I beg to move

That this Assembly, having considered a report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges from the last Assembly (NIA 208/17-22), notes its conclusion that this Committee on Standards and Privileges should recommend a sanction be imposed on Dr Steve Aiken OBE MLA, and imposes upon Dr Aiken the sanction of exclusion from proceedings of the Assembly for a period of two sitting days, beginning on the first sitting day after the resolution.

The Business Committee has agreed to allocate one and a half hours to the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. The complainant, Mr McHugh, will have 10 minutes to speak, should he wish to do so. The respondent, Dr Aiken, will have 10 minutes to speak, should he wish to do so, and he may choose to speak immediately after the complainant has spoken or before the winding-up speech on the motion. All other Members who wish to speak will have up to five minutes for their contributions. Before we begin, I urge Members to confine their remarks to the matters dealt with in the report and the sanction recommended by the Committee and to be mindful of the requirement to demonstrate courtesy, good temper, moderation and respect in the Chamber. If that is clear, I call the Chairperson to open the debate on the motion.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Speaker.]

I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on the motion from the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The purpose of the motion is clear: to seek Assembly approval of the Committee's decision to impose on Dr Steve Aiken the sanction of exclusion from the proceedings of the Assembly for a period of two sitting days. If the motion is approved, Dr Aiken will be unable to participate in plenary proceedings on 13 and 14 May. He will also be unable to table any business or attend any Committee meetings if they happen to be scheduled to take place on those days.

Before outlining the previous Committee's conclusions on the complaint against Dr Aiken, I will explain the timeline of the case. On 4 May 2021, the independent Assembly Commissioner for Standards received a complaint from Mr Maolíosa McHugh MLA, alleging that, during a meeting of the Finance Committee, Dr Aiken had breached the Assembly code of conduct by disclosing both the fact and the contents of a complaint that Dr Aiken had made against Mr McHugh. The commissioner's investigation of the complaint concluded in February 2022, when she sent her report to the previous Standards and Privileges Committee for consideration.

In undertaking its adjudication, the previous Committee received a briefing from the commissioner; a submission from Dr Aiken in response to the commissioner's report in which he criticised the investigatory process; a robust and factual rebuttal from the commissioner of the criticisms made in Dr Aiken's submission; and detailed legal advice on the case. Following deliberation, the previous Committee published its conclusions in a report on 25 March 2022, which, incidentally, was the last day of the previous mandate.

Although the previous Committee's report has been in the public domain for over two years now, I will briefly remind Members of some of the key findings of the case. At a meeting of the Finance Committee on 4 November 2020, Dr Aiken, as Chair of that Committee, disclosed publicly that he had submitted a complaint to the commissioner relating to a member of the Committee, Mr McHugh. The disclosure included both the fact and the detail of his complaint against Mr McHugh, which was the allegation that Mr McHugh had failed to declare an interest while the Committee was receiving evidence on mispayments by Land and Property Services (LPS) of the COVID-19 business support grants.

The public discussion of Dr Aiken's complaint in the Finance Committee, which Dr Aiken initiated, facilitated and participated in, lasted 27 minutes. It was also reported in the media on 5 November 2020 that, following investigation and adjudication, Dr Aiken's complaint had not been upheld and that Mr McHugh was found not to have breached the code. On the back of Dr Aiken's disclosure, Mr McHugh submitted a complaint against Dr Aiken, and it is that complaint that forms the basis of today's debate.

Following investigation and adjudication, Dr Aiken was found to have breached two rules of conduct, namely rule 12 and rule 16. By way of reminder, rule 12 states that a Member:

"shall disclose confidential or protectively marked information only when ... authorised to do so."

Rule 16 states that a Member:

"shall co-operate at all times with any investigation" by the Assembly commissioner. On rule 12, the previous Committee highlighted the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of live complaints in order to safeguard the fairness and integrity of the process and to avoid any unnecessary reputational damage to any of the parties involved.

Will the Member give way?

I am sorry, but I have a lot to get through. I am sorry about that.

On rule 16, the previous Committee pointed to the importance of all Members recognising and respecting the vital role that the independent commissioner plays in the Assembly's ethical standards regime. The Committee concluded that Dr Aiken's failure to cooperate at all times with the commissioner's investigation was misconduct that undermines the office of the commissioner and, consequently, the Committee and the wider Assembly. Moreover, the previous Committee concluded that that was an egregious breach of the code, given that, as a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges at the time, Dr Aiken should have been leading by example in that regard. It was also found that Dr Aiken's conduct was inconsistent with both the respect principle and the leadership principle of the seven principles of public life.

As the previous Committee was able to publish its report only at the very end of the last mandate, it called on the next Committee to recommend a sanction in this mandate. The current Committee has proceeded with the case as quickly as possible. In reality, it has brought the motion within eight operational weeks of the report being published, leaving aside the time when the Assembly was not fully functioning. The Committee carefully considered the particular circumstances of the case against the range and scale of sanctions available.

It is a serious matter. The code of conduct sets out the standards required of Members. It is clear that, in this case, Dr Aiken's conduct was, indeed, an egregious breach of the rules, and therefore the Committee believes that the recommended sanction of excluding Dr Aiken from Assembly proceedings for a period of two sitting days is appropriate and proportionate. I commend the motion.

I want to point out that the whole affair was a stressful time in every respect, particularly for my family. I welcomed the support that I got from many MLAs in the Chamber. I think in particular of one person on the other Benches who was supportive towards me at the time and helped me through a difficult period in my life.

That stress, when it is trial by media, in a sense, was compounded when the Chairperson of the Finance Committee, of which I was a member, declared openly at a meeting of the Finance Committee, whilst it was being broadcast, that I was being reported to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. I thank the Standards and Privileges Committee for the good work that it did. I was exonerated in every respect of any allegations that were made against me. By the same token, I respect the work that it carried out with regard to said Member, not that I take any delight at any Member being sanctioned one way or the other. In fact, it emphasises to every one of us in the Chamber that we have a responsibility to one another in the language that we use and, in particular, that we adhere to the code of practice. In any role that a Member has, not only as an MLA but when they take on the role of, let us say, Speaker or the likes of that in the Chamber, they should know exactly what I am alluding to and how important it is to implement the code of practice and respect it in every way.

I thank those who supported me at the time. I feel vindicated in going forward with that recommendation of the Committee on Standards and Privileges on the Member. I compliment the Committee on the good work that it has done.

I thank the Chair of the Committee and, indeed, Mr McHugh for their remarks so far and the respectful tone that we have had.

I will make a few short remarks in response to my colleagues' statements. As a previous member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, I take its deliberations seriously. I respect its judgements and accept the outcome of its deliberations. I have no wish to have the vote contested. I will not restate the case that I made to the then Committee over 30 months ago. Members, if they wish, can read my arguments in the record.

Members will be aware that there is no right of appeal or independent review of decisions made by the Committee or the commissioner, and I do not believe that further continuing to argue my position, several years after the events, would be in anyone's interests. I do, however, wish to make some other comments that may be pertinent.

The first is an apology: an apology to my staff. Members may recall the period in 2021 when these events occurred and the investigations continued. The evidence in the COVID inquiry is highlighting the uncertainty and turmoil of those times. My Constituency team was dealing with the effects of the COVID pandemic; the fallout from the recent Bobby Storey funeral; my stepping down from the leadership of the Ulster Unionist Party; an MLA, namely me, who had cracked two ribs and was not resting as he was told to; family illnesses; and, of most concern, the ongoing security threat to my team and family caused by loyalist paramilitaries. Regrettably, far too many MLAs have had that call to their house by the PSNI at 23:00, the visit the next day of a protection officer who points out all the important needs for enhanced personal and physical security, and the follow-up call from the Northern Ireland Office to say that it will not provide any of it. In 2021, all those events and more were swirling around at the time of the commissioner's investigation, and I freely admit that her investigation was not my number-one priority. It is perhaps an understatement to say that my family and the great team who work with me were under considerable strain during that period. I placed the factors mentioned above in mitigation to the Committee for my actions. The Committee, as is its right, did not believe them to be germane to its deliberations.

Then came an additional factor. Members will be aware that I was reported to the PSNI. The PSNI conducted its enquiries diligently, utilising a detective inspector and sergeant. Unlike in other inquiries that I could mention, it had a full set of records to examine. Those records included many months of my emails, call logs, work diaries and interviews with my staff and many others such as Simon Hoare MP, the then Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, all to verify details in my diary. My staff observed that we were under a direct threat from loyalist paramilitaries, and that we had had three to four hours of direct police time to reassure us. They also pointed out that many more hours were spent on the investigation of what was, in essence, a case of non-delivery of a recorded letter to me. Those interviews and questioning, coupled with the markedly different approach to dealing with the threat to us, proved traumatic for some members of my staff, who had to seek medical support.

Members will be aware that, at the end of 2021, a full report was sent by the PSNI to the PPS, which responded quickly, in January 2022, that there was no case to answer. I place no criticism on the PSNI, which is doing its job in difficult and trying circumstances, but one may legitimately ask whether this was an appropriate use of its time and resources. I raised that issue with the Committee on receipt of the PPS's letter and asked that an apology be forwarded to my staff for the trauma and upset that had been caused by that investigation. That apology, as has already been reported, was not forthcoming. Therefore, I now put on record my personal apology to my great constituency team and thank it for all its support through that trying time. I further say to all MLAs how lucky we are to have the unstinting support of our underpaid, under-resourced and hard-working staff. To my team, I cannot thank you enough.

I also wish to make a comment about more recent events. After an investigation that occurred 30 months ago, with the last communication from the Committee to me coming in March 2022, I was contacted last Tuesday and given 45 minutes' notice that this motion was to come before the Business Committee. During that very short time, I had to inform my Chief Whip, my party leader and our press team and reach out to my family about what would obviously be something of media interest. I had to quickly reach out to those who had suffered previous trauma, as it would obviously be upsetting. There was little or no time to talk to them or adequately explain what was going on. Beyond a short call with the Clerk, there has been no communication. There has still been no communication.

As a previous chief executive, Chief Whip and commanding officer, I have sat on many industrial tribunals, held many disciplinary meetings and been involved in many HR-related issues. Giving 45 minutes' notice of action on something that happened 30 months ago, with potentially far-reaching reputational consequences and obvious media interest, would not be accepted in any other forum, and it should not be here either. We may, as MLAs, be seen as being unpopular and less valued, but we should still be entitled to the same basic rights and respect that are given to other workers, including on notification.

In the short time that I had to view the documentation last Tuesday, I was caught by a reflection of a particularly sad event: the passing of a much-esteemed colleague, Christopher Stalford MLA. Christopher was the Deputy Chairperson of the Standards and Privileges Committee and had not been replaced when the investigation was occurring. As those who knew him will confirm, he was, above all, a determined advocate for good practice, the rights of MLAs and, in particular, the Assembly, and he was a sage voice on the Committee. I believe that he would have corrected the erroneous view in the report against me, and reported in the media, that it was in some way strange for a unionist MLA's office to be shut for the 12 July fortnight. However, I rather hope that he is looking down on us and having a quiet laugh as I am sure that, rather than recommending my suspension for two sitting days for my egregious behaviour, he would have pointed out that being exiled to St Helena with Paul Frew for a week was probably punishment enough.

I look forward to returning to the Assembly on 28 May. If Paul and I can escape from St Helena, we will escape Napoleon's fate as well.

I speak as a new member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. Since being appointed to that Committee, I have found that all its members are aware that they have a solemn and impartial duty to perform. That is how all the meetings that I have been present at have been conducted. As we have heard, this report relates to two complaints that were made in the previous mandate. The recommendation before the House has been agreed by the members of the new Committee.

The previous Committee's report on the matter is in the public domain and has been for over two years. Therefore, I do not need to repeat what the Committee Chair set out, but I do want to highlight some matters. The complaint by Mr McHugh was upheld by the commissioner. One of the most significant things detailed in the report is the lack of cooperation by Dr Aiken in the commissioner's investigation. That very much exacerbated the issue, represented a further breach of the MLA code of conduct and resulted in the Committee's recommendation. The report states, at paragraph 44:

"the Commissioner’s finding that Dr Aiken’s lack of co-operation with her investigation was inconsistent with the following two principles of conduct:" those of respect and leadership. The Committee agreed with the commissioner's findings that Dr Aiken's conduct was inconsistent with both of those principles.

That lack of cooperation is detailed in the report, and it includes the failure to respond to two letters inviting him to attend for interview and failure to attend for interview twice under formal notice to attend. Dr Aiken did provide a written submission, which was considered by the Committee, along with a detailed response from the commissioner.

Paragraph 47 of the report states:

"the Committee noted that a recommendation of an apology to Assembly [sic] may not be a suitable option because there has been no indication from Dr Aiken’s responses to the complaint and investigation that he would be minded to apologise (on the contrary, Dr Aiken has sought an apology from the Commissioner) and there is a risk of such an apology to the Assembly not being made in a full and unequivocal manner."

I recognise the public service of all Members of the Assembly, the personal sacrifices that people make and how their role comes to dominate their lives, and, indeed, the lives of many of their families. It is regrettable that the matter has got to this stage. I note Dr Aiken's comments today and the fact that he has tried to bring a different tone to the matter. However, it is important that there are formal procedures in place to decide on complaints and to uphold the standards and the code of conduct of this —.

Will the Member give way?

I am coming to a close. If the Member wishes to make his own speech, I am sure that the Speaker will bring him in.

Regrettably, but in the view of the Committee, including me, rightly, the Committee has reached the recommendation of a sanction of a two-day exclusion from the proceedings of the Assembly for the Member.

I support the motion, as do my Alliance Party colleagues. If we are to uphold the highest standards of public office in the Assembly, investigations by the standards commissioner are essential. The code of conduct for Members of the legislative Assembly has been defined and encoded in order to ensure that those who vote for us are assured that our behaviour will be professional, fair and consistent across all areas of our work. Where there is a query over that, it is incumbent on us all to engage properly with the work of the standards commissioner. It should go without saying that it is also incumbent on us to maintain the confidentiality of any information that we are privy to as MLAs. It is extremely disappointing that it was brought up on this occasion. That is clearly laid out in the code of conduct.

The allegations against Dr Aiken are unprecedented given his position as Deputy Speaker. I am not aware of any such breach being committed by anyone in such a role in another legislature anywhere in the UK or Ireland. It was therefore particularly concerning to learn that, when confronted with the allegations, Dr Aiken was obstructive and did not engage properly with the process. I do, however, welcome some of the clarification that he provided today about his engagement in the process 30 months ago.

Will the Member give way?

I have a lot to get through, thank you.

As far as I can see, the standards commissioner conducted her investigation with the utmost diligence and professionalism. The sanction that was agreed by the Standards and Privileges Committee seems balanced and proportionate. However, Dr Aiken will need to consider his position as Deputy Speaker, given the issues raised around not just his conduct but his engagement with the investigation. I support the motion.

Despite the magnanimity of Dr Aiken, there are matters about this report that need to be highlighted. The report is inherently contradictory and riddled with procedural errors. The Committee correctly rejected allegation 1. In fact, it rejected both the allegations made by Mr McHugh, but it rejected allegation 1 on the basis that no complaint had been deemed admissible at that point. The first allegation was of a breach of rule 17, which says:

"You shall not disclose details in relation to ... an investigation".

The Committee concluded that there was no investigation, because the complaint had not even been acknowledged — it was not acknowledged until 13 November 2020 — and that, therefore, there could be no breach of rule 17. The same Committee concluded, about the same complaint and on the same date, that there had been a breach of rule 12. What does rule 12 say? It says that you shall not:

"disclose confidential or protectively marked information".

The exact same information that caused rule 17 not to be breached was then held to breach rule 12. That is the point that I wanted to ask the Chair about, but she would not even take an Intervention. Explain that contradiction. Why is it that information that does not breach rule 17 breaches rule 12? It is not rational. I will take any intervention from members of the Committee to explain that. There is no rational explanation for that.

There is then a gross breach of due process. Dr Aiken's single response was given to the commissioner for comment, but what she returned to the Committee was concealed from Dr Aiken. He was given no right to know what the commissioner said in response or to respond to that.

We end up in a situation in which the Committee had three separate inputs from the commissioner, one input from Dr Aiken and a denial to him of the right to know what the commissioner had said in rebuttal of him. How is that due process? How would any Member, if they were before the Committee, like to be treated like that? Yet that is exactly how the Committee treated Dr Aiken. It is a denial of basic fairness and natural justice, and the House should not endorse it.

We see that there is a further error when we look at paragraph 26, which states that Dr Aiken's role as Chair of the Finance Committee is a "key consideration". No, it is not: Dr Aiken is entitled to be treated exactly as any other MLA would be. It does not matter whether he is a Deputy Speaker or a Chair of a Committee. There is not a higher standard for him as a Chairman of a Committee than for him as an MLA, which is the basis on which he was being pursued. We are then told that the fact that he had previously served on the Standards and Privileges Committee made it an "egregious" breach. No, it did not. Again, that treats him differently from how any of the rest of us would be treated. He should not have been treated differently because he was the Chairman of the Finance Committee or because he had previously served on the Standards and Privileges Committee; he was entitled to exactly the same standards but was denied them by the Committee. Then, in a breathtaking procedural breach, the Committee says about the tariff that will be imposed, "Oh, we will not consider an apology, because he wouldn't apologise". How dare the Committee presume what a Member would or would not do? It had no right to presume that Dr Aiken would not apologise and therefore no right to up the ante.

The manner in which the Committee treated Dr Aiken was appalling in both the procedural unfairness and the outcome. It prejudges an issue and says, "He would not apologise, so we will not give him that option. We will suspend him instead". Would any one of you want to be treated in that way? That is what you will vote for today. Shame on the Committee.

In winding up the debate, it is my duty to remind Members of the importance of ensuring that the Assembly's standards regime is and is seen to be robust to maintain and enhance public confidence in the political system.

Will the Member give way?

No. I will make progress at this stage.

There is an onus on each of us, as MLAs, to be conscious of and abide by the ethical standards reflected in the principles and rules of the Assembly's code of conduct. It is also essential that there is accountability and that the House takes breaches of the code seriously. I particularly welcome the contribution of our Commissioner for Standards, Dr Melissa McCullough, in providing the Assembly with a professional and, importantly, independent investigation service for complaints against MLAs and Ministers. The complaints that land at her door are varied and can range from frivolous, vexatious or, indeed, unsubstantiated allegations to complaints of a serious nature. She does not have an easy task to assess, investigate and conclude on what can often be complex and sensitive matters. That task is far more difficult when a Member fails to maintain the confidentiality of a live complaint, which risks prejudicing the proceedings, and then fails to cooperate at all times with the commissioner's investigation.

Will the Member give way?

No. I will make progress.

There is a contradiction.

I will address Mr Allister's point in a moment.

Members will be particularly mindful of the rules on the matter, so I will make a number of remarks on the issues that are in front of us and specifically on Mr Allister's comments on rule 17 and its relationship to rule 12. He made the point about the relationship between those two rules. By way of information, rule 17 applies to investigations after admissibility has been decided; rule 12 applies to complaints after they have been made and to protectively marked documents. Previously, the Committee had received legal advice on all its deliberations and all the steps that it had taken.

I turn to the remarks that Mr Aiken made today. I appreciate that he took us through his personal circumstances at the time surrounding the events. However, while he spoke to the House in conciliatory terms that explained the circumstances that he was in at the time, it is regrettable and somewhat disappointing that, once again, there was no apology to the Committee, the commissioner or, indeed, the House.

We find ourselves in new territory today. As the Chairperson pointed out, the particular circumstances of the case have been set out. The specific rules of conduct that Dr Aiken breached were significant, and that, combined with other factors, included his unwarranted criticism of the investigatory process and his lack of contrition or understanding in that regard. The previous Committee noted that, rather than offer an apology, he sought an apology from the commissioner.

Dr Aiken's conduct has been inconsistent with two of the seven principles of public life. As a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee at the time of the breaches, he would have been aware of all the rules, and they should have been clear to him at that time. That left the previous Committee in no doubt that his actions and behaviours were "egregious", in the words of the report, and breached the code of conduct and that such a glaring and flagrant breach of the code required a proportionate sanction. The Chairperson has explained how the current Committee arrived at its recommendation in that regard.

If the motion is passed today, it will mark the first occasion on which the Assembly has decided to exclude a Member from proceedings. While it is regrettable that it is necessary, the Assembly's approval of the motion will put down a marker that there is accountability and that such breaches of the code will be taken seriously by the House.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order to ask the Speaker to shed some light, before we proceed to a vote on the matter, on how it can be that something that does not breach rule 17 breaches rule 12, when, in fact, the complaint was not deemed admissible until three months later? How can the same comments breach rule 12 but not breach rule 17? How is that even possible? That is the basis on which we are asked to vote.

It is not a matter for the Office of the Speaker; it is a matter for the Standards and Privileges Committee. It set out its case, you set out your case, Mr Allister, and, thereafter, it is for Members to vote on the motion. I accept that you made your case well, but Members now have the opportunity to vote.

Question put.

Some Members:

Aye.

No.

As there are Ayes from all sides of the House and only one No, the Ayes have it.

Resolved:

That this Assembly, having considered a report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges from the last Assembly (NIA 208/17-22), notes its conclusion that this Committee on Standards and Privileges should recommend a sanction be imposed on Dr Steve Aiken OBE MLA, and imposes upon Dr Aiken the sanction of exclusion from proceedings of the Assembly for a period of two sitting days, beginning on the first sitting day after the resolution.