Ireland and so represents members only in Northern Ireland, and, as we know, the UK's Labour Party does not stand in Northern Ireland. Clearly, the situation is not analogous.

Yet, the implications and dangers of adopting a political fund are real and need to be considered. Would any claimed benefits really materialise for the general membership or the overall well-being of our trade union, or would having such a political fund, as many suspect, become a source of potential division, suspicion, distrust, favouritism, partiality, misappropriation and misrepresentation in our trade union? More worryingly, would it provide an official conduit for undue external influence, interference and control? Then there are the dangers that any questionable use or misuse of such a political fund would expose NIPSA to, for example, increased adverse scrutiny from the Certification Officer, the media and/or the public, raising concerns about transparency and accountability. On top of that is a potential for reputational risks if the fund’s activities are perceived negatively. Financial obligations associated with maintaining and reporting on a political fund might well further complicate matters. Taken together these factors would certainly seem to outweigh any perceived benefits for many.

Legally speaking, a trade union with it headquarters based in Northern Ireland only needs a political fund if it wants to use its funds for ‘political objects’ such as paying contributions to the funds of, or expenses incurred by, a political party. Similarly, expenditure could be made, for example, as regards to the registration of electors, the candidature of any person or the selection of any person with respect to any election to a political office in the NI Assembly, Westminster Parliament, European parliament or a District Council.

Groundhog Day

As most former and current NIPSA activists, officers, officials and many members know and remember there has been a concerted effort on the part of some union activists and factions for decades to have NIPSA and its membership, through its branch representatives, endorse a motion, brought before NIPSA’s Annual General Conference, calling for the adoption of a political fund.

For most of those decades, with a few notable exceptions, this motion has been assiduously brought back year after year despite its clear rejection by Conference and the branches and members of NIPSA, every time it is proposed. Many NIPSA branch representatives will recall how pages of the Annual Conference Agenda booklet have been consumed with a wording and formulation of a motion that remains unchanging from one year to the next as if somehow its faithful reproduction if published often enough will meet with better success.

I well remember down through the years the veritable ‘football teams’ of speakers lining up at Conference to speak for and against this motion, in truth, most of an afternoon of Conference time was taken up recycling the same old arguments. Although the same arguments were rehearsed every time this motion was proposed, the debate was often heated, invoking scorn, acrimony and division.

Our Society, Identity and the Past: Divided Culture, Identities, Loyalties and Politics

Northern Ireland’s history is deeply marked by division, with cultural, identity, loyalty and political lines often drawn sharply between communities. These longstanding differences have shaped not only social and civic life, but also the way organisations such as trade unions operate and are perceived. The interplay of these divided backgrounds, influences and attitudes towards collective action and organisational decisions, including those relating to political engagement and the establishment of political funds, cannot simply be ignored or supplanted with the utopian internationalist demand of some who equate the espousal of nationalist or unionist politics with a form of sectarianism and its expression as the outworking of so-called ‘green and orange toryism’.

National identity politics here is real and legitimate political opinion and members are entitled to hold and express them without the fear of being labelled sectarian or right- wing. That said, however, there has been, historically, a very real concern that in this divided society, which the membership NIPSA reflects, that a political fund could conceivably allow union funds to be directed to mainstream Northern Ireland political parties in support of nationalist or unionist political parties, their candidates, representatives and causes.

The Perils of Factions, Micro-Political Parties and Entryism

Within NIPSA, there exists a genuine concern tied to the influence of factions and micro- political parties, particularly, though not exclusively, those of the Trotskyist variety. Should a political fund be adopted, it is feared that such groups could leverage their internal alliances to direct union resources and funds towards their own ideological and party-political interests. The recent General Council elections have highlighted this risk, revealing that several council members who belong to the same faction also openly declare membership of the same micro-political party. Such dual membership, in and of itself, is not evidence of anything untoward or of a conflict of interest – after all our members are free to be members of any political party if they wish - it does, however, point to the potential where such occurs for external party-political influence over the affairs of the union. A problem potentially arises if dual membership produces a political and ideological alignment and agenda which is at odds with the views, interests and aims of the union and its rank-and file members. Such circumstances can see an unrepresentative ideology or the aims of a political party being promulgated, prised, prioritised and promoted over the views, and without the agreement, of ordinary NIPSA members.

You may well ask why any of this should matter? In such circumstances, the establishment of a political fund could potentially facilitate these minority views and micro-political parties becoming the primary—if not exclusive—financial beneficiaries of such a fund, especially if their factionist supporters hold a majority on the General Council. This scenario raises concerns about entryism, where factions use their influence within the union, on behalf of, and to further the aims of, their chosen political group, potentially to the detriment of the union's broader membership and unity. It is concerning that a micro-political party which represents politically a minority of NIPSA’s membership, could potentially direct and control our union, imposing its ideological view on most members and potentially union funds in pursuit of same.

As mentioned, the clear and present danger is that micro-political parties will have divergent political interests, policies, agendas, priorities and goals to that of our union and its members – the promotion and passing of the Brexit motion at NIPSA’s Annual Conference in 2016 a month before the Brexit referendum is a case in point.

Leaving aside the controversial circumstances which attended the vote on the Brexit motion, support for it came from a particular faction from within NIPSA which was not representative of its level of support across the broad membership of the union. Similarly, a call made on behalf of NIPSA for what was termed a ‘Left Exit’ aka ‘Lexit’ appeared to emanate from the same faction occupying positions of control within our union and without any apparent recourse to the views of the rank-and-file members of NIPSA or their agreement. Is it merely co-incidence, happenstance, that the pro-Brexit position of this faction in NIPSA coincided with the ideological position adopted on the matter by the micro-political party which many in the faction declared themselves to be members of? Perhaps – Perhaps not. The essential point here is that this was an example of a significant issue for NIPSA members being effectively decided upon by a faction without ever canvassing or considering, the actual opinions of ordinary members on the issue or securing their agreement in relation to it.

The argument that members were free to comment on and debate the motion within their branches and/or direct their branch to oppose same, whilst true, is not the same as seeking the views of all NIPSA members on such a monumental and once in a lifetime decision. The failure to obtain the views of all members on such a huge step for our union was arguably undemocratic and inimical to the interests of NIPSA members who may well have voiced an opposite, anti-Brexit view – a trade union after all is supposed to represent and be representative of its members and their interests. The result of the actual Brexit referendum in Northern Ireland opposing Brexit was 56% and as NIPSA is the largest trade union in Northern Ireland with a membership broadly reflective of society here, there is every reason to suspect that NIPSA’s membership, had it been consulted directly, would have reflected a similar level of opposition.

The Brexit motion was effectively nullified at a subsequent Conference with another motion moved by me calling for NIPSA to undo its effect. This episode illustrates the perils of a faction linked to a micro-political party pursuing an agenda and aims within our union purportedly on behalf of our union which are arguably at variance with the actual views and interests of NIPSA’s members, but which are in accord with the position and ideology of a micro-political party.

Hoary Old Chestnuts

No doubt the proponents for the adoption of a political fund – many members of a faction and micro-political party – will seek to have the issue placed again on NIPSA’s Annual Conference Agenda in the form of the same motion before Conference that has been advanced before for decades previously. It is a certainty that the same well-worn arguments in its favour will be dusted off, repackaged and presented again along familiar tramlines.

These arguments are sundry but in summary members will be told that its adoption will provide NIPSA with increased and significant leverage, influence and control, that it will somehow untie NIPSA and activists’ hands and augment NIPSA’s negotiating toolkit.

What members of NIPSA and their representatives need to ask is where is the logic or evidence for such claims? What could really be achieved in terms of members pay and conditions that do not already exist? You may hear suggestions that prospective political candidates and sitting political representatives from all the main parties would be somehow better held to account or face censure and/or challenge on issues through a political campaign waged by NIPSA activists and paid for by the political fund. But what would this really mean? Would it mean NIPSA activists lobbying political parties, standing themselves for political office or politically supporting and funding others from micro- political parties to do so? Which of the main political parties and their representatives would be targeted for political campaigns and what assurance would there be that such targeting would not be based more on the ideological proclivities of a faction or a linked micro-political party? Is there the slightest evidence that such a strategy would work or yield even the smallest of benefits from employers as a result? Is there any indication that members would agree with the effective party politicisation of our union? These are rhetorical questions, as there is absolutely no evidence that justifies their assertion, particularly, in Northern Ireland’s unique political, economic and industrial relations context, but you will hear them, nevertheless, confidently being made by proponents.

There is evidence, however, historically, that the party politicisation of our union in relation to certain issues, has all the potential to cause alienation, offence, rancour, division and dispute amongst our members, in some cases leading to individual and multiple resignations from NIPSA.

It will be argued, by supporters of a political fund, that any motion calling for same, if passed, is simply calling the matter to be brought back to Conference the following year so that a further motion may be moved putting the matter to the vote. It will be said that approving such motion affords supporters a democratic right currently denied and that continuing refusal to allow such a vote is undemocratic. The same democratic advocates appear strangely silent on putting the matter to directly in an individual ballot of all NIPSA members, as is already done for the election of candidates to NIPSA’s ruling body, the General Council. Such a ballot would be the surest and arguably most democratic way to decide what is a significant and potentially controversial matter for members.

Another hoary old chestnut which is often rolled out is the argument which says that even if a political fund is adopted, members can be reassured that they will not be forced to subscribe to it because the fund will be operated on an ‘opt-in’ (voluntary) basis. Whilst an ‘opt-in’ system is, indeed, the law in Northern Ireland for the operation of a political fund, this fact does not alter the fact that NIPSA members, albeit on a voluntary basis, who choose to contribute to a NIPSA political fund, will be involving themselves, and by implication NIPSA, as a trade union, in the divisive, partisan and controversial world of party politics.

Constitutional Considerations – a Safeguard and a Bulwark

As the adoption of a political fund would require a change to NIPSA’s constitution, the constitution requires that any such change requires a two thirds majority voting in favour of any motion which proposes such change. This high threshold exists for a very good reason, ensuring that the constitution, which holds and codifies NIPSA’s core principles, organisation, structures and electoral processes, cannot be easily, frivolously and/or continually changed, undermined, destabilised or overturned, thereby, protecting the integrity of the union’s governance. It is significant that the architects of the NIPSA’s constitution did not include provision for a political fund, its provisions and, in view of the concerns already outlined above, it is hardly surprising that they did not. The two thirds threshold ensures that any significant change, such as the introduction of a political fund, must be supported by a clear and overwhelming consensus among members, reinforcing the union’s commitment to democratic principles and collective representation.

It is not an insignificant fact that nearly every year over recent decades, the motion for the adoption of a political fund has been brought before NIPSA’s Annual Delegate Conference and every time has failed support, and failed significantly, to meet this threshold. If this failure can be taken as a yardstick of support in our union, then there is even more reason to believe that there is no support, demand or appetite amongst our membership for a political fund and certainly not a consensus for change.

Conclusion

I do not believe that our members want to see NIPSA, our trade union, donating funds to selected political parties nor do they want our union engaging in or supporting party political election campaigns or candidates, where the lines between our trade union and the chosen political party are not simply blurred but indiscernible. Our trade union already engages with political parties and their representatives routinely in furtherance of our members interests, pensions, pay and conditions of service and does so without the need for a political fund. Yes, our trade union needs to continue to concern itself in the real world and that means also in the realm of politics for the benefit of our members but it does not need, and should not involve itself in, party political or ideological agendas such as, for example, the furtherance of Trotskyism. I have every confidence that as in the past NIPSA members, the branches and branch representatives will continue to oppose and vote against the adoption of a political fund.

Seán Garland

May 2026

---

About the Author

Dr. Seán Garland is a long-standing member of NIPSA, who has served as a branch representative, branch secretary and as a member of the Civil Service Group Executive Committee and as a member of the General Council. He works for the Department of Health in legislation and is partially retired. Seán is also a qualified historian with a PhD from the Queen’s University Belfast.