Session 2008/2009
Fourth Report
Committee on Standards and Privileges
Report on a Complaint by
Mr Declan O’Loan MLA against Mr Ian Paisley Jnr MLA
Together with the Report of the Interim Commissioner for Standards, Letter of Complaint and Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee relating to the Report
Ordered by The Committee on Standards and Privileges to be printed 30 April 2009
Report: 36/08/09R (Committee on Standards and Privileges)
This document is available in a range of alternative formats.
For more information please contact the
Northern Ireland Assembly, Printed Paper Office,
Parliament Buildings, Stormont, Belfast, BT4 3XX
Tel: 028 9052 1078
Membership and Powers
1. The Committee on Standards and Privileges is a Standing Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly established in accordance with paragraph 10 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement and under Assembly Standing Order Nos. 51 and 57.
2. The Committee has power:
- to consider specific matters relating to privilege referred to it by the Assembly;
- to oversee the work of the Assembly Clerk of Standards;
- to examine the arrangement for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members’ Interests and any other registers of interest established by the Assembly, and to review from time to time the form and content of those registers;
- to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests referred to it;
- to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches of any code of conduct to which the Assembly has agreed and which have been drawn to the Committee’s attention;
- to recommend any modifications to any Assembly code of conduct as may from time to time appear to be necessary.
3. The Committee is appointed at the start of every Assembly, and has power to send for persons, papers and records that are relevant to its enquiries.
4. The membership of the Committee is as follows:
Mrs Carmel Hanna, Chairperson
Mr Willie Clarke, Deputy Chairperson [1]
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
Rev Dr Robert Coulter
Mr Jonathan Craig [2]
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Paul Maskey [3] [4]
Mr Alastair Ross [5]
Mr George Savage
Mr Brian Wilson
5. The Report and evidence of the Committee are published by the Stationery Office by order of the Committee. All publications of the Committee are posted on the Assembly’s website: (archive.niassembly.gov.uk.)
6. All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Committee Office, Northern Ireland Assembly, Room 284, Parliament Buildings, Stormont, Belfast BT4 3XX. Tel: 02890 520333; Fax: 02890 525917; e-mail: committee.standards&privileges@niassembly.gov.uk
[1] Mr Clarke replaced Mr McHugh as Deputy Chairperson with effect from 21st January 2008.
[2] Mr Jonathan Craig replaced Mr Alex Easton as a Member of the Committee with effect from 15 September 2008.
[3] Mrs McGill replaced Mr McHugh as a Member of the Committee with effect from 28th January 2008.
[4] Mr Maskey replaced Mrs McGill as a Member of the Committee with effect from 20 May 2008.
[5] Mr Ross replaced Mr Adrian McQuillan as a Member of the Committee with effect from 29th May 2007.
Table of Contents
Report 1
Appendix 1:
Report by the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards 7
Appendix 2:
Letter of Complaint by Mr Declan O’Loan MLA 35
Appendix 3:
Proceedings of the Committee Relating to the Report 57
Fourth Report
The Committee on Standards and Privileges has agreed to the following Report:
Complaint Against Mr Ian Paisley Jnr MLA
1. The Committee on Standards and Privileges has considered a report by the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards (the Interim Commissioner) on a complaint by Mr Declan O’Loan MLA against Mr Ian Paisley Jnr MLA. The report of the Interim Commissioner and the complaint by Mr O’Loan are appended to this report.
2. The complaint raised some complex issues and the Committee is grateful to the Interim Commissioner for his investigation into it and for his report.
3. Although Mr O’Loan’s complaint set out a number of different points and comments, in essence his complaint against Mr Paisley Jnr comprised of four distinct aspects:
- That Mr Paisley Jnr had failed to register as an interest the extent of his degree of involvement with Mr Seymour Sweeney;
- That Mr Paisley Jnr had failed to enter in the Register of Members’ Interests a shareholding in Ballyallaght Management Ltd;
- That Mr Paisley Jnr had failed to enter in the Register of Members’ Interests the fact that his father in law, Mr James Currie, had become the sole Director of Sarcon 250 Ltd (Sarcon 250) to which he paid rent in respect of his constituency office at 9/11 Church Street Ballymena; and
- That the amount that Mr Paisley Jnr claimed in rent for the constituency office at 9/11 Church Street Ballymena was excessive.
4. The Interim Commissioner considered each of these separate aspects of Mr O’Loan’s complaint against the requirement for Members as set out in the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Code of Conduct together with the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members. Mr O’Loan’s complaint also referred in part to Dr Paisley MP MLA. The Interim Commissioner decided to treat the aspects of the complaint against Dr Paisley as a distinct investigation and the Committee will therefore report on that investigation separately at a later date.
5. In addition to considering each of these aspects, the Interim Commissioner, in the course of his investigation, also identified a number of issues which he believed warranted urgent review from the appropriate authorities within the Assembly. These issues, which are not exclusive to the circumstances of this particular complaint and could potentially affect any Assembly Member, are addressed by the Committee separately at the end of this report.
Allegation that Mr Paisley Jnr had failed to register as an interest the extent of his degree of involvement with Mr Seymour Sweeney.
6. Mr O’Loan set out in his complaint a variety of interactions that Mr Paisley Jnr had with Mr Sweeney. He stated that Mr Paisley Jnr had lobbied on a number of different issues (which were either directly on Mr Sweeney’s behalf, or which had the potential to benefit Mr Sweeney). He said that Mr Paisley Jnr had bought a holiday home from Mr Sweeney. He said that Mr Sweeney had been the sole Director of Sarcon 250, the company which owns Mr Paisley Jnr’s constituency office. He also said that Mr Sweeney was a member of the Democratic Unionist Party in North Antrim and alluded to a social relationship between Mr Paisley Jnr and Mr Sweeney. Given the extent of these interactions, Mr O’Loan believed that the public would regard the relationship as having the potential to be thought by others to influence Mr Paisley Jnr.
7. The Interim Commissioner considered these points and concluded that the frequency and extent of the relationship between Mr Paisley Jnr and Mr Sweeney was such as to establish a close association. The Interim Commissioner concluded that the relationship included recreational, social and political contacts together with property dealings. In particular, the Interim Commissioner felt it particularly relevant to highlight that Mr Sweeney was the sole shareholder of Sarcon 250 (as well as being the sole Director) during the period when Mr Paisley Jnr negotiated his lease.
8. It is important to note that the Interim Commissioner confirmed to the Committee that none of Mr Paisley Jnr’s interactions with Mr Sweeney provided Mr Paisley Jnr with any financial or other material benefit. The Committee is satisfied that, in this regard, none of Mr Paisley Jnr’s interactions with or on behalf of Mr Sweeney constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct.
9. The Interim Commissioner considered the relationship between Mr Paisley Jnr and Mr Sweeney against the requirements in Category 11 of the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members. Category 11 requires Members, inter alia, to register unremunerated interests which they hold which might reasonably be thought by others to influence their actions as Members in a similar way to a remunerated interest. Having applied this test to the circumstances in question, the Interim Commissioner concluded that Mr Paisley Jnr should have registered his relationship with Mr Sweeney as an interest.
10. The Committee gave careful consideration to the allegation and to the Interim Commissioner’s analysis and conclusion. While some Committee members agreed with the Interim Commissioner’s conclusion, others felt that requiring Members to register all relationships such as that between Mr Paisley Jnr and Mr Sweeney was impractical and unreasonable, particularly as it had been established that Mr Paisley Jnr did not gain financially from the relationship. When the Committee could not reach consensus on this issue a motion was put that the Committee should agree with the Interim Commissioner’s conclusion on this issue. This motion was defeated by 6 votes to 5. The Committee therefore did not agree with the Interim Commissioner’s conclusion and found that Mr Paisley Jnr was not obliged to register his relationship with Mr Sweeney. This aspect to Mr O’Loan’s complaint is therefore not upheld.
Allegation that Mr Paisley Jnr had failed to enter in the Register of Members’ Interests a shareholding in Ballyallaght Management Ltd.
11. Mr O’Loan provided a copy of the annual return to the Companies Registry of Ballyallaght Management Co Ltd which listed Mr Paisley Jnr as a shareholder. Mr O’Loan pointed out that Mr Paisley Jnr had not registered this shareholding in the Register of Members’ Interests. Members are required to register interests in shareholdings held by the Member, either personally, or with or on behalf of the Member’s partner or dependent children, in any public or private company or other body which are:
(a) greater than 1 percent of the issued share capital of the company or body; or
(b) less than 1 percent of the issued share capital but more than £25,000 in nominal value.
12. The Interim Commissioner confirmed that the copy of the annual return of Ballyallaght Management Co Ltd to the Companies Registry, dated 26 March 2007, records a total of 14 shares with a share capital of £14.00, and lists Mr Paisley Jnr and his wife as holding one share which represented some seven per cent of the issued share capital of the company. However, the Interim Commissioner also pointed out that Ballyallaght Management Company was simply a company established to ensure the proper maintenance and orderly running of the Ballyallaght development where Mr Paisley Jnr has a home. The shareholding would not provide Mr Paisley Jnr with any pecuniary or material benefit. The Interim Commissioner concluded, therefore, that this shareholding would not come within the intent of the Register of Members’ Interests.
13. The Committee agrees with this conclusion and therefore this aspect of Mr O’Loan’s complaint is also not upheld.
Allegation that Mr Paisley Jnr had failed to enter in the Register of Members’ Interests the fact that his father in law, Mr James Currie, had become the sole Director of Sarcon 250 to which he paid rent in respect of his constituency office at 9/11 Church Street Ballymena.
14. Mr O’Loan claimed that Mr Paisley Jnr should have registered the fact that his father in law, Mr James Currie, had become the sole Director of Sarcon 250, the company which Ian Paisley Jnr paid rent to in respect of his constituency office.
15. The Interim Commissioner investigated the issue of who was a beneficiary shareholder and who was a director in Sarcon 250. He established that Mr Currie had for a period been a Director of Sarcon 250 and it appears that he continues to be the sole shareholder. While the Interim Commissioner felt that there was no requirement to register the fact that Mr Currie had been a Director of Sarcon 250, he did feel that Mr Paisley Jnr should have registered the fact that Mr Currie was the sole shareholder.
16. The Committee agrees with this conclusion. Mr Currie is a family member of Mr Paisley who, it appears, is the beneficial shareholder of a company that is accruing a capital benefit when Mr Paisley’s Jnr’s rental payments service the company’s bank loan. This part of the complaint is therefore upheld and Mr Paisley Jnr should register this relationship immediately as an interest under Category 11.
17. The Committee noted that the Interim Commissioner made the distinction between a deliberate attempt to avoid registration and a failure to recognise that a registrable interest had been created. The Interim Commissioner also pointed out that the requirements of Category 11 might not readily be taken by others as having as wide an application as he has interpreted.
18. The Committee will shortly be bringing a revised Code of Conduct to the Assembly for approval. The new Code will make explicit the requirement for Members to register family members who are paid from or benefit in any other way from Office Cost Allowance. This is without prejudice, of course, to any future amendments to the rules governing Office Cost Allowance and family members.
Allegation that the amount that Mr Paisley Jnr claimed in rent for the constituency office at 9/11 Church Street Ballymena was excessive.
19. The final aspect of Mr O’Loan’s complaint was that the amount Mr Paisley Jnr had claimed for his constituency office was excessive. Further to figures released in a Freedom of Information request, Mr O’Loan claimed that Mr Paisley Jnr had claimed £31,250 from the Assembly in respect of rent for his constituency office at 9/11 Church Street Ballymena and that a similar claim had been made by Dr Paisley, making a total claim of £62,500 per annum for the office.
20. The Interim Commissioner established that although the figure of £62,500 per annum was the amount as stated in the copy lease dated July 2007 held in the Assembly’s Finance Division’s records, the annualised figure derived from the quarterly claim made by Sarcon 250’s solicitors in August 2007 was actually £57,200 per annum.
21. Mr Paisley Jnr provided the Interim Commissioner with a professional property valuation report on the office from June 2007 which referred to the initial rent as being £42,500 per annum and a further professional property valuation report from October 2008 which indicated a then current rent value of £52,750 per annum.
22. The Interim Commissioner asked the Commissioner for Valuation to provide him with an independent assessment of the amount of rent which the premises might attract. The Commissioner for Valuation advised that, assuming the property was held under a full repairing and insuring lease with the tenant being responsible for all outgoings, the market rent which might reasonably be expected to be paid would be towards the upper end of the range £26,000 to £30,000 per annum. This was also based on the premise that the lessee would pay only the market rent and invest their own capital to fit out the premises as they consider necessary.
23. Having been advised of the circumstances relating to Mr Paisley Jnr’s arrangements, the Commissioner for Valuation advised that what was being claimed was essentially the economic cost of having the required accommodation provided by the landlord. The amount being claimed was effectively the basic market rent plus an annual amount to reflect the cost of fitting out the premises. This was an understandable arrangement in commercial terms as the landlord needed a return on this element of his capital investment. The Interim Commissioner advised the Committee that he had observed on his visit to the office that it was fitted out to a very high standard.
24. Based on the figures that he had obtained, the Interim Commissioner concluded that the amount being claimed is significantly in excess of what might be regarded as normal market rent although he pointed out that the rental arrangement is understandable in commercial terms.
25. The Interim Commissioner then had to consider whether claiming in excess of the normal market rent was inconsistent with the guidelines on the use of Office Cost Allowance, set out in the Members’ Financial Services Handbook. As the current rules governing the use of the Office Cost Allowance for the provision of constituency offices places no limit on the level of rent which can be reimbursed within the overall maximum figure of £72,000 per annum, nor makes any requirement for a professional valuation to be obtained by the Member, the Interim Commissioner concluded that in this regard Mr Paisley Jnr had not broken any rules.
26. The Interim Commissioner also noted that the rules on Office Cost Allowance state that:
- it is not permissible for Members to rent properties which they themselves own; and
- the allowance may not be used for the purchase of property to be used as a constituency office.
The Interim Commissioner said that the evidence available to him indicated that Mr Paisley Jnr neither owned the premises nor was the property being purchased by him.
27. The Interim Commissioner also specifically considered Mr Paisley Jnr’s arrangement whereby his rent claimed under the Office Cost Allowance is being paid to service Sarcon 250’s bank loan, particularly where the purpose of Sarcon 250 is to purchase property for the long term provision of constituency accommodation for the Democratic Unionist Party representatives in the North Antrim constituency. The Interim Commissioner advised the Committee that the Director of Resources in the Assembly had indicated that this arrangement does not breach the rules currently operated by the Assembly for the claiming of Office Cost Allowance for the provision of constituency offices.
28. The Committee considered the Interim Commissioner’s conclusions. The Committee agreed that the amount claimed for rent is significantly in excess of what might be regarded as a normal market rent. However, as the Interim Commissioner has advised that there is no limit to the level of rent that can be claimed within the overall total for Office Cost Allowance, and that Mr Paisley Jnr has therefore not broken any rules, the Committee considers that he has not breached the Code of Conduct. The Committee also noted that the Commissioner for Valuation had advised that the rental arrangement which obtains is understandable in commercial terms as the landlord needed a return on this element of his capital investment. This aspect to the complaint is therefore not upheld.
Further issues identified by the Interim Commissioner
29. Having considered the investigation into the complaint against Mr Paisley Jnr, the Committee then went on to consider the more general issues that the Interim Commissioner had identified which relate to the Assembly’s rules governing the use of Office Cost Allowance. These issues could potentially affect any Member of the Assembly.
30. In particular the Interim Commissioner recommended that the level of rent claimed for any constituency accommodation should be underpinned either by an independent professional valuation of the premises or should be determined by the Commissioner for Valuation, as generally occurs with all other accommodation leased by public bodies.
31. The Interim Commissioner went on to consider the ambiguity concerning the rules prohibiting the use of the Office Cost Allowance to purchase property. The Interim Commissioner has pointed out that the rules do not prohibit a Member renting accommodation from a relative, who effectively uses the rental income provided through the Office Cost Allowance to purchase the property; nor do they prohibit the Office Cost Allowance being used to create a property asset for a political party.
32. A further point was that there needed to be clearer rules on the apportionment of costs; firstly, in circumstances where Members share constituency accommodation; and secondly, in circumstances where a Member is also an elected representative of another institution where office accommodation costs can also be claimed.
33. The Committee agrees that these issues warrant urgent review in the interests of public accountability and securing public confidence. It is not within the Committee’s remit to rewrite the rules on Office Cost Allowance. However, the Committee does have a role in identifying shortcomings in existing guidance, especially where those shortcomings mean that Members’ conduct could be called into question. The Committee therefore believes that it is essential for the integrity of the Assembly that the rules governing the use of Office Cost Allowance are reviewed urgently to take account of the issues raised by the Interim Commissioner.
34. The Committee has therefore written to the Assembly Commission to urge that this be done as soon as possible. In doing so, the Committee is aware that the Commission is already considering some of these issues as a result of the recent report of the Review Body on Senior Salaries (their report no. 67 refers). The Committee welcomes the fact that the Commission is considering the SSRB’s recommendations and believes that the Commission should report on the outcome of its consideration on these issues and the further issues identified by the Interim Commissioner as soon as possible.
Report by the Interim Assembly Commissioner
for Standards
Covering Letter from Interim Commissioner
Appendix 2
Letter of Complaint by
Mr Declan O’Loan MLA
Appendix 3
Proceedings of the Committee Relating
to the Report
Wednesday, 29th April 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings
Present: Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr Willie Clarke
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Paul Maskey
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr George Savage
Mr Brian Wilson
In Attendance: Mr Paul Gill (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Hilary Bogle (Assistant Clerk)
Mr Gerard Rosato (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)
Mr Christopher McNickle (Clerical Officer)
The meeting commenced at 2.01pm in closed session.
5. Report from the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards on complaints against Members
Members noted the contents of a Report received from the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards on a complaint against a Member.
2.12pm The Chairperson welcomed Dr Tom Frawley, Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards and Mr John MacQuarrie, Director for Standards and Special Projects, Ombudsman’s Office and invited them to make a presentation to the Committee. After the presentation Dr Frawley and Mr MacQuarrie answered a number of questions from the Committee.
2.30pm Mr Clarke joined the meeting.
2.40pm Mr Maskey joined the meeting.
4.08pm Dr Frawley and Mr MacQuarrie left the meeting.
4.08pm The meeting adjourned.
4.18pm The meeting re-convened.
Agreed: Following discussion Mr Clarke, seconded by Mr Maskey, put the proposal that the Committee support the first recommendation in the Report of the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards.
The Chairperson put the question: that the Committee support the first recommendation in the Report of the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards.
The Committee divided –
AYES |
NOES |
|---|---|
| Mrs Hanna | Mr Bresland |
| Mr Clarke | Rev Coulter |
| Mr Brolly | Mr Craig |
| Mr Maskey | Mr Hilditch |
| Mr Wilson | Mr Ross |
| Mr Savage |
The motion fell.
Agreed: The Committee reached agreement on the remaining recommendations and conclusions in the Report of the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards.
Agreed: Members agreed that a brief draft Committee Report on the Complaint should be prepared by the Clerk and that the Committee should meet as a matter of urgency to agree its contents. It was further agreed that the meeting should take place on Thursday, 30th April 2009 and that the draft Report should be circulated to Members for their consideration in advance of the meeting.
4.50pm Mr Maskey left the meeting.
Agreed: The Committee agreed to write to the Assembly Commission highlighting issues raised with regard to the current rules on Office Cost Allowances.
[EXTRACT]
Thursday, 30th April 2009
Senate Chamber, Parliament Buildings
Present: Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Brian Wilson
In Attendance: Mr Paul Gill (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Hilary Bogle (Assistant Clerk)
Mr Gerard Rosato (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)
Mr Christopher McNickle (Clerical Officer)
Apologies: Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Paul Maskey
Mr George Savage
The meeting commenced at 12.43pm in closed session.
5. Committee Report on a Complaint against a Member
1.05pm Mr Hilditch joined the meeting
1.26pm the meeting adjourned
1.29pm the meeting re-convened in Room 29, Parliament Buildings
1.32pm Mr Hilditch joined the meeting
Agreed: Members discussed and agreed the draft Report as amended.
[EXTRACT]