Northern Ireland Assembly - Report 3/07/08R

Ordered by The Committee on Standards and Privileges to be printed 12 September 2007
Report: 3/07/08R (Committee on Standards and Privileges)

Committee Powers and Membership

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. 48 and 52.

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 Gerry McHugh, Deputy Chairperson
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr Willie Clarke
Rev Dr Robert Coulter
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Alastair Ross
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

First Report

The Committee on Standards and Privileges has agreed to the following Report:

Complaint Against
Mr Ian Paisley Junior MLA

1. The Committee on Standards and Privileges has considered a Report by the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards relating to a complaint against Mr Ian Paisley Junior, MLA for North Antrim. The Report of the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards is appended to this report.

2. In consideration of the report, the Committee’s principal aim was to determine whether it agreed with the conclusion of the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards that comments made by Mr Ian Paisley Junior did not breach the Members’ Code of Conduct.

3. In carrying out his investigation the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards stated that Mr Paisley Junior had agreed that his comments had been accurately recorded by the reporter.

4. Committee members acknowledged that they needed to be confident that the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards had provided clear and logical argument in his report that fully substantiated his conclusion.

5. In his report the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards concluded that

‘within the context of the whole interview, Mr Paisley’s comments do not constitute a breach of the Members Code of Conduct’.

6. The Committee gave consideration to that conclusion and specifically as to whether the conclusion was substantiated by the body of the report.

7. The Committee considered the complex issues raised by the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards in his report and agreed the following:

that expressing personal beliefs and opinions is integral to freedom of expression but that the distinction between expressing personal beliefs and opinions as a private citizen and as a public representative may be open to interpretation;
because of the scope for ambiguity in this regard there is the potential for expression of personal beliefs and opinions by a Member to bring the Assembly, or its Members, into disrepute;
in expressing personal beliefs or opinions Members of the Assembly must be conscious of their responsibility to give leadership to the community as a whole.

8. The Committee could not come to a consensus that the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards had substantiated his conclusion that no breach had occurred.

9. It was proposed that the Committee adopt the conclusion of the report of the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards that

‘when placed within the context of the whole interview, Mr Paisley’s comments do not constitute a breach of the Members Code of Conduct’.

10. This proposal was adopted by a majority of 6 Members to 4 and it was therefore determined that the comments by Mr Ian Paisley Junior did not constitute a breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

APPENDIX 1

Report of the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards
on a Complaint Relating to Mr Ian Paisley Junior MLA

Role of the Interim
Commissioner for Standards

1. I have prepared this report in my role as the Interim Commissioner for Standards of the Northern Ireland Assembly. In this role I am required to consider any matter referred to me by the Clerk of Standards relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct which have been drawn to the Clerk’s attention. The Code of Conduct provides guidance to Members on how to carry out their Assembly duties.

I have been asked, in my role as Interim Commissioner to examine a complaint made by Mr ‘A’ against Mr Ian Paisley Jnr MLA.

My role is to carry out an independent investigation of the complaint and present my findings to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. Any action beyond my investigation is a matter for the Committee.

The Complaint

2. In his complaint, submitted in the form of an E-Mail, Mr ‘A’ states:

“I have been horrified by the recent revelation that one of our most senior politicians in the province has taken it upon himself to so blantantly and publicly disregard not only the ministerial code, the members code, however more worryingly he has done a great disservice to not only the NI Assembly but to the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and the wider community of Northern Ireland he servess.

Homophobia within society has been a factor in an increasing number of hate crime attacks, more worryingly and increasing number of suicides and atempted suicides. The recent figures suggest homophobia in society is a factor in no fewer than 27% of suicides, and given the disportionately high numbers of gay suicide victims this number is unfortunately likely to increase.

During financial year 2005/2006 the number of homophobic motivated crimes rose to 220, the vast majority of these were assaults however more serious attacks leading to attempted murder were also present. This is an alarming trend in Northern Ireland, one which a multi-agency approach has been resolved upon, but one must also bear in mind that given the motivation for homophobic attacks, many many more go un-reported. This problem requires support from all the community, high ranking political figure who propagate and renew this homophobia are compliant in and instrinsigently linked to the outcome of assaults and violence.

The comments made by MLA Junior Minister Ian Paisley JNR are wholly contrary to the members code as issued by the Northern Ireland Assembly in October 2001, this code binds all members of the assembly to ensure personal conduct is appropriate to the office which they hold. The code states;

“Members shall base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interest and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two, at once, and in favour of the public interest.

Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the Assembly and never undertake any action which would bring the Northern Ireland Assembly, or its Members generally, into disrepute.”

In the recent incident MLA Ian Paisley has clearly breached this code by acting in a manner which has called into question not only the assemblys commitment to equality but also the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister, a grave state of affairs for democracy.

I do wonder that had the same comments been made by an English Member of Parliament, or indeed a Member of the Scotish Parliament would the question of whether he would be centured have been raised, I would assert that a resignation would have followed the public outcry. I have no doubt in the commitment shown by some of the parties to bringing forward equality for all the people of Northern Ireland, as reaffirmed by the recent election promises. Surely this equality will indeed extend to the Gay Lesbian and Bisexual community.

Regardless Ian Paisley JNRs private opinion, which he is very welcome to, he is now an elected official and a minister, with this office comes responsibility and I feel, along with the wider gay, lesbian and bisexual community, to have been done a disservice.

More over Northern Ireland has been a disservice accross the world, news reports have carried his comments in what can only be described as out and out homophobia, from an elected British politician, a truely sad state of affairs.

I would greatly appreciate if this complaint could be acknowledged upon receipt, and for your reference I have attached links to the relevant articles below”

The links provided by Mr “A” were:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6705637.stm
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0530/paisleyi.htm

Alleged Breach of the Ministerial Code

3. Mr ‘A’ indicated in the complaint as set out in paragraph 2 that he considered Mr Paisley had disregarded the Ministerial Code but did not cite any specific provision of the Code he considered to have been breached.

However, in light of the Committee’s remit set out in the Standing Orders of the Assembly, it does not fall to it to consider any allegation of a breach of the Ministerial Code.

Conduct of the Investigation

4. On receipt of the complaint I:

a) Obtained a copy of the Hot Press magazine 13 June 2007 containing the relevant article

b) Examined the relevant sections of the Code of Conduct for Members and Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

c) Sought additional comments from Mr ‘A’ on his complaint

d) Received from Mr ‘A’ a range of Press and media reports on the ‘reported’ Hot Press article published within the period 30 May 2007 and 1 June 2007

e) Sought Mr Ian Paisley Jnr’s own response to the complaint both in writing and in an interview with him.

5. Mr ‘A’ has identified accurately the relevant sections of the Members Code dealing with personal conduct and behaviour.

However the Guide, at paragraph 66, states, inter alia, that

“A complaint founded upon no more than a newspaper story or television report will not normally be regarded as a substantiated allegation.”

6. I obtained a copy of the Hot Press magazine within which the interview with Mr Paisley was published. The edition of the magazine containing the full report of the interview is dated 13 June 2007.

I established that the context of Mr Paisley’s comments which are the subject of the complaint was an interview covering his views on a range of personal, moral, social and political issues. Those comments, which were highlighted in the media two weeks ahead of the publication of the full report of the interview, were the initial sentences in the first of seven paragraphs of a section of the interview dealing with Mr Paisley’s views on issues pertaining to homosexuality.

7. Following receipt of the papers relating to his complaint I invited Mr ‘A’ to provide any further information which he considered relevant to the matters complained of. In response Mr ‘A’ submitted a series of further reports from media websites, dated between 30 May 2007 and 1 June 2007, which repeated the comments attributed to Mr Paisley and also contained comment from other public representatives on the matters complained of.

8. At the same time as I invited Mr Paisley to let me have his comments on the complaint I also provided him with copies of the two web pages which Mr ‘A’ had included when submitting his complaint.

Mr Paisley responded to me in writing on 25 June – his full response was as follows:

“I was speaking in a personal capacity. The reading of the entire interview will clearly demonstrate that this was not an interview about being Junior Minister, nor was it stated that I was giving this interview as a Junior Minister. Many of the questions were of a personal nature and wholly not connected with my Ministerial Office. I did not make any decision in breach of the Ministerial Code.

The issue I discussed is a moral and religious issue. I am entitled to hold my own moral view based on my faith and the reading of the text of my faith - the Bible. I am aware of my legal responsibilities involved in my ministerial office and will abide by all those obligations. I have no difficulty in separating my personal moral and religious view with my statutory obligations. The moral and religious view is a popularly shared view. I have a fundamental right to express my religious views. As a Christian I believe that lifestyle choices not based on biblical and Christian values are sinful - this extends much wider choices than this issue involved in my comments in Hot Press. I believe that sin is harmful to the person and to society as a whole- - after all

“sin when it is finished brings about death”. This is a widely held theological view across many religions - not just Christianity. I made clear that I do not hate the person and therefore separated the person from with the act.

When I made the comments about “freeing oneself” this was in the context of freeing oneself from sin, including that particular sin. As a Christian I believe that it is possible to free yourself from sin through salvation. This includes all sins including sexual sin.

When I made the comments about being “repulsed” I was speaking from a personal and honest viewpoint about my feelings about the act. It is beyond doubt that this is a subjective matter.”

9. I requested Mr Paisley to meet with me to discuss a series of questions that I had prepared. I subsequently interviewed Mr Paisley in order to obtain his personal response to the questions which allowed him to provide clarification and further information about the magazine interview and the background to it.

9.1 Mr Paisley told me he had been contacted by Hot Press magazine some six weeks before the interview had actually taken place. He explained that the original date for the interview had been scheduled for a date four weeks after the reporter had first contacted him. However the reporter cancelled that date and agreed to come to Belfast a fortnight later. He emphasised therefore that when he was originally contacted to undertake the interview, while he had been elected as an MLA, he had not been appointed as a Minister. He confirmed that in agreeing to the interview he understood that it would be on the record.

9.2 Mr Paisley explained that his acceptance of the invitation to undertake the interview was based on his understanding that the interview would focus on his relationship with his father and his personal views and beliefs around a range of issues. He said that if the interview had been from a political perspective he would not have answered questions about his personal life eg. smoking marijuana, his views on pre-marital relationships etc.

9.3 Mr Paisley agreed that his comments had been accurately recorded by the reporter. He said he had an issue about one aspect of the report which he believed did not accurately reflect his response, it related to a part of the interview which suggested that he was “curious about drink”. Mr Paisley believed he had not replied as is recorded but believed there was little point in challenging this detail once it had been published in the magazine. He explained that the reporter had taken notes and had also recorded the interview. He indicated that there was no one else present at the interview. As far as he could recall the interview had taken place in Stormont Buildings, possibly in the staff restaurant.

9.4 Mr Paisley explained he was unaware that his comments as recorded in the interview would be broadcast before the interview was actually published in the magazine. He confirmed to me that he had no prior knowledge of the broadcast referring to part of the comments he had made in the interview.

However he said he was surprised that the magazine had not been published when the controversy arose in the broadcast media around the end of May. He commented that he only realised the interview had not been published when he attempted to obtain a copy of the magazine and was told the interview had not at that point been published.

9.5 In respect of his reported comments ‘I am pretty repulsed by gay and lesbianism. I think it is wrong. I think those people harm themselves and – without care about it – harm society’?

Mr Paisley said that from his point of view this was a theological point. He explained that the beliefs that inform his theological views are covered in his written comments. He had set out his clear position on this point in the second element of his written response.

(See paragraph 8)

Evaluation of the Complaint

10. Whilst the comments made by Mr Paisley about which Mr ‘A’ complained were set out in a number of media reports, I consider that the extent of the media comment and the confirmation of the comments in the actual interview in Hotpress, in the issue dated 13 June 2007, established that the complaint went beyond the limitations set out in paragraph 66 of the Guide (see paragraph 5).

11. In order to evaluate the complaint by Mr ‘A’ I tested it against two questions:

are the comments attributed to Mr Paisley in the Hot Press magazine article of 13 June 2007 accurate, and
if so, are they incompatible with the provisions of the Members code of Conduct

Accuracy of Comments

12. The comments about which Mr ‘A’ has complained are essentially not in dispute. Mr Paisley did refer to what he regarded as an inaccurate point in the full published report of the interview. This inaccuracy is not relevant to Mr ‘A’s complaint.

However while Mr Paisley did not draw my attention to the fact, I have noted that the two internet downloads of the comments attributed to Mr Paisley which Mr. ‘A’ submitted in support of his complaint referred to Mr Paisley using the phrase “ … these people harm themselves and – without caring about it – harm society” . These reports differ from the published report of the interview. The record of the interview published some two weeks later indicates that Mr Paisley used the word “care” and not “caring” when making his comments. Therefore the actual quote reads “…these people harm themselves and – without care about it – harm society”.

13. Mr Paisley indicated that he was not aware that any part of the interview would be broadcast in isolation from or in advance of the published interview.

Compatibility with the Code of Conduct for Members

14. The Code of Conduct for Members of the Assembly, amplified by the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, primarily focuses on the obligation on Members to register and declare financial or pecuniary interests in the carrying out of their responsibilities. In my careful consideration of the Code it is silent in respect of the expression of views by Members on moral and social matters.

15. My comments on the complaint within the context of the Members Code and Guide on Conduct can be summarised as follows:

I consider there is a persuasive argument that the Code does not apply to the expression of a Member’s personal beliefs or opinion in respect of moral or social issues such as arise in this complaint. I say this not least because the principles underpinning the Code require Members to act, inter-alia, with integrity, openness, and honesty. However the extent of the application of the Code would be a matter on which only the Assembly could reach a determination.

16. In the event that it is held that the Members’ Code does extend to cover the expression of personal beliefs or opinions in respect of moral or social issues, I would comment as follows:

I consider that the first element of the Code to which Mr ‘A’ referred is not applicable to the complaint. Read in the context of the Code and Guide overall, I consider it to refer to a situation where a Member has a material and tangible interest, financial or otherwise, in the subject matter he is commenting on.
I consider that the second element of the Code to which Mr ‘A’ referred, could be relevant to the complaint.
I consider that Members of the Assembly, as publicly elected representatives, must be free, within the law, to express their personal views on all social and moral matters not least because freedom of expression lies at the heart of any democratic society. It will inevitably be the case that in some instances such expressions of opinions may be found to be unacceptable by some sections of society.
I consider that to interpret the Code as preventing a Member expressing views solely because some, or indeed many, members of society may find those views unacceptable, or even offensive, would effectively represent a demand for the suppression of a Member’s personal beliefs on a matter of public interest. Such a demand would represent the very antithesis of free expression of belief that underpins a democratic system.
I consider that to deny the expression of views or beliefs, albeit unacceptable to some, potentially could have the effect of the electorate supporting a candidate on the basis of an assumption made about an opinion on which a candidate has never been properly tested. The electorate is entitled to be aware of the views of candidates who present themselves for election to public office on social and moral issues.
I consider however that Members of the Assembly, as public representatives, do have a particular responsibility for the manner in which they express their personal beliefs and views.
I consider that the publication of Mr Paisley’s comments in isolation from the full interview, some two weeks ahead of its full publication, did have the potential to be interpreted by those who have a deep antipathy towards homosexuals as offering a rationale for their homophobia. As Mr ‘A’ pointed out in his complaint homophobia already manifests itself in acts of violence towards the gay community. Therefore it is essential that Members in expressing their beliefs are conscious of the risk of some elements in society using the articulation of those sincerely held opinions as a reason to physically attack members of the gay community who also have the right to live their lives without fear of attack or hostility from others. It is essential that in giving leadership to the community as a whole, Members of the Assembly recognise their responsibility in this important area.
The decision to be selective in the initial reporting of the comments of Mr Paisley was taken by the journalists involved and not by the Member.
In the interview, and again in his written comments on the complaint, Mr Paisley made clear a separation between the person and their actions; he stated explicitly that he did not hate homosexuals as individuals.
The case highlights the need for Members to consider very carefully the manner and circumstances in which media coverage is given to the expression of their beliefs, views and personal opinions.

Conclusion

17. I consider that when placed within the context of the whole interview, Mr Paisley’s comments do not constitute a breach of the Members Code of Conduct.

T FRAWLEY

Interim Commissioner for Standards

August 2007

Appendix 2

Letter of Complaint

Letter of Complaint (E-Mailed)

Received by Committee on Standards and Privileges on Friday 1st June 2007

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you in order that this message may be transmitted to the Clerk of the Committee on Standards and Privillege, as a formal complainant regarding the behaviour and conduct of MLA and Junior Minister from the Office of First and Deputy First Minister Ian Paisley JNR.

Clerk of Committee on Standards and Privelleg;

I have been horrified by the recent revelation that one of our most senior politicians in the province has taken it upon himself to so blantantly and publicly disregard not only the ministerial code, the members code, however more worryingly he has done a great disservice to not only the NI Assembly but to the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and the wider community of Northern Ireland he servess.