Northern Ireland Assembly Flax Flower Logo

Session 2008/2009

Sixth Report

COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES

Report on the Review of the
Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the
Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

Together with the Minutes of Proceedings of the committee,
minutes of evidence and written Evidence relating to the report

Ordered by the Committee on Standards and Privileges to be printed 17 June 2009

Report: 136/08-09 (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

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. 50 and 57.

2. The Committee has power:

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

Executive Summary

Summary of Recommendations

Introduction

Key Issues and Conclusions and Recommendations

Annex A - The Code of Conduct together with the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

Appendices

Appendix 1

Proceedings of the Committee Relating to the Report

Appendix 2

Minutes of Evidence

Appendix 3

Written Evidence

Appendix 4

Consultation Document – Proposed Amendments to the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

Executive Summary

The Code of Conduct together with The Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

The Committee on Standards and Privileges has carried out a review of the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Code of Conduct (the Code) together with the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members (the Guide).

The review of the Code and Guide was initiated long before recent controversies in relation to MPs’ expenses. The Committee considers that it is important that the improvements which it is recommending be implemented as soon as possible and should not be delayed. Nevertheless the Committee recognises the need for best practice in the area of standards to be continually reviewed and is committed to reviewing the Code and Guide on an ongoing basis to ensure that this is the case.

The key recommendations arising out of the Committee’s review are that:

The Committee believes that the new Code and Guide will improve openness and accountability, improve the public confidence and trust in the integrity of Members and ensure that Members are held to the high ethical standards expected of them by the whole community in Northern Ireland.

Summary of Recommendations

This Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges recommends that:

In addition, this report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges also recommends that:

Introduction

1. The Assembly approved “The Code of Conduct" (the Code) and “The Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members" (the Guide) on 14 December 1999. The Code sets out the principles of conduct and rules of conduct that Members must observe, while the Guide assists Members in discharging the duties placed upon them by the Code. The Guide was then amended by the Assembly on 15 October 2001. On 12 February 2002 the Committee on Standards and Privileges agreed that a review of the Code and Guide should be carried out. A review was undertaken and amendments were proposed and consulted upon. However, these amendments were not implemented due to suspension of the Assembly occurring before they could be introduced. Since then – and until now – there have been no further changes to the Code and Guide.

2. Further to the restoration of devolution in 2007, the Committee on Standards and Privileges agreed that a full review of the Code and Guide was therefore long overdue, and agreed that such a review should be carried out. The Committee commenced its review in September 2007 and, as part of this review, examined Codes of Conduct of other legislatures in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland; carried out fact-finding visits to the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament; heard oral evidence from the Electoral Commission, the Equality Commission and Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards; carried out a public consultation; and received a number of written submissions. Oral evidence heard by the Committee, written evidence received by the Committee, and a copy of the Committee’s consultation document are set out at Appendices 2, 3 and 4 respectively.

3. The Committee is very grateful to all those who have assisted it in its deliberations on this key piece of work. Having a robust and fit for purpose Code of Conduct, with accountability and openness as key elements, is crucial in order to ensure that:

4. The Committee believes that this new Code and Guide will enable these objectives to be achieved. The Committee therefore recommends that the Assembly agrees the new Code of Conduct together with The Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members, as set out at Annex A.

5. In so recommending, the Committee therefore also makes a number of further recommendations which are set out below.

Key Issues and Conclusions and Recommendations

Scope of the Code of Conduct

6. At the outset, a key issue for the Committee – and for those who responded to the consultation – was the issue of the scope of the new Code of Conduct. The Committee felt it was necessary to clarify the circumstances when the Code will apply and when it will not. The Committee agreed that the Code should cover the conduct of Members with respect to anything that Members say or do in their capacity as an elected Member of the Assembly. Therefore the Code does not cover the conduct and activities of Members in any other capacity, for example, in their private and family life.

7. The Committee therefore recommends that the scope of the new of Code of Conduct is clarified in order to make clear that the Code does not cover the conduct of Members’ private and family life.

8. The Committee gave detailed consideration to how, if at all, the Code should apply to Ministers of the Northern Ireland Executive. The Committee agreed that, as a general principle, the requirements of the Assembly’s Code do continue to apply to Ministers. As all Ministers are also Members then it is clear that when acting in their capacity as Members, the Assembly’s Code would, of course, continue to apply.

9. However, the Committee is aware that the conduct of Ministers is also governed by the Ministerial Code of Conduct, which is an integral part of the Ministerial Code, as provided for by Section 28A of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Ministerial Code of Conduct is not a Code which has been drafted by, or approved by, or is in any other way ‘owned’ by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and therefore complaints that the Ministerial Code of Conduct has been breached fall outside the scope of this Code and outside the remit of the Committee. The Committee did note, however, that in respect of allegations that the Ministerial Code of Conduct has been breached, there is currently no agreed mechanism by which such allegations can be investigated. The Committee has written to OFMdFM to raise this issue and to establish whether it has any plans to introduce such a mechanism (this correspondence is included in Appendix 3).

10. The Committee also noted how, on occasions, the requirements of the Assembly’s Code and the requirements of the Ministerial Code of Conduct overlap. An example of this is the requirement to register gifts and hospitality. Gifts or hospitality received by Ministers could be reasonably thought by others to influence Ministers’ actions in their capacity as Members of the Assembly. The Committee will therefore investigate allegations relating to Ministers that also happen to fall under the Ministerial Code of Conduct, where those allegations relate to duties that overlap with the Assembly’s Code. However, to be clear, the Committee would be investigating the Minister in his or her capacity as a Member.

11. The Committee therefore recommends that the scope of the new Code of Conduct is clarified so that it is clear the circumstances in which a complaint may be pursued against a Member acting as a Minister.

12. A further issue relating to the scope of the new Code that required careful consideration by the Committee was the issue of the expression of political opinions. This issue was the focus of a number of the responses to the Committee’s consultation. Many of those who responded felt strongly that having a public profile means that there is a responsibility upon Members not to express particular views in particular ways. However, there were others who argued that Members must be entirely free to express their political opinions in whatever way they choose (within the parameters of the law).

13. The Committee believes that it is fundamental within a democracy that elected representatives should be free, within the law, to express any political opinion that they may hold and that the Assembly should not therefore seek to prevent or limit any political opinion being expressed legally. To do so would suppress a Member’s right to free speech and would be inconsistent with the principles of a democratic society.

14. The Committee also agreed, however, that while Members must be entitled to express their opinions, as public representatives they nonetheless have a particular responsibility for the manner in which they express their opinions, beliefs and views. It is essential that in acting in the interests of the community as a whole, Members recognise their responsibility in this important area. Indeed the Committee has agreed that, amongst others, the principle of Respect must underpin the conduct of Members.

15. The Committee recommends that the scope of the new Code of Conduct is clarified so that the position on Members expressing political opinions is made clear. Members are entitled to legally express any political opinion that they may hold. In doing so, however, Members should have regard to the Principles of Conduct and should not express opinions in a manner that is manifestly in conflict with the Principles of Conduct.

Principles of Conduct

16. The Committee gave consideration to the need for the Code to include principles of conduct. Principles of conduct should inform and underpin all aspects of Members’ conduct. They are not a substitute for rules, but are complementary to them, providing a framework within which ethical conduct can be understood and practised. The reality is that rules, on their own, can never be comprehensive enough to cover all issues of conduct and therefore the spirit of the rules, as encapsulated by the principles, is as important as the specific requirements of the rules themselves.

17. The previous Code included the seven principles of conduct in public life which were introduced by the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1995. These are sound robust principles, primarily concerned with financial integrity and propriety, which should be adhered to by all public servants and not just elected representatives. However, in addition to including these principles, the Committee also gave consideration to expanding the principles in the Code beyond those of financial integrity. The Committee decided to consult upon introducing principles related to broader ethical behaviour in public life.

18. Accordingly, the Committee proposed that four further principles of conduct be required of Members. The four principles consulted upon were Respect, Equality, Working Relationships and Promoting Good Relations. It is important to point out that these principles do not seek to limit in any way Members’ ability and role to debate and advance policy positions. In fact, the principles relate to Members’ behaviour and how they should act towards and interact with others.

19. There was a broad consensus amongst consultees that the original seven Nolan Principles, plus the new principles of Respect, Equality, Working Relationships and Promoting Good Relations, do encapsulate the general principles of conduct to be expected of elected public representatives.

20. The Committee therefore recommends that the new Code includes four new principles of Conduct: Respect; Equality; Promoting Good Relations; and Good Working Relationships.

Duty of Members in respect of the Assembly Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards and Privileges

21. The Committee felt it was necessary to set out clearly that Members have a duty in respect of co-operating at all times with any investigation into their conduct. The Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards informed the Committee in his periodic report of June 2008 (included at Appendix 3) that he has had on occasions some cause for concern in respect of the time taken by Members to respond to his enquiries. It is the view of the Committee that it is not acceptable for a Member under investigation to be anything other than fully co-operative at all times. Any substantiated allegation of non-compliance with an investigation will therefore constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct.

22. The Committee therefore recommends that the new Code includes a section setting out the duty of Members in respect of the Assembly Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

Outside Remuneration

23. The Committee gave careful consideration to the issue of outside earnings. Since the first Code and Guide were agreed in 1999, Members have been required to register details of Directorships and other employment held outside of the Assembly. However, with the exception of those Members who provided paid services to third parties in their capacity as Members (for example, in a consultancy role), there has never been a requirement to register the remuneration received in respect of these outside earnings.

24. The Committee believes that it is right that greater transparency and openness is introduced to the issue of outside earnings for Members. It is not just the case that the public should be able to see how much Members earn outside of the Assembly; the public should also be aware of how much time Members spend in relation to these remunerated interests. The Committee therefore recommends that Members are required to register how much remuneration they earn outside the Assembly, and how much time they spend in relation to earning this remuneration.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000

25. The Committee received oral and written evidence from the Electoral Commission on the issue of the requirements of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA). Under PPERA regulated donees (which include Members) are required to report to the Electoral Commission permissible donations and regulated transactions. The rules concerning permissible donations and regulated transactions overlap to a degree with existing requirements for Members to register certain interests in the Assembly’s Register (Sponsorship; Gifts, benefits and hospitality; Overseas visits; and Overseas benefits and gifts) and therefore, in practice a dual reporting requirement exists.

26. It is recognised that this dual reporting requirement can cause confusion and creates the potential for inadvertent error. The Electoral Commission has already worked closely with other places to end dual reporting. The Committee too believes that this dual requirement is unhelpful and supports in principle the notion of a single point of registration for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

27. However, the Committee has also noted that under PPERA regulated donees are required to register donations and loans directly with the Electoral Commission. The Committee also recognised that information on Northern Ireland donations and loans is currently held by the Electoral Commission on a confidential basis and that this will continue to be the case at least until 2010. Once it becomes clear that these transitional confidentiality requirements are to be withdrawn, the Committee recommends that consideration should be given to introducing practical measures that would facilitate the introduction of a single point of registration for those details that are required to be registered with both the Assembly and the Electoral Commission.

28. In the meantime, however, it is sensible if reporting requirements to the Assembly are made, where practical and appropriate, broadly consistent with the statutory reporting requirements to the Electoral Commission.

29. The Committee therefore recommends that Category 4 (Sponsorships) be renamed ‘Electoral Support and Political Donations’ and the requirement for Members to register electoral support and political donations is made broadly consistent with the legal requirements to register such details with the Electoral Commission.

30. Although the Committee feels it is appropriate that the reporting requirements be made broadly consistent, the Committee also noted that, in respect of gifts, benefits and hospitality, and overseas visits, the Electoral Commission only requires these to be registered when they are received from a permissible donor and exceed the threshold of £1,000. The Committee considered that it could not justify raising the current threshold for registration of these interests on the Assembly Register to that level. The Committee therefore recommends that the requirement to register gifts, benefits and hospitality; overseas visits; and overseas benefits and gifts is made broadly consistent with the legal requirements to register such details with the Electoral Commission, except that the threshold above which such interests are registrable should be set at 0.5% of the standard Assembly Member’s salary (currently £217).

Occupational Pensions Schemes

31. The Committee considered the issue of whether occupational pension schemes need to be registered. While the position on declaring occupational pension schemes has been clear – a declaration should be made in any proceeding if having such a scheme might reasonably be thought by others to influence the Member’s representation in question – there has been less clarity on whether Members should have to proactively register them.

32. The Committee considered that membership of an occupational pension scheme constitutes a financial relationship with the company or organisation in question. The Committee therefore recommends that Members are required to register membership of any occupational pension scheme.

Registration of Family Members who benefit from Assembly Members’ Allowances

33. The Committee considered the issue of family members of Members benefiting from Assembly Members’ Allowances. This is an issue which has attracted considerable public attention, particularly with regard to instances where Members use the Assembly’s Office Cost Allowance to rent offices from family members or to employ family members.

34. Such arrangements are not outside the existing rules on Assembly Members’ Allowances. The Committee recognises that the Assembly Commission is currently reviewing the rules governing Members’ Office Cost Allowances and it wishes to make clear that the outcome of the Committee’s deliberations on the issue of family members who benefit from Assembly Members’ Allowances is entirely without prejudice to whatever measures emerge from the Commission’s review.

35. However, in the meantime, the Committee believes that there should be greater transparency in relation to Members’ use of their Assembly Allowances, where the use might be influenced, or perceived as being liable to influence, by virtue of the existence of a personal relationship between the Member and the family member who is benefiting. The Committee believes that the Register of Members’ Interests, for which it has responsibility, is the right vehicle for this.

36. The Committee therefore recommends that Members are required to register family members who benefit directly or indirectly in any way from any Assembly Members’ allowances.

37. Extension of the disclosure of information in this area would break new ground in the respect that it would extend the purpose of the Register beyond providing information of any financial interests or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions as a Member. The purpose of the Register would therefore also be to record any further information about Members which the Assembly may from time to time require to be included, and to reflect this the Register should be structured in terms of two distinct parts.

38. The Committee considered the issue of how much information Members should be required to register. The Committee agreed that there was no requirement to register the name of the family member but that Members should have to register the nature of the relationship. Members should also register the way in which the family member benefits. In the case of the employment of family members the Committee agreed that there was no need to register the salary of the family member. However, in order to ensure that there is transparency about how the allowance is being used, the Member should register the capacity in which the family member is employed, e.g.

“I employ my daughter as a Researcher."

39. For this information to be meaningful to the public there needs to be defined job descriptions for those remunerated from Assembly Members’ Allowances with corresponding defined salary bands, and this information needs to be publicly available. However, the Committee understands that the Assembly Commission would need to do further work in order to be able to provide accurate job descriptions and salary bands for those employed and remunerated under Assembly Members’ Allowances.

40. The Committee therefore recommends that the Assembly Commission takes forward the necessary work in order to be able to provide accurate job descriptions and salary bands of all those who are remunerated through Assembly Members’ Allowances.

41. Once this work has been done the job descriptions and salary bands should be placed on the website and there should be a link to this information from both the Code and Guide, and the Register of Members’ Interests.

42. In addition to the requirement to register family members who benefit from Assembly Members’ allowances, the Committee’s proposals would also require Members to register instances where they use their Assembly Members’ Allowances in a way that benefits the family members of other Members.

Declaring the interests of family members

43. Although the requirement to declare the interests of immediate relatives is set out in Standing Order 69 (4), the Code and Guide until now have been silent on this matter. This does not mean that Members have not had to declare the interests of immediate relatives. It just means that the Code and Guide have not been as clear as they should have been.

44. The requirement to declare the interests of family members, where appropriate, is important in order to ensure that there is transparency on any matter where it could be perceived that a Member’s action might be thought by others to have been influenced by that interest. In order to make the Code and Guide clearer on this matter, and to bring them into line with Standing Orders, the Committee recommends that the requirement to declare the interests of family members is clearly set out.

The Advocacy Rule

45. A key element to the Code and Guide is the Advocacy Rule. The most fundamental requirements in relation to preventing advocacy are set out in Section 43 of the Northern Ireland Act, Standing Order 69 (5), and the resolution of the Assembly of 14 December 1999 relating to the Conduct of Members.

46. However, the Advocacy Rule as set out in the existing Guide goes much further than each of these sources require. In particular, the Advocacy Rule says that if a Member has a registrable or declarable financial interest that Member shall not initiate proceedings which relate specifically and directly to the interests of that body or its clients; or to ‘any group, sector, category or organisation whose affairs are substantially the same as those of the outside body’.

47. Leaving to one side the point about how widely this rule is understood or adhered to, a question that the Committee considered was how desirable it was that this aspect of the rule should exist at all. The purpose of the Advocacy Rule is to prevent Members gaining personally from their participation in Assembly proceedings, either by advocating for a cause in return for a payment or benefit, or by seeking to confer benefit exclusively upon a body in which the Member has an interest. A consequence of the Rule as set out in the existing Guide is that Members from certain backgrounds are limited from acting in their full capacity as a Member, even though to do so would not constitute advocacy in the sense that was intended. It is difficult to see how the public interest is best served by imposing a limitation upon a Member’s ability, for example, to scrutinise a policy area in which, because of their interests outside the Assembly, he/she is particularly well informed.

48. The wording of the Advocacy Rule used by the Assembly had also previously been used by the House of Commons in a previous Guide that was produced for MPs. However, in December 2001 the House of Commons’ Committee on Standards and Privileges published a report which noted the view that the guidelines on initiation and the ban on paid advocacy were operating unnecessarily harshly and should be amended (Standards and Privileges’ Committee’s Fourth Report of the 2001/2002 Session, ref HC 478 refers). A further report of that Committee (Ninth Report of 2001/2002 Session, ref HC 763 refers) proposed revisions to address this concern. In essence, the revision relaxed the rule which forbade Members from initiating any parliamentary proceeding which related specifically and directly to the affairs of a body in which they had a pecuniary interest. It did this by removing the prohibition of Members initiating any proceedings in relation to any issue in which they had related interest, while nonetheless maintaining the prohibition of the initiation of proceedings which sought to confer exclusive benefit upon such a body. This revision was subsequently adopted by the House of Commons.

49. The Committee has considered the findings of these reports in respect of the Advocacy Rule, and has noted that the agreed revision appears to have worked well in the House of Commons. The Committee therefore recommends that the Advocacy Rule is revised in relation to the duties of Members in respect of initiating Assembly proceedings which relate to an interest which should be registered or declared.

Complaints Procedure

50. The Committee considered the issue of a complaints procedure and concluded that it should be set out as a distinct element of the Code and Guide, setting out in much more detail than is currently the case, the different aspects of dealing with a complaint. The different aspects that the Committee considered should be set out more clearly include the process for making a complaint; the admissibility criteria; the formal investigation stage; how the Committee will consider a report; sanctions that the Committee might recommend (set out in further detail at paragraphs 53 to 57 below); and the rectification procedure (set out in further detail at paragraphs 58 to 60 below). A stand alone complaints procedure setting out these details will improve transparency and accountability. The Committee therefore recommends that a new discrete complaints procedure section is added to the Code and Guide.

51. One particular amendment proposed by the Committee is that complainants should be able to make their complaints directly to the Assembly Commissioner for Standards (rather than having to submit complaints via the Clerk to the Committee). However, in order to facilitate this, Standing Orders would need to be amended. Standing Orders would also need to be amended to reflect other issues emerging as a result of amendments to the Code and Guide; for example where references in Standing Orders to specific paragraphs in the Guide will be made obsolete as a result of the renumbering of paragraphs arising out of this review. Standing Orders should also be amended to provide certainty on the ability of the Assembly to impose sanctions on Members. This issue is, however, dealt with separately at paragraph 57 below.

52. The Committee has already brought these matters to the attention of the Committee on Procedures who have considered the issues and are content. The Committee therefore recommends that Standing Orders be amended in order to reflect these administrative matters arising out of the new Code and Guide.

Sanctions

53. Standing Orders 69 (6) makes clear that the Committee can make a report to the Assembly where it appears to it that a Member has failed to comply with any provision of the Standing Order or the Code of Conduct. Standing Order 69 (7) then goes on to say that the Committee can make recommendations as to sanctions, including exclusion from proceedings for a specified period and the withdrawal of rights and privileges during that period of exclusion.

54. The provisions do not actually circumscribe the range of sanctions open to the Committee but rather, in the view of the Committee, indicate that it has the authority to recommend sanctions as strong as it judges appropriate for the circumstances. Obviously it would be for the Assembly to accept, reject or amend the recommendation.

55. The Committee believes, however, that it would be helpful if in the Complaints Procedure Section the range of sanctions that the Committee might recommend was set out. In particular, the Committee believes that it is essential that the Assembly should be able to suspend a Member from proceedings of the Assembly without pay for a specified period, where that Member is found to have breached the Code or Guide.

56. The Committee therefore recommends that the Assembly should have the capacity to impose a number of sanctions on a Member who is found to have breached the Code, including suspension without pay.

57. For the avoidance of doubt the Committee also recommends that in order to guarantee the authority of the sanctions, particularly the sanction to suspend Members without pay, Standing Orders should be amended. If considered necessary the relevant Northern Ireland Assembly Members’ Determination on Salary should also be amended.

Rectification Procedure

58. The Committee considered that, in instances where a Member has failed to register or declare an interest, and where the interest is minor or the failure to register or declare was inadvertent, the Assembly Commissioner for Standards may recommend to the Committee on Standards and Privileges that the Member be allowed to rectify the matter. Rectification would either require a belated entry in the current Register of Members’ Interests or an apology to the Assembly.

59. The Committee considered that there should be two caveats to the application of the Rectification Procedure; firstly that the Member acknowledges that they are in breach of the Code, and secondly that they are willing to apologise for it.

60. The Committee recommends that there is a new rectification procedure for minor or inadvertent failures to register or declare an interest.

Other minor amendments

61. Inevitably, when carrying out reviews of this nature, minor issue are identified where perhaps the previous documents in question could be amended slightly or clarified, without making significant changes to the intent or substance of what has previously been agreed. In the case of the Code and Guide there are, amongst a number of such changes, examples such as replacing references to the word ‘pecuniary’ with the word ‘financial’, or amending the position in the document of certain key issues in order to give them greater prominence.

62. The Committee therefore recommends that a number of other minor changes are made to the Code and Guide, most of which are either presentational or either clarify or slightly amend existing requirements for Members.

Looking forward

63. The Committee recognises that the context within which Members’ conduct is regulated is continually evolving, with new issues perhaps only arising through the investigation of specific complaints or as a result of legislative or policy changes. The Committee therefore believes that the Code and Guide should be amended periodically in order to reflect such emerging issues.

64. In fact, it is apparent to the Committee that this Code and Guide will need to be reviewed again, at least within a year of it coming into operation. Such a review will, for example, allow the Committee to consider further the issue of a single point of registration for interests that need also be registered with the Electoral Commission and will also allow the Committee to refine, if appropriate, the requirements of the new untried requirements of the Code.

65. In any case, the Committee continually gives consideration to how elected representatives’ conduct is regulated elsewhere. Where any new models of best practice are developed, the Committee believes that these should be considered by the Assembly.

66. It is likely that significant changes will emerge in relation to how the conduct of MPs is regulated within the House of Commons. Revelations about the conduct of certain MPs in respect of parliamentary expenses has understandably shaken public confidence in, amongst other things, the system by which MPs’ conduct is regulated. In response, the Prime Minister has just recently set out proposals for a new Parliamentary Standards Authority and a statutory Code of Conduct for MPs. It appears that these proposals would, if implemented, fundamentally alter how MPs’ conduct has, until now, been regulated.

67. Of course, in Northern Ireland there is already a statutory basis to the regulation of Members’ conduct, as provided for by Section 43 of the Northern Ireland Act on Members’ interests, which sets out offences in relation to failing to register or declare interests and in relation to advocating issues in return for payment or benefit. However, that is not to say that the current reviews relating to the regulation of MPs’ conduct at Westminster will not identify other issues which could have value if introduced at the Assembly.

68. The Committee therefore recommends that the Assembly carefully monitors the development of best practice elsewhere in regulating the conduct of elected representatives. This will include developments associated with the Prime Minister’s recent proposals for a Parliamentary Standards Authority and a statutory Code of Conduct for MPs. The Assembly should give consideration to whether any of the principles emerging from these proposals (insofar as they relate to issues in the House of Commons which come within the role of the Assembly’s Committee on Standards and Privileges here) should be adopted in an appropriate form by the Assembly. This work could be done as part of the Committee’s next major piece of work, which is to consider the arrangements for appointing the Assembly Commissioner for Standards.

69. In the meantime, however, the Committee recommends that the new Code and Guide replaces the existing versions from 12 October 2009. This will allow Members four weeks from the date of the first plenary of the next session to become aware of the requirements of the new Code and Guide.

Annex A

The Code of Conduct together with The Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

The Code of Conduct together with
The Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

Northern Ireland Assembly logo

Contents

Introduction

The Code of Conduct for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly

The Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

The Complaints Procedure

Annexe 1: Resolution of the Assembly Relating to the Conduct of Members – 14 December 1999.

Introduction

This document is the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Code of Conduct together with the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members.

The purpose of Code of Conduct of the Northern Ireland Assembly (the Code) is to assist Members in the discharge of their obligations to the Assembly, their constituents and the public at large. The Code of Conduct includes the principles of Conduct and the Rules to the Code of Conduct.

The purpose of the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members (the Guide) is to assist Members in discharging the duties placed upon them by the Code of Conduct agreed by the Assembly. The Guide includes an explanation of the requirements in relation to the registration of interests, declaration of interests and the Advocacy Rule.

Also included is a discrete Complaints Procedure and the Resolution of the Assembly relating to the Conduct of Members of 14 December 1999. Members are still bound by the terms of this resolution, except for where its requirements have been amended by this new Code and Guide.

The Code of Conduct for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly

Purpose of the Code

The purpose of the Code of Conduct of the Northern Ireland Assembly (‘the Code’) is to assist Members in the discharge of their obligations to the Assembly, their constituents and the public at large.

The Code aims to:

Scope

It is important to note that this Code aims to cover the conduct of all Members with respect to anything Members say or do in their capacity as an elected Member of the Assembly. However, it does not, for example, cover:

Furthermore, Members are entitled to legally express any political opinion that they may hold. In doing so, however, Members should have regard to the Principles of Conduct and should not express opinions in a manner that is manifestly in conflict with the Principles of Conduct.

It is also important to understand that the obligations of Members detailed in this Code are complementary to those that apply to all Members by virtue of the procedural and other rules of the Assembly including the rulings of the Speaker.

Personal Conduct

Members shall observe the following principles of conduct, which include principles based upon the general principles of conduct identified by the Committee on Standards in Public Life as applying to holders of public office, and further principles agreed by the Assembly:

Public Duty

Members have a duty to uphold the law and to act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them.

Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the community as a whole.

Members have a special duty to their constituents and are responsible to the electorate who are the final arbiter of their conduct as public representatives.

Selflessness

Members should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not act in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, their friends or associates.

Integrity

Members should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations which might reasonably be thought by others to influence them in the performance of their duties as a Member of the Assembly.

Objectivity

In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, Members of the Assembly should make choices on merit.

Accountability

Members are accountable for their decisions and actions to the people of Northern Ireland and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

Openness

Members should be as open as possible about the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demand it.

Honesty

Members should act honestly. They have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties. Members should take steps to resolve any conflicts between their private interests and public duties at once and in a way that protects the public interest.

Leadership

Members should promote and support these principles by leadership and example in order to establish and maintain the trust and confidence of the people of Northern Ireland, and to ensure the integrity of the Assembly and its Members in conducting business.

Equality

Members should promote equality of opportunity and not discriminate against any person by treating people with respect regardless of race, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, political opinion, marital status and whether or not a person has dependents.

Promoting Good Relations

Members will act in a way that is conducive to promoting good relations by providing a positive example for the wider community to follow by acting justly and promoting a culture of respect for the law.

Respect

It is acknowledged that the exchange of ideas, and opinions on policies may be robust but this should be kept in context and not extend to individuals being subjected to unreasonable and excessive personal attack. Members should keep in mind that rude and offensive behaviour may lower the public’s regard for, and confidence in, Members and the Assembly itself. Members should therefore show respect and consideration for others at all times.

Good Working Relationships

Members should work responsibly with other Members of the Assembly for the benefit of the whole community. Members must treat other Members and the staff of other Members with courtesy and respect. Members must abide by the Assembly Standing Orders and should promote an effective working environment within the Assembly.

The relationship between Members and Assembly staff must at all times be professional, courteous and based on mutual respect. This also applies to contract staff at the Assembly.

Rules of the Code of Conduct

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 Assembly into disrepute.

The acceptance by a Member of a bribe to influence his or her conduct as a Member, including any fee, compensation or reward in connection with the promotion of, or opposition to, any Bill, Motion, or other matter submitted, or intended to be submitted to the Assembly, or to any Committee of the Assembly, is contrary to law. Any Member who is offered a bribe as described above shall refer the matter to the appropriate authority and to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

Members shall fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the Assembly in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Interests and shall always draw attention to any relevant interest in any proceeding of the Assembly or its Committees, or in any communications with Ministers, Government Departments or Executive Agencies.

In any activities with, or on behalf of, an organisation with which a Member has a financial relationship, including activities which may not be a matter of public record such as informal meetings and functions, he or she must always bear in mind the need to be open and frank with Ministers, Members and officials.

No Member shall, in return for payment or benefit, advocate or initiate any cause or matter on behalf of any outside body or individual, in any proceeding of the Assembly. Furthermore, Members shall not, in return for benefit or payment, urge any other Member to do so.

No improper use shall be made of any payment or allowance made to Members for public purposes and the administrative rules applying to such payments, allowances and resources must be strictly observed.

Members shall at all times observe and comply with any guidance or instructions of any kind approved by the Assembly, or issued by the Commission or Assembly Directorates on its behalf or with its authority.

Members must bear in mind that information which they receive in confidence in the course of their Assembly duties should be used only in connection with those duties, and that such information must never be used for the purpose of financial gain. Members shall be mindful of the Data Protection Act and their duty of confidentiality in respect of information provided by constituents.

Duties in respect of the Assembly Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards and Privileges

The application of this Code shall be a matter for the Assembly, and for the Committee on Standards and Privileges and the Commissioner.

Members shall co-operate at all times with any investigation into their conduct by or under the authority of the Assembly. Any substantiated allegation of non-compliance with an investigation will constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct. A Member found to have not complied with an investigation will be subject to the appropriate sanction outlined in paragraph 26 of the complaints procedure.

No Member shall lobby a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, or the Commissioner in a manner calculated or intended to influence their consideration of a complaint alleging a breach of this Code.

The Guide to the Rules Relating
to the Conduct of Members

Introduction

1. The purpose of this Guide is to assist Members in discharging the duties placed upon them by the Code of Conduct agreed by the Assembly. It replaces the Guide approved by a Resolution of the Assembly on the 14 December 1999 and amended on 15 October 2001. The rules within this Guide derive their authority from a Resolution of the Assembly and are therefore enforceable by the Assembly.

2. No written guidance can provide for all circumstances and the examples provided do not therefore constitute an exhaustive list. When in doubt Members should seek the advice of the Clerk of Standards who, if necessary, will seek adjudication from the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

3. The Guide is divided into four sections dealing with (1) Registration of Members’ Interests (paragraphs 7 to 17); (2) the Categories of Registrable Interest (paragraph 18 to 80); (3) Declaration of Members’ Interests (paragraphs 81 to 94); (4) the Advocacy Rule (paragraphs 95 to 102).

4. The Code of Conduct provides a framework within which acceptable conduct should be judged and to assist Members in the discharge of their obligations to the Assembly, their constituents and the public at large. This Guide contains guidelines (paragraphs 95 to 102) to assist Members in applying the Advoacy Rule. Paragraph 102 deals with the conflict of interest that may arise when a Member holding a relevant financial interest takes part in a delegation involving the source of that interest.

5. The Assembly has two distinct but related methods for the disclosure of the personal financial interests of its Members: registration of interests in a Register which is open for public inspection; and declaration of interest in the course of making a speech or asking questions in the Assembly Chamber or in Committee, or participation in any other proceedings of the Assembly.

6. Northern Ireland Ministers and junior Ministers are subject to the rules of registration, declaration and lobbying in the same way as other Members. The requirements of the Assembly’s Code of Conduct also continue to apply to the conduct of Ministers. In addition, however, Ministers are also subject to the Ministerial Code of Conduct in order to ensure that, inter alia, no conflict arises, nor appears to arise, between their private interests and their public duties. The Committee on Standards and Privileges will not investigate alleged breaches of the Ministerial Code of Conduct. Neither will the Committee on Standards and Privileges investigate an alleged breach of the Assembly’s Code of Conduct in respect of the conduct of Ministers, where such an allegation is essentially an allegation that falls within the scope of the Ministerial Code of Conduct and where the allegation does not clearly overlap with the Minister’s conduct and duties as a Member.

Registration of Members’ Interests

7. The rules within this Guide derive their authority from a Resolution of the Assembly on the 23 June 2009 and are therefore enforceable by the Assembly. It replaces the Guide approved by a Resolution of the Assembly on the 14 December 1999 and amended on 15 October 2001. Under this Resolution of 23 June 2009, Members are required to register their financial interests in a Register of Members’ Interests. The duty of compiling the Register rests with the Clerk of Standards.

Definition of the Register’s Purpose

8. The main purpose of the Register of Members’ Interests is to provide information of any financial interests or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches or votes in the Assembly, or actions taken in his or her capacity as a Member of the Assembly. Provision is also made for the registration of non-financial interests and other such information as the Assembly may from time to time require to be included. The registration form specifies twelve categories of registrable interests which are described below. Apart from the specific rules, there is a more general obligation upon Members to keep the overall definition of the Register’s purpose in mind when registering their interests.

Duties of Members in Respect of Registration

9. After an election of the Assembly, Members are required to complete a registration form and submit it to the Clerk of Standards within three months of taking their seats in accordance with Standing Orders. Members taking their seats in accordance with section 35 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 must also complete a registration form within three months of taking their seats. After the initial publication of the Register, (or, in the case of Members returned in accordance with section 35 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, after their initial registration) it is the responsibility of Members to notify changes in their registrable interests within four weeks of each change occurring in accordance with Standing Orders.

10. Any Member having a registrable interest which has not at the time been registered, shall not undertake any action, speech or proceeding (save voting) of the Assembly to which the registration would be relevant until notification has been given to the Clerk of Standards of that interest. Members who have a relevant unregistered interest may vote but should register the interest immediately afterwards (see paragraph 94 for further guidance).

11. The sole responsibility for complying with the duties placed upon them by this Guide rests with Members. Members are responsible for making a full disclosure of their interests, and if they have relevant interests which do not fall clearly into one or other of the specified categories, they are nonetheless expected to register them. Members may at any time seek the advice and guidance from the Clerk of Standards on the registration and declaration of interests.

12. Failure to register an interest may be an offence under section 43 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Committee on Standards and Privileges may refer to the Public Prosecution Service complaints received in respect of such an alleged failure.

Publication and Public Inspection

13. The Register is published soon after the beginning of a new Assembly, under the authority of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The Register will be published in electronic format on the Assembly’s website. Hard copies will be retained by the Clerk of Standards and the Assembly Library. The Register is available for public inspection in the Office of the Clerk of Standards. Hard copies will be made available upon request.

14. At the discretion of the Clerk, copies of individual entries in the Register may be supplied on request. However, the employment agreements deposited with the Clerk which relate to registered interests (paragraph 34) are available for personal inspection only.

Adding and Deleting Interests

15. A Member may request in writing that his/her entry in the Register of Interests is amended.

16. Where this involves adding an interest the Member must lodge a written notice with the Clerk of Standards. The Member must indicate the nature of the interest, the category under which it should be registered, and the date at which the interest was acquired.

17. Where a Member wishes to have a ceased interest removed from the Register the Member must lodge a written notice with the Clerk of Standards identifying the ceased interest and giving the date that it became a ceased interest. The Clerk of Standards will amend the Member’s entry to record the relevant interest as a ceased interest, the date it became a ceased interest and the date on which the amendment was made in the Register. Not less than 12 months after the notice is lodged the Clerk of Standards will further amend the Register by deleting the interest and sending a copy of the amended entry to the Member.

The Categories of Registrable Interest

Part 1
Category 1

Directorships: Remunerated directorships in public and private companies including directorships which are individually remunerated, but where remuneration is paid through another company in the same group.

18. In this Category, and in others, “remuneration" includes not only salaries and fees, but also the receipt of any taxable expenses, allowances, or benefits, such as the provision of a company car. It is necessary to register the name of the company in which the directorship is held and to give a broad indication of the company’s business, where that is not self-evident from its name. In addition to any remunerated directorships, a Member is also required to register any directorships he or she holds which are themselves unremunerated but where the companies in question are associated with, or subsidiaries of, a company in which he or she holds a remunerated directorship.

19. Companies which have not begun to trade or which have ceased trading need not be registered, either under this Category or under Category 9 (shareholdings). “Not trading" should, however, be interpreted in a strict sense; if a company is engaged in any transaction additional to those required by law to keep it in being, then a remunerated directorship in that company should be registered. If a Member wishes to register a directorship in a company which is not trading the Member should make the position clear by adding the words “not trading" after the name of the company.

20. Any provision to clients of services in respect of the registered directorship which depend essentially upon, or arise out of, the Member’s position as a Member of the Assembly should be registered under this Category.

21. All clients to which personal services are provided in this regard should be listed together with the nature of the client’s business in each case. Where a Member receives remuneration from a company or partnership engaged in consultancy business which itself has clients, the Member should list any of those clients to whom personal services or advice is provided, either directly or indirectly. Members should also consider the requirement to deposit an employment agreement; the details of this requirement are set out at paragraphs 34 to 36.

22. The types of services which are intended to be covered here include those connected with any Assembly proceeding, or other services relating to membership. A Member who has clients in a non-Assembly professional capacity (for example as a doctor, solicitor or accountant) is not required to register those clients, provided it is clear beyond doubt that the services which are being provided do not arise out of or relate in any manner to membership of the Assembly.

23. Members are required to register how many hours they work on average per week/month in respect of each registered Directorship.

24. Members are also required to register the amount of any remuneration they receive in respect of each registered Directorship. Where appropriate, Members may simply register at the outset that they receive £x per week/month/quarter/annum. It is the the gross amount that should be registered. However, where remuneration is received on an exceptional, irregular or ad hoc basis, or where payments are routine but the amount varies considerably, such figures should be registered individually within four weeks of their receipt. Again it is the gross amount that should be registered.

25. There is no requirement, however, to register remuneration from a single source which, in the course of a calendar year, does not exceed 0.5% of the current salary of an Assembly Member (currently £217).

26. Members who are unclear about how they should register their details as required by this category, should consult the Clerk of Standards for advice.

Category 2

Remunerated Employment, Office, Profession, etc: Employment, office, trade, profession or vocation which is remunerated or in which the Member has any pecuniary interest.

27. All employment outside the Assembly and any sources of remuneration which do not fall clearly within any other Category should be registered here. When registering employment, Members should not simply state the employer company and the nature of its business, but should also indicate the nature of the post which they hold in the company or the services for which the company remunerates them. Members who have paid posts as consultants or advisers should indicate the nature of the consultancy, for example “management consultant", “legal adviser", “public affairs consultant".

28. Members who have previously practised a profession may wish to register that profession under this Category with a bracketed remark such as “[non-practising]" after the entry. This is particularly desirable in cases of sleeping partnerships and where it is likely that the Member will resume the profession at a later stage.

29. Where the remunerated employment involves any provision to clients of services which depend essentially upon, or arise out of, the Member’s position as a Member of the Assembly but is not as a result of a remunerated Directorship (Category 1) it should be registered under this Category. If this is the case, the requirements under paragraphs 21 and 22 also apply to this category. Members should also consider the requirement to deposit an employment agreement; the details of this requirement are set out at paragraphs 34 to 36.

30. Members are required to register how many hours they work on average per week/month in respect of each entry registered under this category. There is no need to register the hours worked in respect of any remuneration which relates to work carried out before 12 October 2009 or in respect of work carried out before becoming a Member.

31. Members are also required to register the amount of any remuneration they receive in respect of each entry. Where appropriate, Members may simply register at the outset that they receive on average/approximately £x per week/month/quarter/annum. It is the gross amount that should be registered. However, where remuneration is received on an exceptional, irregular or ad hoc basis, or where payments are routine but the amount varies considerably, such figures should be registered individually within four weeks of their receipt. Again it is the gross amount that should be registered. However, in the case of self-employed sole traders it will be acceptable to simply register the end year net profit, as reported in the financial statement of the business.

32. There is no requirement, however, to register remuneration from a single source which, in the course of a calendar year, does not exceed 0.5% of the current salary of an Assembly Member (currently £217).

33. Members who are unclear about how they should register their details as required by this category, should consult the Clerk of Standards for advice.

Employment Agreements

34. Members should deposit certain employment agreements with the Clerk of Standards. Any Member who has an existing agreement or proposes to enter into an agreement which involves the provision of services in his or her capacity as a Member of the Assembly should:

a) ensure, that the agreement does not breach the Advocacy Rule (see paragraphs 95 - 102);

b) put any such agreement in written form;

c) deposit a full copy of the agreement with the Clerk of Standards. The agreement should indicate the nature of the services to be provided and specify the fees or benefits the Member is to receive;

d) make the appropriate entry in the Register of Members’ Interests; and

e) declare the interest when it is appropriate to do so (see paragraphs 81 - 94).

Deposited agreements may be inspected in the Office of the Clerk of Standards. The terms of the Resolution of the Assembly of 14 December 1999, do not permit the taking of copies.

35. The requirement for employment agreements to be put in writing will apply principally to any arrangement whereby a Member may offer advice about Assembly matters. It should also include frequent, as opposed to merely occasional, commitments outside the Assembly which arise directly from membership of the Assembly. For example, a regular, paid newspaper column or television programme would have to be the subject of a written agreement, but ad hoc current affairs or news interviews or intermittent panel appearances would not.

36. A regular paid newspaper column, or regular contribution to a radio or television programme, need not be the subject of a written agreement if its subject is wholly unrelated to Assembly or public affairs (e.g. a sports column).

Category 3

Elected/Public Office: Members are required to register their membership of all elected and public offices whether it is remunerated or not, or if expenses only are payable.

37. Membership of all public offices, including Membership of the United Kingdom Parliament, or ministerial office must be declared. The only office that is not necessary to register is Membership of the Assembly.

38. Membership of all public bodies, including acting in a voluntary capacity or in a public body, e.g. city, district or borough councils, education and library boards, health and social services boards or health trusts, boards of governors of schools, other non departmental public bodies, etc must be registered.

39. Members are required to register how many hours they work on average per week/month in respect of each entry registered under this category.

40. Members are also required to register the amount of any remuneration they receive in respect of each entry. Where appropriate, Members may simply register at the outset that they receive on average/approximately £x per week/month/quarter/annum. However, where remuneration is received on an exceptional, irregular or ad hoc basis, or where payments are routine but the amount varies considerably, such figures should be registered individually within four weeks of their receipt.

41. There is no requirement, however, to register remuneration from a single source which, in the course of a calendar year, does not exceed 0.5% of the current salary of an Assembly Member (currently £217).

42. Members who are unclear about how they should register their details as required by this category, should consult the Clerk of Standards for advice.

Category 4

Electoral Support and Political Donations: Members are required to register under this category:

a) any donations, loans or credit received by a Member’s constituency party or association, or relevant grouping of associations, which is linked either to candidacy at an election or to membership of the Assembly; and

b) any other form of financial or material benefit (including loans or credit) received by a Member in support of his or her role as a Member of the Assembly

amounting to more than £1000 from a single source, whether as a single transaction or as multiple transactions of more than £200 during the course of the calendar year.

However, donations made directly to a constituency party as an expression of general political support, not linked to the Member’s candidacy or membership of the Assembly, should not be registered.

43. This Category deals with financial donations or other forms of support from a ‘single source’ which in this context means from a company, trade union, professional body, trade association, other organisation or individual. Subsection (b) relates to other forms of support, which is interpreted to cover support from companies, organisations or individuals from which the Member receives any financial or material benefit in support of his or her role as a Member of the Assembly. Members should register any specific forms of support which they receive irrespective of whether this includes personal payment. If a company is a donor the nature of its business should be indicated.

44. Political donations which Members are required to report to the Electoral Commission should be entered under this Category unless -

a) it would be more appropriate to enter them under another Category, such as Category 5 (Gifts, Benefits and Hospitality (UK) or Category 6 (Overseas Visits);

or

b) they are exempt from registration.

45. Members should register non-cash donations. These are defined as goods or services given to a holder of elective office without charge or at a discount of more than 10% of the normal commercial value. This might for example include the provision of services of a research assistant or secretary whose salary, in whole or in part, is met by an external organisation or individual.

46. The provision of free or subsidised accommodation for the Member’s use, other than accommodation provided solely by the constituency party, should be registered, as appropriate, either in this section or under Category 5 “Gifts, benefits and hospitality"; except that accommodation provided by a local authority at no cost, or at a subsidised cost, to a Member for the sole purpose of holding constituency surgeries is exempt from registration. However, under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA), Members should not accept the use of council premises which would amount to a donation in kind of more than £200 per booking.

47. Electoral Support and Political Donations made to Members of the Assembly should also be registered where they relate to leadership contests within their own parties.

Category 5

Gifts, benefits and hospitality (UK): Any gift to the Member or the Member’s partner, or any material benefit of a value greater than 0.5% of the current salary of an Assemby Member (currently £217), from any company, organisation or person within the UK which in any way relates to membership of the Assembly (including those received in a ministerial capacity) or to a Member’s political activity.

48. The specified financial value above which tangible gifts (such as money, jewellery, glassware etc.) and other benefits (such as hospitality, tickets to sporting or cultural events, relief from indebtedness, loan concessions, provision of services etc.) must be registered is 0.5% of the current salary of an Assembly Member, (currently £217).

49. Gifts or benefits from a single source, over the course of a calendar year, whose cumulative value exceeds 0.5% of Member’s current Assembly salary should also be registered.

50. Benefits, such as tickets to sporting or cultural events, received by another person together with or on behalf of a Member should be registered as if they have been received by the Member. Gifts, or other benefits, received from another Member of the Assembly are registrable in the same way as those from anyone else.

51. Any gifts, hospitality, material benefits received by the Member or, to the Member’s knowledge, the Member’s partner or any dependent child of the Member, from any company, organisation or person which arise out of, or are related in any manner to, membership of the Assembly should be registered.

52. The rule means that any gift, or other benefit, which in any way relates to membership of the Assembly or a Member’s political activities and which is given gratis, or at a cost below that generally available to members of the public, should be registered whenever the value of the gift or benefit is greater than the amount specified in paragraph 48. Any similar gift or benefit which is received by any company or organisation in which the Member, or the Member and the Member’s partner jointly, have a controlling interest should also be registered.

53. Although hospitality from public bodies (Her Majesty’s Government, any of the devolved institutions in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland or non-departmental bodies including Members’ local or health authorities), if valued at over £200, is considered impermissible under PPERA, the Electoral Commission recognises that such hospitality from these sources is in many cases part of Members’ duties and therefore forms part of their remuneration and allowances, which do not need to be reported under PPERA. Under the rules of the Assembly such hospitality, and hospitality from the government of the Republic of Ireland, is not registrable, but in any case of doubt the Electoral Commission should be consulted as to permissibility before acceptance.

54. Gifts and material benefits in this Category (and other Categories) are exempt from registration if they do not relate in any way to membership of the Assembly or a Member’s political activities. The extent to which this exemption applies in any particular case is necessarily a matter of judgement. Both the possible motive of the giver and the use to which the gift is put have to be considered: if it is clear on both counts that the gift or benefit is entirely unrelated to membership of the Assembly or the Member’s political activities, or would not reasonably be thought by others to be so related, it need not be registered. If there is any doubt it should be registered.

55. Where a gift is registered the Member is required to provide the nature of the gift and the date it was received.

Category 6

Overseas visits: With certain specified exceptions, overseas visits made by the Member or the Member’s partner, or dependent children, relating to or in any way arising out of membership of the Assembly (including those made in a ministerial capacity), or to the Member’s political activity, where the cost of the visit was not wholly borne by the Member, or by United Kingdom or Northern Ireland public funds.

56. The Member should enter in the Register the date, destination and purpose of the visit and the name of the Government, organisation, company or individual which met the cost. Where only part of the cost was borne by an outside source (for example the cost of accommodation but not the cost of travel), those details should be stated briefly. When an overseas visit was arranged by a registered All-Party or Assembly group or by a party backbench group, it is not sufficient to name the group as the sponsor of the visit; the Government, organisation, company or person ultimately meeting the cost should be specified.

57. The following categories of visit, which are mainly paid for from Northern Ireland public funds or which involve reciprocity with other Governments or Parliaments, together with any hospitality associated with such a visit and available to all participants, are exempt from registration:

(a) Visits which are paid for by, or which are undertaken on behalf of, the Northern Ireland Executive or which are made on behalf of an international organisation to which the Assembly belongs;

(b) Visits abroad with, or on behalf of, a Committee of the Assembly or the Assembly Commission;

(c) Visits undertaken under the auspices of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (or the British-Irish Parliamentary Body) or the Westminster Foundation for Democracy;

(d) Visits arranged and paid for wholly by a Member’s own political party;

(e) Visits paid for wholly by an institution of the European Union or by a political group of the European Parliament;

(f) Visits as part of an Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship or the NI Assembly Business Trust.

58. Visits which are entirely unconnected with membership of the Assembly or whose cost does not exceed 0.5% of the current salary of an Assemby Member (currently £217), are also exempt from registration.

Category 7

Overseas benefits and gifts: Any gift to the Member or the Member’s partner or dependent children or any material benefit of a value greater than 0.5% of the current salary of an Assemby Member (currently £217), from any company, organisation or person outside of the UK which in any way relates to membership of the Assembly (including those received in a ministerial capacity) or to a Member’s political activity.

59. The financial limits and guidelines which apply to the previous Category also apply here. Members should enter a cross-reference under this Category where an interest already entered in Categories 1 or 2 entails the receipt of payments abroad. There are legal restrictions on Members accepting benefits from abroad in connection with their political activities, about which they may wish to take advice from the Electoral Commission.

Category 8

Land and Property: Any land or property – owned solely or jointly with a third-party - either within or outside of Northern Ireland, other than any home used for personal residential purposes of the Member, or the Member’s partner or any dependent child of the Member, which is of a substantial value or from which a substantial income is derived must be registered. The nature of the property should be indicated.

60. For the purposes of this category:

61. A farm on which the Member has a residence should be registered because it has a substantial value aside from the residential use. Entries should be reasonably specific as to the nature of the property and its general location, for example:

62. A Member must register any property which he/she holds as a trustee only when the Member has a beneficial interest in the income or assets of the relevant trust.

63. A Member does not have to register his/her home if it is used solely for residential purposes. However, it will have to be registered if it provides rental income that contributes to the Member’s income from his/her total property portfolio being substantial. All other properties that contribute to this total income will also have to be registered.

64. Members who own second homes but who do not receive an income from them may also register them under this category.

Category 9 – Shareholdings[1]

Shareholdings: 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 where either:

a) the nominal value of the shares at the relevant date is, or was, greater than 1% of the total nominal value of the issued share capital3 of the company or other body; or

b) the market value of the shares at the relevant date exceeds, or exceeded, 50% of the current salary of an Assembly Member (currently £21,691) on that date (rounded down to the nearest £10).

65. For each registrable shareholding, the entry should state the name of the company or body, briefly indicate the nature of its business, and make clear which of the criteria for registration is applicable.

66. The value of a shareholding is determined by the market price of the share on the preceding 5 April; but if the market price cannot be ascertained (e.g. because the company is unquoted and there is no market in the shares), the nominal value of the shareholding should be taken instead. The Member must then obtain a new valuation on each subsequent 5 April. If the value continues to exceed the relevant proportion of salary, then the shares should continue to be registered. If they fall under that value then the Member may have the interest removed from the Register.

67. In considering whether to register any shareholdings falling outside (a) and (b) Members should have regard to the definition of the main purpose of the Register: “to provide information of any financial interest or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches or votes in the Assembly, or actions taken in his or her capacity as a Member of the Assembly". If a Member considers that any shareholding which he or she holds falls within this definition, the Member should register the shareholding either in this Category or under Category 10.

68. Identifiable shareholdings of a registrable value which are held within a trust or personal pension plan should also be registered.

Category 10

Miscellaneous Interests: Any relevant financial interest not falling clearly within one of the above categories.

69. Members should register here any financial interests which might reasonably be thought by others to influence a Member’s actions, speeches or votes in the Assembly, or actions taken in his or her capacity as a Member of the Assembly but which do not fall clearly into any of the above Categories. It is a cardinal principle that Members are responsible for making a full disclosure of their own interests in the Register; and if they have relevant interests which do not fall clearly into one or other of the specified Categories, they will nonetheless be expected to register them.

70. Members should also register in this category membership of any occupational pension schemes. However, it should be noted that not all pensions offered by employers are occupational pensions. An employer may offer a stakeholder pension or a personal pension through a group personal pension arrangement. These pensions are not called occupational pensions even though the employer may contribute. There is no requirement to register such pensions. An occupational pension which should be registered is therefore either an occupational salary-related scheme or an occupational defined contribution scheme. There is no requirement to register the Assembly Members’ Pension Scheme as the option of this benefit is common to all Members.

Category 11

Unremunerated Interests: Any relevant non-financial interest.

71. Members should register any unremunerated interests which might reasonably be thought by others to influence a Member’s actions, speeches or votes in the Assembly, or actions taken in his or her capacity as a Member of the Assembly, even though the Member receives no financial benefit.

72. Members are required to register unremunerated directorships, e.g. directorships of charitable trusts, professional bodies, learned societies or sporting or artistic organisations, where such a body might directly benefit from public funds or from a decision taken by the Assembly. Where a Member considers that an unremunerated interest, other than a directorship, which the Member holds might be thought by others to influence his or her actions in a similar manner to a remunerated interest, such an interest should be registered here.

Part 2
Category 12

Family members who benefit from Assembly Members’ Allowances.

73. For the purposes of this Category the Member should register family members who benefit directly or indirectly in any way from any Assembly Members’ Allowances (e.g. through employment or through the rental of office accommodation). The requirement to register a family member extends to any person where the Member knows of, or might reasonably be expected to know of, any relationship, past or present:

74. There is no need, however, to register children if a Member is in receipt of the childcare allowance.

75. In order to strike a balance between the conflicting considerations of transparency and privacy where a relationship and other relevant information needs to be registered, the Member should simply state the nature of the relationship and the way in which the person benefits. For example,

“I employ my wife as a Researcher and my daughter as my Office Manager", or

“I rent office accommodation from my husband".

76. Members must also register the circumstances where former spouses, civil partners and their children benefit in any way.

77. In cases where the relevant relationship ends but there is still a benefit then the requirement to register will continue to apply for a period of one year.

78. Where a Member uses any of their Assembly Members’ Allowance in a way that benefits a family member of another MLA then this must also be registered. For example,

“I employ the granddaughter of [MLA’s name] as my Research Assistant", or

“I rent office accommodation from the brother of [MLA’s name]".

79. In the case where a family member is employed either for work experience or on a casual basis then this is exempt from registration if the total annual payments from the Allowance to the individual concerned do not exceed 0.5% of the current salary of an Assembly Member (currently £217). Likewise where a family member benefits in any other way from a Member using their Assembly Allowance, this will be exempt from registration if the total annual amount of payments does not exceed 0.5% of the current salary of an Assembly Member (currently £217).

80. The Committee has recommended that details of standard job descriptions and salary bands be provided for guidance on the Assembly website. When these become available they will be accessible by a web link which will be inserted into the online Code and Guide.

Declaration of Members’ Interests

Rules of the Assembly

81. Members should declare any relevant interest financial or otherwise or benefit of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, in debate, or other proceedings. The same rule places a duty on Members to disclose to Ministers, or servants of the Crown, all relevant interests. The term ‘servants of the Crown’ should be interpreted as applying to the staff of executive agencies as well as to all staff employed in government departments.

Past and potential interests

82. The rule relating to declaration of interest is broader in scope than the rules relating to the registration of interests in two important respects. As well as current interests, Members are required to declare both relevant past interests and relevant interests which they may be expecting to have. In practice only interests held in the recent past, i.e. those contained in the current printed edition of the Register, need normally be considered for declaration. Expected future interests, on the other hand, may be more significant. Where, for example, a Member is debating legislation or making representations to a Minister on a matter from which he or she has a reasonable expectation of personal financial advantage, openness is essential. In deciding when a possible future benefit is sufficiently tangible to necessitate declaration, the key word in the rule which the Member must bear in mind is “expecting". Where a Member’s plans or degree of involvement in a project have passed beyond vague hopes and aspirations and reached the stage where there is a reasonable expectation that a financial benefit will accrue, then a declaration explaining the situation should be made.

Relevance

83. It is the responsibility of the Member, having regard to the rules of the Assembly, to judge whether a financial interest is sufficiently relevant to a particular debate, proceeding, meeting or other activity to require a declaration. The basic test of relevance should be the same for declaration as it is for registration of an interest; namely, that a financial interest should be declared if it might reasonably be thought by others to influence the speech, representation or communication in question. A declaration should be brief but should make specific reference to the nature of the Members’ interest.

84. No difficulty should arise in any proceeding of the Assembly or its Committees in which the Member has an opportunity to speak. Such proceedings, in addition to debates in the Assembly, include debates in Committees, the presentation of a Public Petition, and meetings of Committees at which evidence is heard. On all such occasions the Member will declare the interest at the beginning of his or her remarks and it will be a matter of judgement, if the interest is already recorded in the Register, whether he or she simply draws attention to this or makes a fuller disclosure. Any declaration should be sufficiently informative to enable a listener to understand the nature of the Member’s financial interest.

85. In a debate in the Assembly the Member should declare an interest briefly, usually at the beginning of his or her speech. If the Assembly is dealing with a Committee stage of a Bill it will normally be sufficient for the Member to declare a relevant interest when speaking for the first time. It will not be necessary for a declaration to be repeated at subsequent sittings except when the Member speaks on an Amendment to which the interest is particularly relevant. When giving notice of an Amendment or a Motion, giving notice of the presentation of a Bill or adding a name to an Amendment or Motion, Members should declare any relevant interest in the appropriate manner (see paragraphs 87-90 below).

Interests of Family members

86. Members should also give consideration to whether it would be appropriate to declare relevant interests of family members. Members should declare known relevant interests, financial or otherwise, of immediate relatives if these interests might reasonably be thought by others to influence the Member’s speech, representation or communication in question.

Declaration of an interest in respect of written notices

87. Declaration of relevant interest is required on Forthcoming Business or the Order Paper when tabling any written notice, i.e.:

(a) Questions (for oral or written answer, including Questions for urgent oral answer);

(b) A notice for the presentation of a Bill;

(c) Any other Motions, Amendments, or names added in support of them;

(d) Amendment to Bills (whether to be considered in the Assembly or in a Committee) and any names added in support of them.

88. Whenever such an interest is declared, the symbol “[R]" is printed after the Member’s name on the Forthcoming Business or Order Paper. The Office accepting the written notice (including any written notice of a Member adding his or her name to a Motion or Amendment) assumes that no interest is declarable unless the notice clearly indicates a declaration; this should be done by inserting “[R]" after the Member’s name on the Motion or Amendment, or adjournment debate topic as the case may be, or filling in the appropriate box which appears on the form for Assembly Questions.

89. “Relevant interests" which should be declared include any interest which the Member is required to register in the Register of Members’ Interests, or which the Member should declare in debate. It will therefore usually be the case that the interest to which the Member is drawing the attention of the Assembly will already be entered in the Register. Provided it is readily apparent which of the Member’s registered interests are applicable, the Member need take no further action. If this is not the case, or if the interest is a new interest which is not yet available for inspection in the Register, then the Member when giving notice should attach to that notice a brief written description of the interest which is being declared. This will then be available for inspection by Members in the office where the notice was given i.e. the Business Office or the Bill Office.

90. All Members need to exercise particular care when invited to add their names to any Motions or Amendments and to ensure that they have considered whether they have a relevant declarable interest. Given the informal way in which support for Motions and Amendments is often sought, the need for declaration may not be foremost in Members’ minds, but great care needs to be exercised by Members in these circumstances.

Declaration of interest in Committees

91. Members of Committees on any matter or Bill must adhere to the following rules:

(a) when a member of a Committee, particularly the Chairman, has a financial or other interest which is directly affected by a particular inquiry or when he or she considers that a personal interest may reflect upon the work of the Committee or its subsequent Report, the Member should consider whether he/she should stand aside from the Committee proceeding relating to it;

(b) before proceeding to business, the Chair of the Committee should invite all members of the Committee to declare any interests they may have which relate to the terms of reference of that Committee, or which are likely to be relevant to a substantial part of the work which the Committee may be expected to undertake;

(c) a Member should make a declaration of interest at an early stage in any inquiry to which that interest particularly relates. If the interest is especially relevant to one witness or a group of witnesses appearing before the Committee, the interest should be declared again at the appropriate session of evidence;

(d) a Member is required to declare an interest when asking any questions which relate directly, or which might reasonably be thought by others to relate directly, to the financial or other interest he or she holds. Such a declaration must be made irrespective of any declaration having been made at an earlier meeting of the Committee. One such declaration is sufficient for any questions asked of the same witness during one evidence session;

(e) although the main purpose of declaration of interest is to inform colleagues, it is right that witnesses and the public, if the Committee is meeting in public, should also be informed. When a Committee meets in public, declaration of interest should be in public session. When a Committee meets in private and regularly takes oral evidence, declaration should be made when witnesses are present;

(f) in making any declaration a Member should clearly identify the nature of the financial interest. The form in which a declaration of interest is made, and its extent, must be primarily for the individual Member. A casual reference is not sufficient. A Member should make a declaration in clear terms and should ensure that such a declaration is entered in the Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee;

(g) it is perfectly acceptable for a Member, when declaring an interest which is registered in the Register of Members’ Interests to refer to his or her entry in the Register;

(h) it is important to declare any interest at the beginning or during each Committee meeting. It is not intended to create a situation where the proceedings of Committees are frequently interrupted by declarations. The interests that a Member is required to register may not be at all relevant to his or her work on the Committee and consequently may never need to be declared during its proceedings.

92. Where the subject matter of an inquiry of a Committee is of direct concern to an outside body in which a Member has a financial interest, the Member must consider whether on grounds of conflict of interest it is proper to take part in the inquiry. The Member must also consider whether the relationship of his or her interest to the subject of the inquiry is so close that it is not possible to participate effectively in the inquiry without crossing the borderline into advocacy.

Other occasions when declaration of interest should be considered

93. The requirement to declare a relevant interest at the appropriate time covers almost every aspect of a Member’s Assembly duties extending to correspondence and meetings with Ministers and public officials. Frankness with colleagues is also important. It should be a matter of honour that a financial interest is declared not only, as at present, in debate in the Assembly and its Committees but also whenever a Member is attempting to influence his or her fellow Members, whether in unofficial committees and gatherings or at any kind of sponsored occasion, with or without entertainment, or simply in correspondence or conversation. Above all it should be disclosed when a Member is dealing with Ministers or civil servants, and this obligation becomes of paramount importance when another government is involved either directly or indirectly.

Divisions

94. For the purpose of taking part in any division in the Assembly or in Committee, it is sufficient for the relevant interest to be disclosed in the Register of Members’ Interests. A Member should seek to ensure prior to a vote taking place that any relevant interest is registered, or, where it is not, should register the interest immediately after the vote. Members should not vote where to do so would be a breach of the advocacy rule. With regard to divisions and interests that would not normally be registered, these interests should be registered under Category 10 (Miscellaneous and Unremunerated Interests) with a reference to the division to which the interest relates. Members are free at any time to seek the advice and guidance of the Clerk of Standards on the registering and declaring of interests.

The Advocacy Rule

95. Paid advocacy is not permitted. No Member shall, in any proceeding of the Assembly, in return for payment or benefit:

If a financial interest or material benefit is required to be registered in the Register of Members’ Interests, or declared in debate, it falls within the scope of the rule. The following guidelines will assist Members in applying the rule.

Assembly proceedings

96. When a Member is taking part in any Assembly proceeding or making any approach to a Minister or servant of the Crown, advocacy is prohibited which seeks to confer benefit exclusively upon a body (or individual) outside the Assembly, from which the Member has received, is receiving, or expects to receive a financial or material benefit, or upon any registrable client of such a body (or individual). Otherwise a Member may speak freely on matters which relate to the affairs and interests of a body (or individual) from which he or she receives a financial or material benefit, provided the benefit is properly registered and declared.

97. It would be regarded as a very serious breach of the rule if a Member fails to register or declare an interest which was relevant to the proceeding he/she initiated.

[Note: “Initiating an Assembly proceeding" includes:

A similar consideration applies in the case of approaches to Ministers or civil servants]

Constituency issues

98. Irrespective of any relevant interest which the Member is required to register or declare, he or she may pursue any constituency interest in any proceeding of the Assembly, except that:

(a) where the Member has a financial relationship with a company or body in the Member’s constituency the guidelines above relating to Assembly proceedings shall apply;

(b) where the Member is an adviser to a trade association, or to a professional (or other representative) body, the Member should avoid using a constituency interest as the means by which to raise a matter which relates primarily to the wider industrial, professional or other interest and which the Member would otherwise be unable to pursue.

Parameters to the operation of the Advocacy Rule.

99. The following parameters to the operation of the rule exist:

(a) Registrable interests: The rule applies with equal effect to any registrable or declarable financial or material benefit irrespective of the source of that benefit (i.e. no distinction is drawn between financial or material benefits received from a company, a representative organisation, a charity, a foreign government or any other source). Similarly, no distinction should be drawn in the application of the rule to different categories of registrable or declarable benefit (except for the provision below relating to Private Members’ Bills, to overseas visits, and to membership of other elected bodies). Non-financial interests registered by Members do not fall within the scope of the Resolution agreed by the Assembly on 14 December 1999 and the Advocacy Rule does not apply to them.

(b) Past, present, and future benefits: Unlike the Register, which lists current benefits, or benefits received in the immediate past, the Resolution of 14 December 1999 also refers, as does the rule on declaration, to past and expected future benefits. It is difficult to contemplate circumstances where any benefit received some time in the past, particularly an interest which is not in the current printed Register, could be sufficiently relevant to be taken into account under the rule (see (d) below). Expected future interests, on the other hand, may be more significant. For example, Members expecting to derive direct financial benefit from particular legislation should, as well as declaring the interest in debate as appropriate, not seek to move Amendments relevant to the expected future interest. The same consideration applies to other proceedings.

(c) Continuing benefits: Continuing benefits, i.e. directorships, other employment, and sponsorship, can be divested to release a Member with immediate effect from the restrictions imposed by the Advocacy Rule, provided that the benefit is disposed of and there is no expectation of renewal.

(d) “One-off" benefits: From the publication of the first edition of the Register, which will include the date of registration, the rule will apply to “one-off" registrable benefits, both visits and gifts, from the day upon which the interest was acquired until one year after it is registered.

(e) Family benefits: The rule includes relevant payments or benefits in kind to a Member’s family, including a civil partner or cohabitant, but any payment to a member of the family of any Member which arises out of the family member’s own occupation is not regarded as a benefit for the purposes of the rule.

(f) Private Members’ Bills: Members who seek to introduce and proceed with a Private Members’ Bill are not prevented from doing so by reason of the fact that they receive free or subsidised assistance from an organisation connected with the purpose of the Bill provided the Member had no pre-existing financial relationship with the organisation which is registered, or is required to be registered.

(g) Overseas Visits: Although, except as set out in paragraph 57, overseas visits must be registered and declared, such visits shall not be taken into account when applying the rule.

(h) Membership of other elected bodies: Membership of the House of Commons and local authorities in the UK shall not be taken into account when applying the rule.

(i) Ministers: The restrictions imposed by the rule do not apply to Ministers when acting in the Assembly as Ministers.

100. The financial interests of Members are extremely varied, as the Register demonstrates. Each Member will need to apply the Advocacy Rule and the guidelines to his or her particular circumstances. When in doubt, Members will be able to seek advice of the Clerk, or the Committee on Standards and Privileges. However, some illustrative examples of the application of the guidelines may be of value:

(a) A Member who is a director of a company may not seek particular preference for that company (e.g. tax relief, subsidies, restriction of competition) in any proceeding of the Assembly.

(b) In the case of trade associations, staff associations, professional bodies, charities (or any similar representative organisation):

(i) Membership alone of any representative organisation does not entail any restrictions under the rule.

(ii) A Member who is, for example, a remunerated adviser:

(c) When a Member has a problem involving a company within his or her constituency the Member may take any Assembly action to resolve that problem, even though he or she may hold a remunerated position with a body representing the relevant sector of the industry regionally or nationally, or with another company outside the constituency in the same industrial sector. Similarly a Member who has a remunerated interest with a representative association is not restricted in any way in taking up the case of a constituent who is a member of that association, or is employed by a member of that association. The only circumstances when the Member’s actions are restricted are when the Member has a registrable interest with the company concerned in which case the guidelines provide that the Member forfeits the special position he or she has as a constituency Member.

(d) Members are reminded that when accepting foreign visits they should be mindful of the reputation of the Assembly. However, the knowledge obtained by Members on such visits can often be of value to the Assembly as a whole. While it is desirable that Members should be able to use that knowledge in debate in the Assembly there is a point at which promoting the interests, of e.g. a foreign Government from which hospitality has been received, crosses the line between informed comment and lobbying for reward or consideration. Members may not, for example, either initiate or advocate in debate increased United Kingdom financial assistance to a Government from which they have recently received hospitality. Nor may the Member advocate any other measure in the Assembly which seeks to bring exclusive benefit to the host Government. Subject to this constraint Members could, having declared their interest, raise matters relating to their experiences in the country either in a speech or by initiating any other proceeding. Similarly they could raise matters relating to the problems of the country generally, or make use of any local insight they have obtained into regional problems (e.g. the situation in the Middle East or in South East Asia, economic or social problems or an external threat or information they have obtained on local developments or initiatives).

(e) A Member whose visit was funded by a non-governmental organisation (NGO) or other agency would not be inhibited in initiating proceedings relating to its work unless the Member sought to raise matters which relate specifically and directly to the affairs and interests of the NGO or agency itself, rather than the problems it was dealing with. In debate the Member could go even wider – only a matter which was for the exclusive benefit of the NGO or agency e.g. a request for a grant-in-aid to the particular organisation – could not be pursued.

(f) Under the Advocacy Rule, a Member who is receiving free office accommodation provided by a local authority should not advocate measures for the exclusive benefit of the local authority itself (as distinct from the interests of those whom the local authority represents). In practice, since Members also have a paramount duty to represent their constituents there will be few occasions when the application of the rule will place a limit on a Member’s Assembly actions. In any event, accommodation provided solely for the purpose of holding constituency surgeries is exempt from registration and therefore from the application of the Advocacy Rule.

Responsibility of the Member

101. In common with the rules of the Assembly relating to registration and declaration of interests the main responsibility for observation of the Advocacy Rule with the individual Member. The Select Committee on Standards in Public Life stated in its Second Report that “it is important to make clear that it will not be the function of the Chair to enforce the ban on paid advocacy during speeches, either by interrupting a Member thought to be contravening it, or by declining to call him. Complaints will be a matter for the Commissioner to investigate in the first instance". The Speaker should decline to receive points of order relating to the Advocacy Rule.

Delegations

102. The Resolution agreed by the Assembly on 14 December 1999 restricts the extent to which any Member with a paid interest may participate in, or accompany, a delegation to Ministers or public officials relating to that interest. A Member should not initiate, or participate in, or attend any such delegation where the problem to be addressed affects only the body with which the Member has a relevant interest, except when that problem relates primarily to a constituency matter.

Complaints Procedure

Receipt of complaint

1. Complaints against Members of the Assembly should be made to the Assembly Commissioner of Standards. Upon receipt of a complaint, the Commissioner will send:

Consideration of Admissibility

2. The Commissioner will consider the complaint and supporting information to determine whether it is admissible under the Code of Conduct (the Code) or the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members (the Guide).

Admissibility criteria

3. The following admissibility criteria will be applied:

4. The Committee on Standards and Privileges will not consider issues that relate to:

5. In addition, the Committee will not accept an unsubstantiated allegation as constituting an acceptable complaint and will expect the complainant to assemble supporting evidence. A report founded upon no more than a newspaper story, television or radio report will not normally be regarded as a substantiated allegation.

Inadmissible Complaint

6. If the Commissioner determines that a complaint is not admissible he will write to the Clerk of Standards detailing his reasons for reaching this conclusion. The Clerk will then bring these before the Committee.

7. The Committee will consider the complaint and the Commissioner’s advice on not proceeding with an investigation and determine whether it is in agreement with the Commissioner’s conclusions.

8. If the Committee is in agreement the Clerk will write to the Commissioner and inform him of its decision. The Clerk will also write to the Member and the complainant outlining the Committee’s reasons for supporting the Commissioner’s decision not to proceed with an investigation, and enclosing a copy of the Commissioner’s letter.

9. If the Committee does not agree with the Commissioner’s initial assessment of admissibility then it will instruct the Commissioner to proceed with an investigation in accordance with established procedures.

Admissible Complaint

10. If the Commissioner considers the complaint admissible but trivial or vexatious or related to a complaint that has been substantially considered on a previous occasion, he may advise that no further action should be taken and report this to the Committee.

11. Should the Committee agree with this assessment the Clerk will write to all parties involved informing them of the Committee’s decision not to proceed with further investigation.

12. Should the Committee disagree with the Commissioner’s assessment it will write to him detailing why it disagrees and instruct him to proceed with an investigation.

13. Otherwise, having determined a complaint admissible, the Commissioner will:

Formal Investigation Stage

14. The Commissioner will investigate an admissible complaint with the objective of:

15. The Committee on Standards and Privileges deprecates the making of statements to the press by complainants while an inquiry is in progress. Publication or disclosure of evidence or correspondence to anyone other than the Commissioner or Committee without the Committee’s agreement is not permissible and would constitute a breach of this Code. A Member who engages in such activity is therefore liable to sanctions.

16. The Commissioner will conduct a full and thorough investigation into the alleged breach. This may involve interviewing the complainant, the Member complained of, and other witnesses as the Commissioner may judge necessary to establish the full facts of the case.

17. When the investigation is complete the Commissioner will make a full report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges detailing his findings. The report will include the original complaint, details of the investigation including evidence considered in interview, and conclusions as to whether the Member breached any aspect of the Code or the Guide.

18. The report will not include recommendations as to the sanctions that should be imposed on a Member found to have breached the Code or the Guide.

19. Where it considers it appropriate, the Committee may refer matters to the police or the Public Prosecution Service for their consideration.

20. Communications between a Member of the Assembly and the Clerk of Standards and between a member of the public and the Clerk of Standards are not covered by Assembly privilege under section 50 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 nor are they privileged at law. However, should the Commissioner decide to investigate a complaint, that investigation is privileged. Once the Commissioner reports his findings to the Committee, the proceedings of the Committee in relation to the report are privileged. The privilege attaching to an investigation by the Commissioner and the related proceedings of the Committee do not extend to include allegations made in the original complaint.

Committee Consideration of the Commissioner’s Formal Report

21. The Committee will meet in closed session to consider the Commissioner’s report.

There are three possible outcomes following Committee consideration. The Committee may agree with the Commissioner to:

OR

The Committee may disagree with the Commissioner to:

OR

The Committee may ask the Commissioner to investigate further.

22. As part of its deliberations on the findings of the Commissioner’s report the Committee may decide to invite the Member and/or complainant to submit additional written evidence or appear before the Committee and give additional oral evidence.

23. In the event that the Commissioner has determined that a complaint should be upheld the Committee may offer the Member the opportunity to read the Commissioner’s report in the presence of the Clerk of Standards and to make notes prior to appearing before the Committee or submitting additional written evidence to the Committee.

24. After consideration of the Commissioner’s report and any additional submissions that the Committee may have sought from the complainant and/or Member complained of, the Committee:

25. Where the Committee agrees with the Commissioner to uphold a complaint the Committee may decide:

Sanctions

26. The sanctions that the Committee might recommend include:

(a) issuing an apology to the Assembly

(b) that the Member is “censured" by the Assembly

(c) suspension from proceedings of the Assembly for a specified period

(d) have his/her rights and privileges as a Member withdrawn for that period

(e) suspension from proceedings of the Assembly without pay for a specified period

27. The decision of the Assembly will be final and there will be no right of appeal.

28. Where the Committee does not agree with the Commissioner in relation to upholding a complaint it shall indicate the reasons for this in its report.

29. Where the Committee does not agree with the Commissioner that a complaint should be dismissed the Committee shall detail the reasons for its decision in its report and consider the range of options open to it as per paragraph 24.

30. The Committee may agree with only some of the Commissioner’s findings i.e. parts of a complaint may be upheld. Again, the Committee will detail the reasons for this in its report and consider the range of options open to it as per paragraph 24.

Rectification Procedure

The Rectification Procedure states that: In a case where a Member admits that he/she has failed to register or declare interests where, normally, the interest involved is minor or the failure to register or declare was inadvertent, the Commissioner may recommend to the Committee on Standards and Privileges that the Member be allowed to rectify the matter.

In the case of non-registration, of one or more interests, rectification requires a belated entry in the current Register of Members’ Interests. In the case of non-declaration of any interest during a debate or other proceedings of the Assembly in plenary, Members are required to report this and apologise to the Assembly.

31. Where a breach of the Code is brought to the attention of the Commissioner for Standards by a complainant and the Commissioner has recommended the use of the Rectification Procedure, he will report this to the Committee. The Clerk will subsequently inform the complainant of the outcome.

32. There are two caveats to the application of the Rectification Procedure; firstly that the Member acknowledges that they are in breach of the Code, and secondly that they are willing to apologise for it.

33. A late entry in the Register made under the Rectification Procedure will be printed in bold italics and asterisked to a footnote. The footnote will read: entry added or amended on (insert date), under the Rectification Procedure.

Annexe 1

Resolution of the Assembly
Relating to The Conduct of Members -
14 December 1999

Resolved that,

a Approval is given to:

(i) The Code of Conduct contained in Assembly Paper NIA 1;

(ii) The Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members contained in Assembly Paper NIA 1; and

(iii) The Committee on Standards and Privileges to make such minor amendments to the Guide to the Rules as appear to it to be justified by experience or necessarily reflect decisions of the Assembly; and to report such amended versions of the Guide to the Assembly.

Registration and Declaration of Members’ Interests

b. Every Member of the Assembly shall furnish to the Clerk of Standards such particulars of his or her registrable interests as shall be required, and shall notify to the Clerk of Standards any alterations which may occur therein, and the Clerk of Standards shall cause these particulars to be entered in a Register of Members’ Interests which shall be available for inspection by the public.

c. In any debate or proceeding of the Assembly or its Committees or transactions or communications which a Member may have with other Members, Ministers, or servants of the Crown, he or she shall disclose any relevant interest or benefit of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, that he or she may have had, may have or may be expecting to have. For these purposes:

(i) any interest disclosed in a copy of the Register of Members’ Interests shall be regarded as sufficient disclosure for the purpose of taking part in any division in the Assembly or in any of its Committees;

(ii) the term `proceeding’ shall be deemed not to include the asking of a supplementary question.

d. It is the personal responsibility of each Member to have regard to his or her public position and the good name of the Northern Ireland Assembly in any work he or she undertakes or any interests he or she acquires. The scope of the requirement to register remunerated trades, professions or vocations includes any remunerated activity in the fields of public relations and political and Assembly advice and consultancy; in particular, in regard to the registration and declaring of clients the services which require such registration and, where appropriate, declaration, include, as well as any action connected with any proceedings in the Assembly or its Committees, the sponsoring of functions in Parliament Buildings, making representations to Ministers, Civil Servants and other Members, accompanying delegations to Ministers and the like.

e. No difficulty should arise in any proceeding of the Assembly or its Committees in which the Member has an opportunity to speak. Such proceedings, in addition to debates in the Assembly, includes debates in Committees, the presentation of a Public Petition, and meetings of Committees at which evidence is heard. On all such occasions the Member will declare his or her interest at the beginning of his or her remarks. It will be a matter for the Member’s judgement, if the interest is already recorded in the Register, whether he or she simply draws attention to this or makes a rather fuller disclosure. Declarations of interest made in Committees shall be recorded in their Minutes of Proceedings.

f. Any Member proposing to enter into an agreement which involves the provision of services in his or her capacity as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly shall conclude such an agreement only if it conforms to the Code of Conduct for Members; and a full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000-£5,000, £5,000-£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000, shall be deposited with the Clerk of Standards at the same time as it is registered in the Register of Members’ Interests and made available for inspection by the public.

g. Any Member who has an existing agreement involving the provision of services in his or her capacity as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly which conforms to the Code of Conduct for Members, but which is not in written form, shall take steps to put the agreement in written form; and within three months of the date of this Resolution a full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000-£5,000, £5,000-£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000 shall be deposited with the Clerk of Standards and registered in the Register of Members’ Interests and made available for inspection by the public.

Advocacy

h. It is inconsistent with the dignity of the Assembly, with the duty of a Member to his or her constituents, and with the maintenance of the privilege of freedom of speech, for any Member of the Assembly to enter into any contractual agreement with an outside body, controlling or limiting the Member’s complete independence and freedom of action in the Northern Ireland Assembly or stipulating that he shall act in any way as the representative of such outside body in regard to any matters to be transacted in the Northern Ireland Assembly; the duty of a Member being to his or her constituents and to Northern Ireland as a whole, rather than to any particular section thereof and that in particular no Member of the Assembly shall, in consideration of any remuneration, fee, payment, reward or benefit in kind, direct or indirect, which the Member or any member of his or her family has received, is receiving, or expects to receive:

(i) advocate or initiate any cause or matter on behalf of any outside body or individual, or

(ii) urge any other Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, including Ministers, to do so, by means of any speech, Question, Motion, introduction of a Bill or amendment to a Motion or Bill.

i. A Member with a paid interest should not initiate or participate in, including attendance, a delegation where the problem affects only the body from which he has a paid interest

[1] The total value of the shares issued by the company and made available to the public for purchase i.e. number of issued shares multiplied by nominal value of shares.

[2] In exceptional circumstances. the Committee may consider anonymity for complainants but only within the context of the publication of any subsequent report.

Appendix 1

Minutes of Proceedings
of the Committee relating
to the Report

Wednesday 30th May 2007
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Gerry McHugh (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr George Savage
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Mr John Torney (Principal Clerk)
Dr Kevin Pelan (Clerk to the Committee)
Ms Eleanor Murphy (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Ms Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Willie Clarke

The meeting opened at 2:03pm in closed session.

Review of the Code of Conduct

The Clerk informed Members that a consultation on the “Code of Conduct and The Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members" had taken place in June 2002 and that amendments were proposed but not implemented due to suspension.

The Chairperson advised Members that there was a need to re-visit the consultation on the Code of Conduct.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk would produce a summary paper of the consultation, highlighting the proposed amendments and present the paper at a future meeting.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that, in order to aid deliberations, the Clerk would prepare a paper on issues that necessitated changes to the “Codes" in other jurisdictions.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 26th September 2007
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Gerry McHugh (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr George Savage
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Dr Kevin Pelan (Clerk to the Committee)
Ms Eleanor Murphy (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Ms Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Willie Clarke
Rev Robert Coulter

The meeting opened at 2:00pm in public session.

Committee Review of “The Code of Conduct" and “The Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members".

The Chairperson reminded Members that the Committee had agreed at its last meeting to undertake a Review of the Members’ “Code of Conduct" and the “Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members" as a matter of priority.

The Chairperson drew Members’ attention to the methodology paper in their packs and invited the Clerk to brief Members on this.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to the methodology proposed in the paper.

Timetable for the Review of the Code of Conduct.

Members considered a proposed timetable for the work programme to accompany the Review.

Agreed: The Committee agreed the proposed timetable for the Review.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the timetable be published on the Assembly internet/intranet.

Press Release.

Members considered the content of a draft press release announcing the commencement of the Review.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 10th October 2007
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr George Savage

In Attendance:
Dr Kevin Pelan (Clerk to the Committee)
Ms Eleanor Murphy (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Ms Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Gerry McHugh
Mr Brian Wilson

The meeting opened at 2:09pm in public session.

Committee Review of the “Code of Conduct".

The Committee considered a paper which provided a comparison of the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct with Codes of Conduct in other legislatures.

The Committee discussed the “Purpose of the Code" and the “Personal Conduct" sections of the Northern Ireland Assembly “Code of Conduct". The Committee instructed the Clerk to prepare revised drafts of these sections for possible inclusion in the draft consultation document taking into account the Committee’s deliberations.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 17th October 2007
Room 21, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Gerry McHugh
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr George Savage

In Attendance:
Dr Kevin Pelan (Clerk to the Committee)
Ms Eleanor Murphy (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Ms Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Willie Clarke
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr Brian Wilson

The meeting opened at 1:06pm in public session.

Draft Revision of the “Purpose of the Code" and “Public Duty" Sections.

The Committee noted a paper prepared by the Clerk on options for the revision of the “Purpose of the Code" and “Public Duty" sections of the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct.

Comparative Paper on the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and Codes of Conduct in other Jurisdictions: Review of “Personal Conduct" Section.

The Committee discussed the “Personal Conduct" section of the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and considered a paper prepared by the Clerk on similar sections in other jurisdictions. It also considered amendments proposed by the previous Committee on Standards and Privileges during their review of the Code.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk prepare a draft revision of the “Personal Conduct" section, reflecting the Committee’s deliberations, for possible inclusion in the draft consultation document.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 7th November 2007
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Gerry McHugh
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr Willie Clarke
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Dr Kevin Pelan (Clerk to the Committee)
Ms Eleanor Murphy (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Ms Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr George Savage

The meeting opened at 2:04pm in closed session.

Review of the Code of Conduct: Draft Revised Complaints Procedure.

The Committee explored at length a draft paper on a revised procedure for dealing with complaints against Assembly Members. Members suggested a number of changes to the proposed revised procedure.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk prepare a revised paper taking account of the Committee’s deliberations and that this should be presented at the next meeting.

Background Paper on Complaints Procedures in other Jurisdictions.

Members noted a background paper detailing the complaints procedures in the Scottish Parliament, the House of Commons, the National Assembly for Wales and Dáil Éireann.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 14th November 2007
Room 21, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr Willie Clarke
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr George Savage
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Dr Kevin Pelan (Clerk to the Committee)
Miss Eleanor Murphy (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Gerry McHugh

The meeting opened at 1:05pm in public session.

Draft Code of Conduct – amendments to date

The Committee considered a paper which provided an overview of Members’ suggested amendments to each of the sections of the draft “Code of Conduct".

Agreed: Members agreed that the Clerk liaise with the Clerk of the Committee on Procedures in relation to Standing Order 65.

Agreed: Members agreed that the Clerk liaise with the Speaker’s Office to clarify a number of issues relating to sanctions.

Agreed: Members agreed to invite the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards to a future meeting to discuss procedural options for reporting alleged criminal matters to the police.

Agreed: Members agreed that the Clerk discuss with Legal Services procedures for reporting suspected criminal offences that may emerge during the course of an investigation by the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 21st November 2007
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Gerry McHugh
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Willie Clarke
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Dr Kevin Pelan (Clerk to the Committee)
Miss Eleanor Murphy (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)
Mr Brian Devlin (Assembly Information Systems Office)
Mr Michael Cochrane (Assembly Information Systems Office)

Apologies:
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr George Savage

The meeting opened at 2.04pm in public session.

Review of the ‘Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members’.

Members considered a paper on revisions to the ‘Introduction’ and opening paragraphs of the ‘Registration of Members’ Interests" sections of the Guide.

Agreed: Members agreed the proposed revisions to these sections for inclusion in the draft consultation document.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 28th November 2007
Room 21, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Gerry McHugh
Mr Willie Clarke
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr George Savage
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Dr Kevin Pelan (Clerk to the Committee)
Miss Eleanor Murphy (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly

The meeting opened at 1.07pm in closed session.

Review of the ‘Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members’: Categories of Registrable Interests 1-3

Members considered a paper on Categories 1-3 of the ‘Categories of Registrable Interests’ section of the Guide.

Agreed: Members agreed that aspects of Category 3 (Clients) should be incorporated into Categories 1 and 2 but that the remainder of these categories remain unaltered.

Agreed: Members agreed that paragraph 19 of Category 3 should be considered when the ‘Advocacy’ section of the code is reviewed after Christmas recess.

Agreed: Members agreed that a new Category on “Elected/Public Office’ should be created.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 5th December 2007
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Rev Dr Robert Coulter (In the Chair)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Dr Kevin Pelan (Clerk to the Committee)
Miss Eleanor Murphy (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mrs Carmel Hanna
Mr Gerry McHugh
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr George Savage

The meeting opened at 2:06pm in public session.

New Regulations on the Registration of Political Donations.

The Chairperson informed Members that Mr Séamus Magee and Dr Róisin McLaughlin from the Electoral Commission would make a presentation to Committee on the new regulations for registering donations to political parties. The Chairperson advised Members that the purpose of this information session was to aid the Committee’s deliberations on the review of the Categories of Registrable Interests.

Mr Magee and Dr McLaughlin joined the meeting at 2:12pm.

Dr McLaughlin made a presentation on the new regulations on donations to political parties in Northern Ireland and discussed with the Committee the implications of the new requirements on both Members and Parties.

Mr Magee and Dr McLaughlin left the meeting at 2:55pm.

The Chair advised Members that the new regulations could potentially impact upon several of the Categories of Registrable Interests.

Agreed: Members agreed that the Clerk explore with the Electoral Commission the need for developing a memorandum of understanding/agreement in regards to dual reporting arrangements.

Review of the ‘Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members’: Categories of Registrable Interests 5-7

Members considered a paper on Categories 5-7 of the ‘Categories of Registrable Interests’ section of the Guide.

Agreed: Members agreed a number of options for Registrable Interests Categories 5-7 for inclusion in the draft consultation document.

Agreed: Members agreed that the Clerk should liaise with the Electoral Commission in regards to the impact of the new regulations for registering donations to political parties on the Categories of Registrable Interests, and that the Committee would review any Categories affected by the new regulations.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 12th December 2007
Room 21, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr Willie Clarke
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Alastair Ross

In Attendance:
Dr Kevin Pelan (Clerk to the Committee)
Miss Eleanor Murphy (Assistant Clerk)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)

Apologies:
Mr Gerry McHugh
Mr George Savage
Mr Brian Wilson

The meeting opened at 1:09pm in public session.

Review of the ‘Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members’: Categories of Registrable Interests 8, 10 and 11.

Members considered a paper on Categories 8, 10 and 11 of the ‘Categories of Registrable Interests’ section of the Guide.

Agreed: Members agreed a number of proposed amendments to Registrable Interest Category 8 (Land and Property) for inclusion in the consultation document.

Agreed: Members agreed that Category 11 (Unremunerated Interests) should be removed and that these interests could be incorporated into Category 10 (Miscellaneous).

Agreed: Members agreed that an additional category encompassing memberships of societies etc. was not required, and that such information could be incorporated into Category 10.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 9th January 2008
Room 21, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Gerry McHugh
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr George Savage
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Dr Kevin Pelan (Clerk to the Committee)
Miss Eleanor Murphy (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Rev Robert Coulter
Francie Brolly

The meeting opened at 1:05pm in closed session.

Review of the ‘Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members’: Declaration of Members’ Interests’.

Members considered a paper on the ‘Declaration of Members’ Interests’ section of the Guide.

Agreed: Members agreed to adopt the suggested amendments and that these be included in the consultation document.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 16th January 2008
Room 21, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Alastair Ross
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Francie Brolly

In Attendance:
Dr Kevin Pelan (Clerk to the Committee)
Miss Eleanor Murphy (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr George Savage
Mr Brian Wilson
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Gerry McHugh

The meeting opened at 2.08pm in public session.

Review of the ‘Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members’: “Advocacy".

Members considered a paper on the ‘Advocacy’ section of the Guide.

Mr Ross joined the meeting at 2.13pm.

Agreed: Members agreed to adopt the suggested amendments and that these be included in the draft consultation document.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 30th January 2008
Room 21, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Alex Easton
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Dr Kevin Pelan (Clerk to the Committee)
Miss Eleanor Murphy (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr George Savage
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr David Hilditch
Mrs Claire McGill

The meeting opened at 2.05pm in closed session.

Review of the ‘Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members’: The Rectification Procedure.

The Committee considered a paper on the Rectification Procedure. Members discussed what role, if any, the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards should have in respect of the rectification procedure.

Agreed: Members agreed to propose in the draft consultation document, the adoption of a rectification procedure for minor or inadvertent failures to declare or register interests.

Agreed: Members agreed to propose that minor or inadvertent failures to register or declare interests should be referred to the Interim Commissioner to assess whether the rectification procedure should be applied but that the Committee would make the final decision based on the Interim Commissioner’s deliberations.

Agreed: The Committee agreed for purposes of the draft, at this stage, that the rectification procedure would only apply to the registration and declaration of interests and would not apply to misuse of Assembly stationery and postage.

Agreed: Members agreed that the Clerk investigate options for the handling complaints on the misuse of stationery and postage.

Review of the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members: Category 4 (Sponsorships).

The Clerk advised Members that a paper from the Electoral Commission on the impact of the new political donations regulations on the categories of registrable interests was not yet available.

Agreed: Members agreed to defer consideration on Category 4 until the paper from the Electoral Commission was available.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 13th February 2008
Room 21, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr Willie Clarke
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Mrs Claire McGill
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr George Savage
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Dr Kevin Pelan (Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Christine Darrah (Assembly Clerk) (in attendance for Item 7).
Miss Eleanor Murphy (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

The meeting opened at 2.04pm in public session.

Review of the ‘Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members’: MLAs’ employment of family members – options for registration.

The Chairperson, Rev Coulter, Mr Hilditch and Mr Savage each declared an interest.

Members noted a paper outlining possible options for registering the employment of family members. This was discussed in the context of the Committee’s review of the ‘Code of Conduct’ and the ‘Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members’.

Rev Coulter stated that he wished to make it clear that the fault in relation to this matter was not in employing family members, but rather it was in employing family members to do nothing.

Mr Ross stated that the Committee was perhaps somewhat premature in discussing this issue and recommended that the Committee postpone discussions until the outcome of the Westminster authorities’ examination of this issue including their consideration of any legal implications.

Mr Clarke and Mr Brolly stressed the importance of openness, accountability and the public’s confidence in Members.

Mr Savage stated that Members were going through a transitory phase after a period of suspension and that trust was an issue for members in the recruitment of staff.

Some Members stressed the importance of those employed by MLAs being required to meet professional standards, have the necessary qualifications and meet the competencies of the specific post.

Agreed: Members agreed that this issue should be deferred until the Committee could consider how the issue was being dealt with in other jurisdictions including awaiting the outcome of deliberations at Westminster.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 27th February 2008
Room 21, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Mrs Claire McGill
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Dr Kevin Pelan (Assembly Clerk)
Miss Eleanor Murphy (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Allan Bresland
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr George Savage

The meeting opened at 2.05pm in public session.

Review of the Code and Guide: The Register of Members’ Interests - Procedures for Making Amendments to the Register.

Members noted a paper on the procedures in other jurisdictions for making amendments to the Register of Members’ Interests.

Members discussed the potential benefits of the Scottish Parliament procedures for deleting interests no longer held by a Member.

Agreed: Members agreed to the adoption of the Scottish Parliament’s procedures for the deletion of ceased interests from the Register of Members’ Interests and that this should be included in the draft consultation document.

Review of the Code and Guide: MLAs’ Employment of Family Members.

The Chairperson reminded Members that the Committee had agreed to defer this matter until the Committee could consider how this issue was being addressed in other jurisdictions.

Members noted the press notice from the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges which stated that the Committee believed that by the 1st April 2008 the House of Commons should have in place within the framework of the existing Registers, a system for compulsory registration of Members who employ family members. Members further noted how the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales were approaching this issue.

Agreed: Members agreed to the adoption of mandatory registration for the employment of family members of MLAs and that this should be included in the draft consultation document.

Members discussed the level of detail Members would be required to register in respect of this new category.

Agreed: Members agreed to defer a decision on this matter until the Clerk could provide an options paper on the level of detail which would be required for registration purposes.

Review of the Code and Guide: Public Disclosure of Complaints.

Members discussed the difficulties experienced by the Committee and the Interim Commissioner when details a complaint is disclosed to the media by either the complainant or by the Member who is the subject of the complaint.

Members noted that the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges considers the release of evidence or correspondence while an inquiry is in progress to anyone other than the Committee or Commissioner, without the Committee’s agreement, as contempt of the House.

Agreed: Members agreed that it should be stated in the “complaints procedure" of the draft consultation document that any Member who makes a statement or releases evidence about a complaint to the press while that complaint is being investigated or considered by the Committee will be in contempt of the House.

Review of the Code and Guide: Category 4 (Sponsorships).

Members noted a paper from the Electoral Commission on Category 4 (Sponsorships).

Mr Ross left the meeting at 3:16pm.

Mr Ross rejoined the meeting at 3.18pm.

Agreed: Members agreed to take forward the consideration of Category 4 on the basis of comparison with other legislatures.

Agreed: Members agreed that the Clerk will continue to liaise with the Electoral Commission in order to bring the Categories, where possible, into line with PPERA legislation.

Agreed: Members agreed that in order to facilitate subsequent amendments to the Code after it is published, the Code should include a reference to the Committee making adjustments to the Code as and when necessary by bringing amendments to the House.

Mr Clarke left the meeting at 3.21pm.

Mr Clarke rejoined the meeting at 3.26pm.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 12th March 2008
Room 21, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr Willie Clarke (Deputy Chairperson)
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Mrs Claire McGill
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr George Savage

In Attendance:
Dr Kevin Pelan (Assembly Clerk)
Miss Eleanor Murphy (Assistant Clerk)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mr Brian Wilson

The meeting opened at 2.00pm in public session.

Review of the Code and Guide: MLAs’ Employment of Family Members – options for registration.

The Chairperson reminded Members that the Committee had agreed at its previous meeting to propose mandatory registration for the employment of family members.

Members discussed a paper outlining options on the level of detail which would be required for registration.

Agreed: Members agreed to propose mandatory registration under a new Category specifically designed for that purpose in the Register of Members’ Interests.

Agreed: Members agreed that the Clerk reword the description of the proposed new category to reflect that it would cover immediate and wider family relationships.

Agreed: Members agreed to propose an amendment to the purpose of the Register of Members’ Interests.

Agreed: Members agreed to propose that MLAs be required to register their relationship to the family member employed and a brief job description.

Agreed: Members agreed that it would not be necessary to provide examples of the various family relationships which should be registered.

Agreed: Members agreed to propose that MLAs be required to register their employment of other MLA’s family members.

Agreed: Members agreed to propose that the employment of former spouses/partners/civil partners be registered for one financial year.

Agreed: Members agreed that there should be a link in the Register of Interests to guidance on appropriate salary bands for posts filled by family members of an MLA, short but informative job descriptions, and the skills and experience required for the job should be highlighted.

Agreed: Members agreed work experience and brief periods of casual employment should not be registered if the total annual payments to the individual concerned do not exceed 1% of the Members’ annual salary.

Review of the Code and Guide: Category 4 (Sponsorships).

Members agreed to defer consideration of this issue until the next meeting.

Review of the Code and Guide: Category 9 (Shareholdings).

Members agreed to defer consideration of this issue until the next meeting.

The meeting moved into closed session at 3.16pm.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 9th April 2008
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr Willie Clarke (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Mrs Claire McGill
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Dr Kevin Pelan (Assembly Clerk)
Miss Eleanor Murphy (Assistant Clerk)
iss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr George Savage

The meeting opened at 2.00pm in public session.

Review of the Code and Guide: Category 4 (Sponsorships).

Members examined a paper outlining the current guidance on sponsorships and deliberated upon a range of options for amendment to this category.

Mr Clark joined the meeting at 2.16pm

Mr Ross left the meeting at 2.21pm

Mr Ross rejoined the meeting at 2.24pm

Agreed: Members noted the options for inclusion in the draft consultation document and agreed that the Clerk would revise the category for final consideration by the Committee during its read-through of the completed draft consultation document.

Review of the Code and Guide: Category 9 (Shareholdings).

Members examined a paper outlining the current guidance on shareholdings and deliberated upon a range of options for amendment to this category.

Agreed: Members agreed to adopt the thresholds applied by the Scottish Parliament for the registration of shareholdings.

Agreed: Members also agreed to the inclusion of proposals in the draft consultation document to seek comment from consultees on trusts and pensions.

Review of the Code and Guide: MLAs’ employment of family members.

Members examined a draft paper outlining the wording of the proposed new category and considered a report from House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges on their agreed position.

Agreed: Members agreed to adopt the revised category heading proposed by the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges.

Agreed: Members agreed to adopt the revised description of registrable relationships proposed by the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges.

Agreed: Members agreed to propose that former partners employed through Office Cost Allowance should remain on the register for one calendar year following the breakdown of a relationship should the employment continue.

Agreed: That the proposed new category should contain a web link signposting readers to pages on the Assembly website containing guidance on salaries and job descriptions for MLAs’ support staff.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 23rd April 2008
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr Willie Clarke (Deputy Chairperson)
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Mrs Claire McGill
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Dr Kevin Pelan (Assembly Clerk)
Miss Eleanor Murphy (Assistant Clerk)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr George Savage

The meeting opened at 2.04pm in public session.

Review of the Code and Guide: Draft Consultation Document.

Members considered the Draft Consultation Document

The Committee read and agreed the Cover Page

The Committee read and agreed Committee Powers and Membership subject to amendment

The Committee deferred agreeing the Table of Contents until it had agreed the entire content of the document.

The Committee read and agreed the Background.

The Committee read and agreed Issues Considered by the Committee.

The Committee considered the revised structure of the Code and Guide and agreed that the guiding principles of the Code should be contained in the introductory Volume I.

The Committee read and agreed Volume I subject to proposed amendment.

The Committee read and agreed Volume II subject to proposed amendment.

The Committee read and agreed Volume III subject to proposed amendment.

The Committee read and agreed Category 1 (Directorships).

The Committee read and agreed Category 2 (Remunerated Employment, Office, Profession etc.)

The Committee read and agreed Category 3 (Elected/Public Office) subject to proposed amendment.

The Committee read and agreed Category 4 (Election Support and Political Donations) subject to amendment.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 30th April 2008
The Senate Chamber, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr Willie Clarke (Deputy Chairperson)
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Alex Easton
Mrs Claire McGill
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Dr Kevin Pelan (Assembly Clerk)
Miss Eleanor Murphy (Assistant Clerk)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr David Hilditch
Mr George Savage

The meeting opened at 12.45pm in public session.

Review of the Code and Guide: Draft Consultation Document.

Members considered the Draft Consultation Document

The Committee agreed to place the section on Employment Agreements at the end of Category 2.

Rev Coulter joined the meeting at 1.00pm

The Committee read and agreed Category 5, subject to proposed amendment.

The Committee read and agreed Category 6, subject to proposed amendment.

The Committee read and agreed Category 7, subject to proposed amendment.

The Committee read and agreed Category 8, subject to proposed amendment.

The Committee read and agreed Category 9, subject to proposed amendment.

Mr Wilson joined the meeting at 2.07pm

Mr Brolly left the meeting at 2.25pm

The Committee read and agreed Category 10, subject to proposed amendment.

Mr Brolly rejoined the meeting at 2.30pm

The Committee read and agreed Category 11, subject to proposed amendment.

Mr Clarke left the meeting at 2.32pm

The Committee read and agreed Declaration of Members’ Interests.

Mrs McGill left the meeting at 2.45pm

The Committee read and agreed Rule Banning Lobbying for Reward or Consideration.

The Committee read and agreed The Complaints Procedure.

The Committee read and agreed to inclusion of the proposed Rectification Procedure.

Mr Clarke rejoined the meeting at 2.59pm

Agreed: That a note is included in the consultation document indicating that the Committee is seeking clarification on a mechanism for considering complaints against MLAs in the event that the Assembly is suspended.

Agreed: That the proposed amendments are made by the Clerk and the publishing of the consultation document to proceed as scheduled.

Agreed: That the Press Release announcing the release of the consultation document and Public Notice for the Newspaper be released along with the consultation document.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday, 14th May 2008
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr Willie Clarke (Deputy Chairperson)
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Alex Easton
Mrs Claire McGill
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Dr Kevin Pelan (Assembly Clerk)
Miss Emma Patton (Assistant Clerk)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr David Hilditch
Mr George Savage

The meeting opened at 12.45pm in public session.

Review of the Code and Guide: Draft Consultation Document.

Members considered the Draft Consultation Document

The Committee agreed to place the section on Employment Agreements at the end of Category 2.

Rev Coulter joined the meeting at 1.00pm

The Committee read and agreed Category 5, subject to proposed amendment.

The Committee read and agreed Category 6, subject to proposed amendment.

The Committee read and agreed Category 7, subject to proposed amendment.

The Committee read and agreed Category 8, subject to proposed amendment.

The Committee read and agreed Category 9, subject to proposed amendment.

Mr Wilson joined the meeting at 2.07pm

Mr Brolly left the meeting at 2.25pm

The Committee read and agreed Category 10, subject to proposed amendment.

Mr Brolly rejoined the meeting at 2.30pm

The Committee read and agreed Category 11, subject to proposed amendment.

Mr Clarke left the meeting at 2.32pm

The Committee read and agreed Declaration of Members’ Interests.

Mrs McGill left the meeting at 2.45pm

The Committee read and agreed Rule Banning Lobbying for Reward or Consideration.

The Committee read and agreed The Complaints Procedure.

The Committee read and agreed to inclusion of the proposed Rectification Procedure.

Mr Clarke rejoined the meeting at 2.59pm

Agreed: That a note is included in the consultation document indicating that the Committee is seeking clarification on a mechanism for considering complaints against MLAs in the event that the Assembly is suspended.

Agreed: That the proposed amendments are made by the Clerk and the publishing of the consultation document to proceed as scheduled.

Agreed: That the Press Release announcing the release of the consultation document and Public Notice for the Newspaper be released along with the consultation document.

The meeting moved into closed session at 3.14pm

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday, 4th June 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Willie Clarke (deputy Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
Rev. Robert Coulter
Mr Alex Easton
David Hilditch
Mr Paul Maskey
Mr Alastair Ross

In Attendance:
Dr Kevin Pelan (Assembly Clerk)
Miss Eleanor Murphy (Assistant Clerk)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr George Savage
Mr Brian Wilson

The meeting opened at 10.03am in public session.

Consultation on the Proposed Amendments to the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members.

(a) Evidence Session – Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.

The Chairperson advised Members that the Committee would take oral evidence from a number of witnesses in relation its consultation on the review of the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members.

The following witnesses joined the meeting at 10.08am:

Bob Collins, Chief Commissioner.

Antoinette McKeown, Head of Policy and Development.

Liz Law, Policy Officer.

Mr Hilditch joined the meeting at 10:09am.

Mr Ross joined the meeting at 11.02am.

A question and answer session followed the presentation from the Equality Commission. The Chairperson thanked the Commission for its contribution to the review.

The witnesses left the meeting at 11.07am.

(b) Evidence Session – Interim Commissioner for Standards.

The Interim Commissioner, Mr Tom Frawley and Mr John MacQuarrie, Deputy Ombudsman joined the meeting at 11.10am.

The Committee took oral evidence from the Interim Commissioner in relation to the proposed amendments to the Code and Guide. A question and answer session followed the presentation from Mr Frawley.

The Chairperson thanked the Interim Commissioner and Mr MacQuarrie for their presentation and for their valuable work in supporting the Committee.

The Interim Commissioner and Mr MacQuarrie left the meeting at 11.56am.

The Chairperson suspended the meeting at 11.56am for a comfort break.

The Chairperson reconvened the meeting at 12.06pm.

(c) Evidence Session – Electoral Commission

The following witnesses joined the meeting at 12.06pm.

Dr Henrietta Campbell, Electoral Commissioner.

Seamus Magee, Head of Office, Electoral Commission (NI).

Michael Gallagher, Electoral Commission (London).

A question and answer session followed the presentation from Dr Campbell and Mr Magee relating to the provisions of the PPERA legislation on the development of the Code and Guide.

The Chairperson thanked the witnesses for their presentation and for their contributions to the consultation.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday, 10th September 2008
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Willie Clarke (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Mr Paul Gill (Assembly Clerk)
Dr Kevin Pelan (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Hilary Bogle (Assistant Clerk)
Miss Eleanor Murphy (Assistant Clerk)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr George Savage

The meeting commenced at 2.04pm in public session.

Review of the Code and Guide – Consultation Submissions

Members noted the contents of the submissions received in response to the Committee’s consultation.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to commence consideration of the submissions at the next meeting.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday, 17th September 2008
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mr Willie Clarke (Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Paul Maskey
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Mr John Torney (Principal Clerk)
Mr Paul Gill (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Hilary Bogle (Assistant Clerk)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apology:
Mrs Carmel Hanna

The meeting commenced at 2.04pm in public session.

Review of the Code and Guide

Members noted the background paper prepared by the Clerk.

Agreed: Members agreed the forward work programme for the Review of the Code and Guide as outlined in the background paper.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday, 24th September 2008
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr George Savage

In Attendance:
Mr John Torney (Principal Clerk)
Mr Paul Gill (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Hilary Bogle (Assistant Clerk)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apology:
Mr Willie Clarke (Deputy Chairperson)
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Brian Wilson

The meeting commenced at 2.08pm in public session.

Review of the Code and Guide

Members noted the background paper prepared by the Clerk.

Agreed: Following discussion Members agreed

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday, 1st October 2008
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr George Savage
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Mr John Torney (Principal Clerk)
Mr Paul Gill (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Hilary Bogle (Assistant Clerk)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Kathy Gunduza (Clerical Officer)

Apology:
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Paul Maskey

The meeting commenced at 2.04pm in public session.

Review of the Code of Conduct

Members noted the background paper prepared by the Clerk on the issues raised by consultees in relation to Volume 2 of the Code of Conduct.

Agreed: Following discussion Members agreed –

3.05pm Mr Hilditch left the meeting

3.07pm Mr Hilditch returned to the meeting.

Members noted the background paper prepared by the Clerk on the issues raised by consultees in relation to Categories 1 - 3 of the Guide.

Agreed: Following discussion Members agreed –

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday, 15th October 2008
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Paul Maskey
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Mr John Torney (Principal Clerk)
Mr Paul Gill (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Hilary Bogle (Assistant Clerk)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apology:
Mr George Savage

The meeting commenced at 2.02pm in public session.

Review of the Code of Conduct

Members noted the background paper prepared by the Clerk on the Scope of the Code of Conduct to Volume 2 of the Code of Conduct.

2.12pm Brian Wilson joined the meeting.

Agreed: Following discussion on defining how the scope of the Code extends to political opinion Members agreed Option 3 as outlined in the Clerk’s paper.

Agreed: Following discussion Members agreed that the scope of the Code be redrafted so that it covers ‘the conduct of all Members with respect to anything Members say or do in their capacity as an MLA’.

Agreed: Members agreed that, as it has already been agreed that each of the Principles of conduct will be moved in to Volume 2, it was not necessary to consider the issue of the repetition of ‘Public Duty’.

2.20pm Mr Ross left the meeting.

2.21pm Mr Ross returned to the meeting.

Members noted the background paper prepared by the Clerk on registrable interests and voting.

Following discussion a minority of Members supported a proposal to adopt Option 1 of the Clerk’s paper.

Agreed: Members agreed that the Clerk should seek further clarification on the issue to inform further discussion at the next meeting.

Members noted the background paper prepared by the Clerk on Categories 5 – 7 of the Code of Conduct.

Agreed: Members agreed that the issues raised in the paper should be considered at the next meeting of the Committee.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday, 5th November 2008
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Paul Maskey
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Mr Paul Gill (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Hilary Bogle (Assistant Clerk)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr George Savage

The meeting commenced at 2.02pm in public session.

Review of the Code of Conduct

Members noted the background paper prepared by the Clerk on Category 4, Volume 3 of the Code of Conduct – ‘Electoral Support and Political Donations’.

Agreed: Members agreed that the title ‘Electoral Support and Political Donations’ be agreed for this section of the Register.

Agreed: Members agreed that the guidance is clear on what a Member needs to register but that a specific reference needs to be made to the issue of loans.

2.25pm Mr Maskey left the meeting

Agreed: Members agreed that the levels of financial and material support required for registration are set at an appropriate level.

2.27pm Mr Maskey returned to the meeting

Agreed: Members agreed that an additional sentence should be added to this category stating that Members should not accept the use of council premises which would amount to a donation in kind of more than £200 per booking.

Agreed: Members agreed that a single point for the registration of interests is unachievable at present.

Agreed: Members agreed that donations made to Members of the Assembly in relation to leadership contests within their own parties should be registered.

Agreed: Members agreed that the wording in relation to the scope of political donations to be registered should be ‘any financial or material benefit’ received by a Member ‘in support of his or her role as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly’.

Members noted the background paper prepared by the Clerk on Categories 5 - 7, Volume 3 of the Code of Conduct - registration of gifts, benefits and hospitality; overseas visits; and overseas benefits and gifts.

Agreed: Members agreed that gifts/benefits/hospitality above 0.5% of a Member’s current salary should be registered, and that this should also be expressed as a figure (currently £216) within the Code.

Agreed: Members agreed that the exemptions set out in the paper at a, b and c are reasonable.

Agreed: Members agreed that the exemptions for overseas benefits are reasonable.

Agreed: Members agreed that the value below which overseas visits should be exempt should be consistent with the value below which gifts are exempt.

Agreed: Members agreed that the value below which overseas benefits and gifts should be exempt should be consistent with the categories on UK gifts and overseas visits.

Agreed: Members agreed that overseas benefits and gifts to dependent children should be registered.

Members noted the background paper prepared by the Clerk on Categories 8 – 10, Volume 3 of the Code of Conduct - Land and Property, Shareholdings and Unremunerated Interests.

Agreed: Members agreed that the wording of this category should have included the words ‘which is of a substantial value’.

Agreed: Members agreed that any land or property owned by a Member jointly with a third party (e.g. with his/her partner) which is of a substantial value or which contributes to a substantial income should have to be registered.

Agreed: Members agreed that the definitions of ‘substantial value’ and ‘substantial income’ are reasonable.

Agreed: Members agreed that identifiable shareholdings of a registrable value which are held within a trust or personal pension plan should also be registered.

Agreed: Members agreed category 10 ‘Unremunerated and Miscellaneous Interests’ as set out in the consultation document.

Members noted the background paper prepared by the Clerk on Category 11, Volume 3 of the Code of Conduct – ‘Employment of Family Members’.

Agreed: Members agreed that it is reasonable to require the registration of employment of a family member, e.g. spouse, when that relationship ends but the employment continues.

Agreed: Members agreed that a reasonable level above which payment to a family member employed on a casual basis or employed for work experience should be registered is if it is more than 1% of a Member’s salary (currently £435).

Agreed: Members agreed that it is reasonable to expect that Members should have to state if they employ family members of other MLAs.

Agreed: Members agreed that there should be a requirement for Members to register family members who are paid through the Office Cost Allowance for the rental of office accommodation.

Agreed: Members agreed that it should be made clearer in the Register of Members’ Interests that Category 11 on family members does not relate to interests in the sense of a financial or other material benefit that a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions as an MLA.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday, 12th November 2008
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
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)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Willie Clarke

The meeting commenced at 2.05pm in public session.

Review of the Code of Conduct

Members noted the background paper prepared by the Clerk on Volume 3 of the Code of Conduct – ‘Declaration of Interests’.

2.43pm Mr Wilson joined the meeting.

Agreed: Members agreed that further consideration of this issue should be deferred until after the Committee’s visit to the Committee for Standards and Privileges at Westminster next week, when Members will be able to look at how they deal with this issue.

2.50pm Mr Maskey left the meeting.

2.52pm Mr Maskey returned to the meeting.

Members noted the background paper prepared by the Clerk on Advocacy in Volume 3 of the Code of Conduct.

Agreed: Members agreed that the revised wording of the rule on advocacy is not needed.

Agreed: Members agreed that an amendment should be included that would allow non-financial interests such as ‘material benefit’ to a Member to come under the parameters of this Code, including this rule.

Agreed: Members agreed that no further changes are needed to this section.

Members noted the background paper prepared by the Clerk on Volume 4 of the Code of Conduct ‘The Complaints Procedure’.

Agreed: Members agreed that the ‘complaints procedure’ should continue to form a distinct yet integral part of the Code.

Agreed: Members agreed that the admissibility criteria for complaints are sufficiently clear and reasonable.

Agreed: Members agreed that it was not necessary to consider an appeals procedure.

Agreed: Members agreed that there does not need to be an ultimate sanction of being declared unfit to serve.

Agreed: Member agreed that the Interim Commissioner should not share a draft report with the Member complained of prior to it being provided to the Committee.

Agreed: Members agreed to defer consideration of the issue of anonymity until after the Committee’s visit to the Committee for Standards and Privileges at Westminster next week. This will afford the Committee to look at how this issue is dealt with at Westminster.

Agreed: Members agreed that the Committee should be in the position to put forward a motion for the Assembly to adopt our new Code before the Christmas recess.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday, 26th November 2008
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Alastair Ross

In Attendance:
Mr Paul Gill (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Hilary Bogle (Assistant Clerk)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Miss Paula McManus (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Willie Clarke (Deputy Chair)

The meeting commenced at 2.06pm in public session – the Clerk in the Chair.

Review of the Code of Conduct

Members noted the background paper prepared by the Clerk on outstanding issues.

Agreed: Members agreed that the draft Code issued for consultation should be redrafted so that it still allows for members to vote when they have an unregistered interest (although they should register the unregistered interest immediately afterwards).

Agreed: Members agreed that anonymity for complainants should only be considered within the context of the publication of a report and not within the context of their name being withheld from the Member complained of.

Agreed: Members agreed with the conclusions of the House of Commons’ Committee on Standards and Privileges on concerns about the rule governing advocacy and the initiation of proceedings and agreed that the Advocacy Rule should be amended accordingly.

The Committee noted that further issues had been identified which would require further consideration by the Committee before the Code could be agreed.

Agreed: Members agreed that the Clerk should prepare a paper on these issues for consideration by the Committee at the next meeting and that the Code would not be debated in the Chamber until after the Christmas recess.

[EXTRACT]

Thursday, 11th December 2008
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr Willie Clarke
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Mr Paul Gill (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Hilary Bogle (Assistant Clerk)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Paul Maskey

The meeting commenced at 3.05pm in public session.

Review of the Code of Conduct

3.09pm Mr Tom Frawley, Interim Assembly Commissioner and Mr John MacQuarrie, Director for Standards and Special Projects joined the meeting.

The Committee discussed outstanding issues on the Code with the Interim Commissioner and the Director for Standards and Special Projects in order to inform their deliberations.

3.16pm Mr Wilson left the meeting.

3.37pm Mr Wilson returned to the meeting.

3.58pm Mr Brolly left the meeting.

4.04pm Mr Frawley and Mr MacQuarrie left the meeting.

Following discussion the Committee –`

Agreed: The Committee agreed not to seek to get the Assembly to agree the new Code of Conduct until all outstanding issues are resolved.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that complaints against Members should be made to the Interim Commissioner and that the Committee should adopt a standard ‘no comment’ policy in response to media enquires about possible breaches of the Code by Members.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to write to the Committee on Procedures outlining the need for the Standing Orders, in relation to Standards and Privileges, to be reviewed.

4.12pm Mr Clarke left the meeting.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to formally seek legal advice to establish what the Committee’s duties are in respect of complaints that allege an offence under section 43 of the Northern Ireland Act. The Committee also agreed to seek advice from the legislators who drew up the legislation.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that some further specific and limited consultation be carried out with relevant stakeholders to ensure that all aspects of the new draft Code of Conduct are fit for purpose.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that Members should declare known financial interests of immediate relatives if these financial interests might reasonably be thought by others to influence the Member’s speech, representation or communication in question.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that with regard to divisions and interests that would not normally be registered, these interests should be registered under Category 10 (Miscellaneous and Unremunerated Interests) with a reference to the division to which the interest relates.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that occupational pensions should be registered under Miscellaneous.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday, 21st January 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr George Savage
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Mr Paul Gill (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Hilary Bogle (Assistant Clerk)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Paul Maskey

The meeting commenced at 2.02pm in public session.

Review of the Code of Conduct

The Committee noted that the Interim Commissioner’s Report into a Complaint against a Member which was due to be considered at today’s meeting would not now be considered until the Committee meeting on 11th February.

Agreed: The Committee agreed not to seek to agree the new Code prior to establishing whether further amendments to the Code are necessary as a result of the contents of the above Report.

The Committee noted that although it had been agreed at the last meeting that future complaints would go directly to the Interim Commissioner for Standards, this would not come into effect until the new Code has been agreed and until the relevant Standing Orders have been amended.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday, 28th January 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr Willie Clarke
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)
Miss Carla Campbell (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr George Savage
Mr Paul Maskey

The meeting commenced at 2.00pm in public session.

Review of the Code and Guide

Agreed: The Committee agreed that references to section 43 in the Code be amended to reflect the position that the Committee may give consideration to referring such matters to the Public Prosecution Service.

Agreed: Following discussion on the reference in Standings Orders to the Advocacy Rule, the Committee agreed that a line should be added to the Guide clarifying this particular aspect of the advocacy rule.

Agreed: Following discussion the Committee agreed that the section of the Code on the one year deadline should be amended to allow the Committee discretion to consider complaints that are not made within the new time limit of one year. The Committee further agreed that the wording of the references to reasonable adjustments that can be made in respect of the complaints procedure be tightened.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that references in the Code to the ‘House’ should be amended as appropriate.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to remove the existing references to criminal offences in the Code and replace it with ‘Where it considers it appropriate, the Committee may refer matters to the police or PPS for their consideration’.

Agreed: Members agreed that the Committee should recommend that Standing Orders be amended to include a recommendation to guarantee the authority of the sanction to suspend Members without pay.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that it was not necessary to invite Northern Ireland Office officials to give evidence to the Committee on section 43 of the Northern Ireland Act.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that it should be provided with further legal advice on the issue of section 43 and the rule in the Guide on Divisions.

3.53pm The Assistant Legal Adviser left the meeting.

3.54pm The Committee returned to open session.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to amend the requirement for members to send details of their interests to the Clerk of the Committee on which they serve.

Reverend Coulter declared an interest in the next issue as a Member of the Assembly Commission.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that its report on the new Code should include a recommendation that the Assembly Commission takes forward the necessary work in order to be able to provide accurate job descriptions and salary bands of family members who are remunerated through Office Cost Allowance.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Code be amended so that it is more explicit on the requirement for Ministers to register gifts and hospitality received in their capacity as Ministers.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday, 11 March 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Alastair Ross

In Attendance:
Mr Paul Gill (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Hilary Bogle (Assistant Clerk)
Mr Lindsay Dundas (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr George Savage

The meeting commenced at 2.02pm in closed session.

Review of the Code of Conduct

Agreed: The Committee agreed that paragraph 76 ‘Divisions’ should be re-worded to include the wording as set out in the Clerk’s paper.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday, 20 May 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Francie Brolly
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Paul Maskey
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr George Savage
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Mr Damien Martin (Clerk Assistant)
Mr Paul Gill (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Hilary Bogle (Assistant Clerk)
Mr Gerard Rosato (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Christopher McNickle (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Jonathan Craig

The meeting commenced at 2.04pm in open session.

Outstanding issues on the Code of Conduct and Guide Relating to the Conduct of Members

Agreed: Following discussion on the application of the Code of Conduct to Ministers, the Committee agreed that the Clerk should seek further clarification from the Office of the First and deputy First Minister and the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. The Committee further agreed that the Clerk should draft ‘a form of words’ for consideration by Members at the next meeting of the Committee.

Agreed: The Committee agreed in principle that the new Code of Conduct should require Members to register all outside earnings and the time spent in relation to these. However the Committee agreed that further consideration needed to be given to the technicalities on how such entries should appear in the Register and that the Clerk should liaise with the House of Commons’ authorities to establish how they propose to deal with such issues.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Committee’s Report on the Review of the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members should be debated in Plenary before Summer Recess.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the following Motion should be laid in the Business Office –

That this Assembly approves the Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges ordered for printing on [date], Report No. NIA 136/08-09, and the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members included at Annex A.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday, 10th June 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Willie Clarke
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Paul Maskey
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr George Savage
Mr Brian Wilson

In Attendance:
Mr Damien Martin (Clerk Assistant)
Mr Paul Gill (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Hilary Bogle (Assistant Clerk)
Mr Gerard Rosato (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Christopher McNickle (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr David Hilditch

The meeting commenced at 2.03pm in open session.

Outstanding issues on the Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

Agreed: Following discussion on the application of the Code of Conduct to Ministers the Committee agreed that the following form of words should be included in the Code of Conduct :-

“The requirements of the Assembly’s Code of Conduct continue to apply to the conduct of Ministers. In addition, Ministers are also subject to the Ministerial Code of Conduct in order to ensure that, inter alia, no conflict arises, nor appears to arise, between their private interests and their public duties. The Committee on Standards and Privileges will not investigate alleged breaches of the Ministerial Code of Conduct. Neither will the Committee on Standards and Privileges investigate an alleged breach of the Assembly’s Code of Conduct in respect of the conduct of Ministers, where such an allegation is essentially an allegation that falls within the scope of the Ministerial Code of Conduct and where the allegation does not clearly overlap with the Minister’s conduct and duties as a Member".

Agreed: The Committee also agreed that the Clerk should draft a form of words for inclusion in the Report reflecting that the Committee has written to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister in relation to the issue of introducing a mechanism for investigating complaints that the Ministerial Code of Conduct has been breached.

2.27pm Mr Wilson left the meeting

Agreed: Following discussion on the requirement for MLAs to register details about outside earnings, the Committee agreed that Categories 1, 2 and 3 should be amended as set out in the Clerk’s paper. The Committee further agreed that the threshold within these categories should be set at 0.5% in line with other thresholds within the Code.

Agreed: Following discussion on recent developments in respect of proposals relating to the regulation of the conduct of MPs, the Committee agreed their report should include the suggested recommendation as set out in the Clerk’s paper, and should also refer to the fact that the Committee will continue to monitor best practice.

Agreed: Members considered issues raised by the Electoral Commission and agreed with the recommendations outlined in the Clerk’s paper.

Agreed: Following discussion the Committee agreed that the references within the Code to ‘Office Cost Allowance’ should be replaced with the phrase ‘any Assembly Members’ Allowance.

Agreed: Following discussion the Committee agreed that there should be two separate categories in the Code for ‘Miscellaneous’ and ‘Unremunerated Interests’.

Agreed: Following discussion the Committee agreed that the Committee only proposes that the rectification procedure be used in response to complaints, and where Members bring inadvertent failures to the attention of the Clerk they are updated without any reference to the Assembly Commissioner for Standards or the Committee.

Agreed: Following discussion the Committee agreed that in order to make the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members consistent with the requirement of Standing Orders the line concerning the declaration of interests of immediate relatives should read :

“Members should declare known relevant interests, financial or otherwise, of immediate relatives …."

Agreed: Members agreed that the motion agreed at the last meeting of the Committee should be changed to read:

“That this Assembly approves the Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Report No. NIA 136/08-09, and agrees the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members, included at Annex A of that Report."

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday, 17th June 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mr Willie Clarke (Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
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 Christopher McNickle (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr Jonathan Craig

The meeting commenced at 2.04pm in closed session.

Committee’s Report on the Review of the Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

Members considered the draft Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members –

Content page

Page 15, read and agreed.

Introduction

Page 16 - read and agreed.

Code of Conduct

Pages 17 to 20 – read and agreed.

Introduction on the Guide to the Rules

Pages 21 to 23 – read and agreed.

Categories 1, 2 and 3 of the Register

Pages 23 to 26 – read and agreed.

Category 4 of the Register

Pages 26 to 27 – read and agreed.

Categories 5, 6 and 7 of the Register

Pages 27 – 28 – read and agreed.

Categories 8 and 9 of the Register

Pages 29 – 30 - read and agreed.

Categories 10 and 11 of the Register

Page 30 – read and agreed.

Category 12 of the Register

Page 31 – read and agreed as amended.

Declaration of Interests

Pages 31 to 34 – read and agreed.

The Advocacy Rule

Pages 34 to 37 – read and agreed.

The Complaints Procedure

Pages 38 – 41 – read and agreed.

Resolution of the Assembly Relating to the Conduct of Members

Annex 1 – read and agreed.

Members considered the draft Committee Report paragraph by paragraph.

Introduction

Paragraphs 1 – 5 were read and agreed.

Key issues and recommendations

Scope of the Code of Conduct

Paragraphs 6 – 15 were read and agreed.

Principles of Conduct

Paragraphs 16 – 20 were read and agreed.

Duty of Members in respect of the Assembly Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards and Privileges

Paragraphs 21 and 22 were read and agreed.

Outside Remuneration

Paragraphs 23 and 24 were read and agreed.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000

Paragraphs 25 – 30 were read and agreed.

Occupational Pensions Schemes

Paragraphs 31 – 32 were read and agreed.

Registration of Family Members who benefit from Assembly Members’ Allowances

Paragraphs 33 – 42 were read and agreed.

Declaring the interests of family members

Paragraphs 43 – 44 were read and agreed.

The Advocacy Rule

Paragraphs 45 – 49 were read and agreed.

Complaints Procedure

Paragraphs 50 – 52 were read and agreed.

Sanctions

Paragraphs 53 – 57 were read and agreed.

Rectification Procedure

Paragraphs 58 – 60 were read and agreed.

Other minor amendments

Paragraphs 61 – 62

Looking forward

Paragraphs 63 – 66 were read and agreed.

Paragraph 67 was read and agreed as amended.

Paragraphs 68 – 69 were read and agreed.

The Committee agreed the Committee Powers and Membership should form part of the Report.

The Committee agreed the Executive Summary should form part of the Report.

The Committee agreed the Summary of Recommendations should form part of the Report.

The Committee agreed that Appendices 1 – 4 should form of the Report.

The Committee agreed that an extract of today’s Minutes of Proceedings should be included in Appendix 1 of the report.

The Committee agreed that an embargoed copy of the report be sent to each of the witnesses who gave oral evidence: The Equality Commission, The Electoral Commission and the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards.

The Committee ordered the Report on the Review of the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members to be printed.

Members noted that the Report would be embargoed until the commencement of the Committee debate in Plenary on Tuesday, 23 June 2009.

Members agreed that the Chairperson and the Clerk should meet with the Speaker on Monday 22nd June 2009 to brief him on the Code in advance of the debate in Plenary on Tuesday, 23rd June 2009.

Members agreed the draft Press Release to be released following the debate of the Committee’s Report in Plenary on Tuesday, 23 June 2009.

Members agreed that the media could be provided with embargoed copies of the report and that the Chair, Deputy Chair and Clerk should have an informal press-briefing with journalists next week in advance of the Committee debate on the understanding that journalists will not report on the contents of the Report until after the Plenary debate.

[EXTRACT]

Appendix 2

Minutes of Evidence

4 June 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mrs Carmel Hanna (Chairperson)
Mr Willie Clarke (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Francie Brolly
Rev Dr Robert Coulter
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Paul Maskey
Mr Alastair Ross

Witnesses:

Mr Bob Collins }
Ms Liz Law } Equality Commission for Northern Ireland
Ms Antoinette McKeown }

Mr Tom Frawley, Interim Commissioner for Standards

Mr John MacQuarrie, Northern Ireland Ombudsman’s Office

Dr Henrietta Campbell }
Mr Michael Gallagher } Electoral Commission for Northern Ireland
Mr Seamus Magee }

1. The Chairperson (Mrs Hanna): Our witnesses this morning represent the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland: Bob Collins, the chief commissioner, Antoinette McKeown, the head of policy and development, and Liz Law. Good morning; you are all very welcome. Do you want to start by making an opening statement or a few remarks?

2. Mr Bob Collins (Equality Commission for Northern Ireland): It may be appropriate to make a few brief remarks by way of introduction. I thank the Chair and members of the Committee for the opportunity to be here in order to make some observations and to engage in discussion on the important code of conduct.

3. From our perspective — and this is the Equality Commission’s position on the entire range of responses to equality considerations — leadership is a key dimension in those public authorities that are designated under the legislation and for all who hold public positions of any significance in the private or public sectors. The Assembly has, at its best, the capacity to be a model for the entire community by working productively and effectively, and developing good relationships.

4. The Assembly will always, whether it wishes to or not and for good or otherwise, provide leadership or will be perceived as a role model. The leadership role applies not only in the Chamber or Committees but extends to the public lives of individual Members. It is, therefore, desirable that the principles that the Committee has embodied in the code of conduct are reflected in every aspect of a Member’s role.

5. The code of conduct states that the principles should apply to “Assembly duties", but Members should adhere to them in other political activity, business engagements and professional involvements, because Members have a role as legislators. Their legislative role is crucial to some of the Equality Commission’s engagements, because the legislation that the Assembly will enact has a real impact on public authorities, specifically on the Departments that will enforce it. Departments are designated public authorities with statutory duties on equality of opportunity and good relations, and there is, therefore, a direct linkage. Assembly Members also have a role as public persons, whose attitudes, positions, policies and utterances can be, and are, powerfully influential.

6. Individual Members also have a role as employers, and that should not be exempt from the overall deliberations. It is understandable that political opinion will inevitably be a consideration — and properly so — but elected representatives and political parties are not generally exempt from the law on employment contained in the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. Therefore, they have an opportunity to demonstrate openness and inclusiveness on all the grounds that are recognised by the legislation: age, disability, gender, religious belief, sexual orientation and marital status.

7. Chair, before I hand back to you, I have, if I may, two final points to make. I find the distinction between a Member as a Member of the Assembly and as a member of a political party, or of none, slightly problematical, because it is somewhat difficult to comprehend. It raises questions about its implications, which have real relevance in the context of the inclusion of equality and good relations in the principles of the code of conduct. As I should have said at the outset, the Equality Commission welcomes the code of conduct that is now under discussion, and which the Assembly proposes to adopt, because it is, in virtually every respect, a very good document.

8. My final point is that equality of opportunity and good relations are positive and dynamic concepts. They are not passive notions. It is not simply the avoidance of discriminatory practice. The obligation that is placed on public authorities — I know that the Assembly is not designated as such, nor are individual Members; however, the Assembly Commission is — to promote equality of opportunity and good relations is a very active responsibility. It is not completely or adequately embraced or captured by the provision in the code of conduct as it stands at the moment.

9. We are happy for this opportunity to make a presentation to the Committee. We welcome the fact that the code of conduct is being reviewed, that there is a process of engagement with a range of people and that there will be consultation. We specifically welcome the fact that the Committee has decided to move beyond the Nolan principles to encompass a range of other categories and considerations in setting out the fundamental principles of conduct at the beginning of the code.

10. The Chairperson: Thank you very much, Bob. Before we move on, I know that the Equality Commission is working with the Department of the Environment on a code of conduct for local government. Perhaps you could say a couple of words about that, and whether that has implications for the Assembly’s code of conduct.

11. Mr Collins: The Assembly’s code will certainly have implications for the local government code. Antoinette may want to say something about that.

12. Ms Antoinette McKeown (Equality Commission for Northern Ireland): The Equality Commission has been working with our colleagues in the Department of the Environment’s review of public administration implementation team. The issues that our chief commissioner has raised about the Assembly’s code of conduct will largely be similar for that code, but at a local level. Last year, the Equality Commission published a document on embedding equality and good relations at local government level. We found that, by and large, political and public leadership was critical in ensuring the confidence in, and accountability of, local politicians. Communication with the local electorate was also critical, particularly as we move to new institutions as a result of the review of public administration.

13. We also want public accountability, and information to the public on issues of integrity and public accountability, to be considered. We see collaboration through community planning partnerships as a real opportunity for politicians to demonstrate leadership qualities and engage with the local electorate. The issue of inclusion is also relevant, and that brings us back to the principles of equality, good relations and the participation of all people in community life.

14. Those are the types of principles that we want to see embodied in a code of conduct at local government level. The commission has published a statement on that, and we are happy to make it available to the Committee Clerk.

15. The Chairperson: Perhaps we will come back to that.

16. Rev Dr Robert Coulter: Thank you for coming today; your contribution will be useful to the Committee. You have already said that you are not terribly happy about an element of the code. In view of the vision stated by the Assembly Commission, are there any recommendations that you can make or any thoughts that you could give us on any changes, including additions or omissions, to the section of the code that deals with the principles of conduct?

17. Mr Collins: In general, the section on principles of conduct is good. We welcome the fact that it extends beyond the strict limits of the Nolan principles and embraces the additional concepts that have been included. There are, perhaps, two or three considerations that may be worth mentioning. The first is that the recital of the basic principle of equality of opportunity or good relations may be a little less ambitious than could be hazarded in this type of document; I will come back to that point.

18. The second point is that the wording of the section on equality seems to identify treating people with respect as the encapsulation of the full potential of equality of opportunity and non-discrimination. I think that that is less than adequate as a full expression of what equality of opportunity involves.

19. The third consideration is not so much about what is, or should be, included in the set of principles of conduct; rather, it is the extent to which it is possible to have linkage between the principles, on the one hand, and the mechanisms for giving effect to the code, on the other. I recognise that not every principle can be particularised as “do a, b and c and avoid x, y and z". However, there is no carry-over from equality and good relations into particular kinds of behaviour.

20. That links to the point that I made about the distinction between Members of the Assembly and members of a political party, or of none, or persons engaging in political discourse. It touches also on the admissibility of complaints, which are limited to complaints made in regard to “Assembly duties". There may be circumstances in which the Committee or the Assembly might find that a Member or Members were engaging in public utterances, writing publicly or otherwise representing themselves in a way that is manifestly at variance with the principles, but there does not seem to be a mechanism whereby a citizen can establish a linkage between those two by way of making a complaint. However, what is currently embodied in the set of principles is good.

21. Mr W Clarke: An issue raised in a previous complaint was a Member’s right to freedom of speech. One case had a high media profile: the witnesses may be aware of it. Similar complaints might arise in the future, when a Member voices his or her personal opinion, probably in connection with a race or gender issue, and it might be considered offensive.

22. What advice can the Equality Commission give the Committee in dealing with such cases? The particular case that I have in mind was divisive, even within the Committee.

23. Mr Collins: Anything that I say should not be taken as a commentary or a set of observations about any past incident.

24. Freedom of speech is fundamental. In a parliamentary assembly such as this, it is absolutely critical. That is why Members enjoy privilege, why there is absolute freedom in the Chamber and in Committees and why the code — quite properly — does not permit complaints to be made in relation to observations made in the Chamber. There are other mechanisms in the parliamentary process for dealing with that.

25. There is an undoubted responsibility on elected representatives to have regard to the fact that, whether they wish it so or not, their activities have consequences. That is true for us all. A social impact flows from comments or observations that Assembly Members make, whether inside or outside the Assembly. There is a point at which the graphs of freedom of speech and of responsibility intersect. We are all familiar with the cliché that no one has the freedom to shout “Fire!" in a crowded cinema when there is no fire because of the appalling consequences that can have.

26. People are entitled to hold views that are different from mine, and I am entitled to hold views that are different from other people’s. If we lose that freedom, we will have lost the capacity to engage in democratic dialogue.

27. Although freedom of belief is absolute and freedom to express that belief should be as open and as rich as possible, the Committee and the Assembly must consider how they should respond in circumstances in which, as I said earlier, a Member writes about, or otherwise expresses, views that are manifestly at variance with the principles of others.

28. It was not by accident that Parliament introduced a hate crime category that elicits accelerated penalties for sectarian, racist or homophobic remarks. That was done because sectarianism, racism and homophobia are difficulties in society, and the Police Service of Northern Ireland has clearly indicated the extent to which they are realities in this community.

29. There are ways — without being offensive or intimidatory, or which might be perceived to validate inappropriate behaviour — for us all to express our views and which leave freedom of expression untrammelled. That is a somewhat delicately worded way to say that, given the public nature of public representatives’ roles and the fact that they are elected, as well as having the power to move, encourage and rouse, they also have the power to incite people. A danger arises when the utterance of an opinion becomes, in effect, an incitement, and the Committee and the Assembly must find a manner in which to respond that does not diminish people’s right to freedom of speech. None of our rights is absolute, and every right bears a reciprocal responsibility. In this instance, the responsibility for someone exercising freedom of speech is to do so responsibly, sensitively and with regard to the impact of his or her words.

30. Therefore, it would not be proper for me to offer advice; however, based on your question, freedom of speech is a matter with which the Committee is properly engaging.

31. Mr Brolly: The matter of whether an elected Member, as a private individual, may express his or her opinions privately has exercised the Committee greatly. To what extent does an elected Member forfeit the right to freedom of speech, particularly considering that he or she is a person of influence and that a controversial, confrontational or offensive statement from him or her would have much more power than if it came from a member of the public? Obviously, that is something that we will come up against; there may be complaints about a Member’s press statements or interviews, and that Member might claim that he or she was speaking in a private capacity. I feel that a publicly elected person’s right to speak privately is limited by the fact that he or she is publicly elected.

32. Mr Collins: That is an age-old problem — I am not sure if anyone has found the right balance between having a public persona and being a private individual. There is also an age-old debate about personal belief and public policy and where they intersect. People who have a public position, for as long as they hold that position, are a little less free to exercise their right to be a private citizen. That does not mean that those people forego entirely their right to privacy or that there should be intrusion into their family lives; there must be a clear divide between holding public office and the right to a private family life.

33. As long as I am the chief commissioner of the Equality Commission, I feel unfree to express my personal views on any and all issues, because I do not think that I have that entitlement. It is likely that anything that I say — if anyone pays attention — will be linked to the Equality Commission. Therefore, a degree of discretion is necessary. In my past life in the neighbouring state, there were frequent occasions when I wanted to say many things in public, but I could not do so because I was obliged to be objective and impartial. The same is true for elected representatives. At the very least, there is an added duty of caution and responsibility because of the weight that their words will carry simply because they are elected representative. If Joe or Mary Bloggs say something on a street corner, less attention will be paid than if the same thing were said by an MLA. That is an inescapable fact of life.

34. People should not be precluded from expressing personal views, because that is what a parliamentary assembly is for. However, the notion that one can draw an absolute distinction between being a private citizen and not being one, such as sometimes being an MLA or sometimes being the chief commissioner of the Equality Commission, is more difficult and encapsulates two of the points that I made at the outset.

35. There is an absence of a mechanism for citizens to invoke a set of principles if they believe that a Member has substantially transcended the duties in the code of conduct, other than the specific provisions on registrable interest and propriety that are effectively covered, and the fact that complaints are exclusively linked to “in regard to Assembly duties." I do not know what that means. However, that does not mean that there is something wrong with the wording, but perhaps guidance or an explanatory memorandum might capture the meaning. Does the wording mean that a complaint will be accepted about anything said within the curtilage of the Assembly? Does it mean that a complaint must concern an incident when a Member was in his or her representative capacity? One is always a representative once elected by the people.

36. Therefore, it is worth reflecting on the extent to which citizens can engage with that aspect of the conduct, behaviour or performance of Members if its inclusion is meant to be similar to the section 75 duties on equality of opportunity and good relations. The section 75 duties have profound implications for every aspect of an individual’s public behaviour and performance and impinge on the lives of public authorities by covering every aspect of policy and every function.

37. Mr P Maskey: If a Member breaches the code of conduct but no action is taken, where does the Equality Commission fit in? As chief commissioner, what can you do to bring people back into line or warn them that they have breached the code?

38. Mr Collins: The commission does not have any capacity or entitlement with regard to any code pertaining to the Assembly. That is exclusively within the Assembly’s competence. In that respect, there are no specific powers vested in the Equality Commission other than the power to express an opinion in certain circumstances, which it is prepared to do and has done. The obligations of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 apply only to designated public authorities. By definition, as I have said, individual Assembly Members are not designated. The Assembly Commission is designated, but that is somewhat different. There may be elements of carry-over from one to the other in that respect, but I am afraid that if a Member of the Assembly behaves in a manner that is inconsistent with the code, the Equality Commission does not have a role; it has no statutory entitlement whatsoever.

39. Mr Hilditch: Bob, in many of your answers you have referred to section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. What is your view of the lack of a direct reference in the code to section 75?

40. Mr Collins: The Assembly is not a designated public authority; therefore, it is not inappropriate that section 75 is not specifically addressed. There is an argument that it might convey a misleading impression to readers, who might feel that they have access to the recourse that citizens are given under section 75 when, in fact, they do not have it because the Assembly is not designated. Without going on about it at great length, one of the ways to amplify the principles of equality and good relations would be to reflect a little more fully on the underlying purposes of section 75, the mechanisms that it embodies and the reasons for its existence. I do not think that it is inappropriate that there is no specific reference to section 75 in the code.

41. By way of a follow-up to that point, I will draw members’ attention to a drafting issue. For the sake of coherence, it might be better if the equality paragraph and good relations paragraph were placed consecutively. The paragraph on working relationships, which is internal and is to do with Members and staff, is interposed between those two paragraphs, and the code might read more coherently in linking the equality and good relations principles because of the extent to which they are linked in law.

42. The Chairperson: We can certainly take that suggestion on board.

43. Mr Bresland: The Committee is concerned about access to the code and the process of lodging a complaint. That may be particularly difficult for people whose first language is not English or for those with a disability. What advice would you offer the Committee to ensure that full access is available to people who wish, for example, to lodge a complaint?

44. Mr Collins: We are very familiar with that issue. It is a concern that we have at all times. The greatest source of concern for the Equality Commission is the people who do not avail themselves of our services — who do not come to us or complain to us. The concern is that they are not aware of their entitlements. Clearly, when the Assembly finally promulgates the code, there is a range of issues that can be addressed. The very fact that this process is taking place and that consultation is being undertaken is a positive thing in itself. However, we have to be realistic. The consultation process will not reach the entire population — that is the way of life.

45. It is highly desirable to promote publicly the fact that a code exists and that individual citizens have a right to make a complaint based on it. Doing so is good because it makes people aware of their entitlements. The fact that the Assembly has a code that is published and is available to the public, who can then make complaints based on it, is also good because it makes a clear statement about the seriousness with which the Assembly takes the responsibility of its Members.

46. All modern avenues of publicity should be used to advertise the existence of the code. That should include placing advertisements in newspapers — including local newspapers — television advertisements — which are costly but which reach people — and radio advertisements — which can have a particular impact. If those advertisements are done imaginatively, innovatively and cleverly, they can make people aware of their right to complain and can effectively present the Assembly as being positive, open and aware of equality issues.

47. By definition, documents of this nature will be framed in the kind of language that has to withstand legal scrutiny; therefore, an easy-to-read version of the code is desirable, a copy of which could be sent to every household in Northern Ireland. It is also desirable that the Assembly takes the initiative and makes the document available in a variety of languages. That should include not only the languages that have traditionally been spoken in Northern Ireland, but those that are increasingly spoken by new residents of Northern Ireland. By reaching out to new residents in that way, the Assembly may help them to feel better integrated into this community.

48. That would be a positive step and would follow on from the initial approach that was taken by the First Minister and deputy First Minister on the day after they assumed office, when a reception was held in this Building for representatives of the diverse communities that now live in Northern Ireland. There are several publications — from the Equality Commission, the Cabinet Office and from other organisations — about the issue of consulting with hard-to-reach groups. Those publications could be useful to the Assembly and to the Committee in order to help identify ways that such groups can be contacted.

49. One of the most significant points of contact that the Assembly has with the public is through its elected Members, who have daily contact with individual citizens in their constituencies, as have members of district councils. Combining the efforts of both groups of elected representatives could produce a significant level of awareness of the code. Promotional material informing people of the code could be distributed in places such as citizens advice bureaux, district council offices and post offices, for example.

50. If the code is to be meaningful, people must know that they have a right to complain. It is true that there is a risk that the Assembly will be burdened with a range of complaints that may not meet the criteria set out in the code, but that is a modest price to pay.

51. Mr Easton: Do you recommend any changes to the section relating to the principle of conduct?

52. Mr Collins: I have not come prepared with alternative wording that is hidden up my sleeve or in my pocket, but the principal change that I would recommend relates to the sections about equality and good relations, which are of particular concern to the Equality Commission because of its remit. Those sections could be more ambitious — that is the word that I used earlier — and a little more comprehensive without being made dramatically longer, because I recognise that the code must be crisp and readable. That may be something that we could engage with the secretariat about separately.

53. Also, there are ways in which the implications of those principles could be set out a little more clearly for a range of Assembly Members’ activities. As I said, Members are legislators, public people and employers. The last category is not an insignificant area, which is why I referred to it in my opening remarks. It is an important way to demonstrate the openness and inclusiveness of the entire Assembly and individual Members if those principles are reflected and if diversity and variety exist not only across the entire House but in its various elements — that is, the various political parties that constitute it.

54. That is the main point. The second, lesser point — as regards what is included in the principles of conduct — is how that can be linked to the practical guide to behaviour and citizens’ entitlement to complain. That brings us back to the provision on Assembly duties — what precisely it covers and, more importantly, what precisely it precludes.

55. Mr Brolly: To return to the vexed question of the private person versus the public person, should the limit about public utterances, by which someone could complain that he or she spoke as a private individual rather than as an elected representative, be defined? There is no mention of it except, as you said, a fleeting one under the heading “Respect" and, possibly, under “Equality" and “Promoting Good Relations". Because the question has arisen so often, I have a feeling that the principles should define how public representatives should conduct themselves privately, particularly if they make statements or references that could be construed as racist, sectarian or sexist, for example.

56. Mr Collins: There is an opportunity to reflect the fact that Members of a parliamentary assembly have several personae. As I said earlier, it is desirable to reflect the fact that they are legislators, public persons and, in some instances, employers. The intention of principles of conduct is that they govern all aspects of a Member’s presence. At the least, it is possible in the code to identify that one implication of that is that Members have regard to the extent by which the law permits or precludes certain types of public behaviour or utterances. I do not mean behaviour that touches on their individual lives — for example, that they should not rob their local shops. It would be desirable if people were reminded of that.

57. It would be entirely unacceptable and absolutely perceived to be unacceptable if someone were to make derogatory comments about people who have disabilities — for example, to say that too many disabled people live here. However, there is an apparent acceptance of utterances that relate to other categories of people whose rights are enshrined in legislation and against whom it is unlawful to discriminate. It would be equally unacceptable if Members were to make derogatory ageist remarks, for example. Ways can be found in which that can be reflected. It would be desirable if the fullness, completeness and roundedness of an Assembly Member’s life were more clearly captured in the code without in any way diminishing his or her right to freedom of speech.

58. The ultimate location of the freedom-of-speech entitlement is the Chamber, where absolute privilege attaches to what any Member says and where the only limit is the tolerance of the Speaker and the rules of procedure. That is wholly right. There should be a wider sense of responsibility because of the fundamental importance of parliamentary assemblies in democratic societies. I believe in parliamentary democracy, and I believe that that is how societies are more properly governed. The right of the public to elect and to remove from office is one of the most fundamental rights that can be contemplated.

59. The Assembly will assist in becoming more effectively regarded in the public, and to have a more powerful leadership role in this society, as it continues progressively to be embedded in the public life of Northern Ireland and in the way in which it presents itself.

60. I am not teaching granny to suck eggs, or, worse still, lecturing, but I think that the code is a very important document. It has real potential, and, if it is promoted and presented publicly, as was embodied in a previous question, it can have a real impact on how people perceive not only the Assembly but the entire area of public life in politics. At the moment, it is a convenient Aunt Sally at which people can throw anything they wish.

61. Rev Dr Robert Coulter: You mentioned the freedom on the Floor of the Assembly. We do not have the same freedom as Westminster — we have only partial freedom in our Assembly. We were reminded of that yesterday when an accusatory statement was made. In view of that, is the code strong enough in its declarations regarding that partial freedom?

62. Mr Collins: I am not a lawyer, and it has been a long time since I studied law. Inevitably, the code probably focuses most of its attention on the issue of financial relationships, as well as financial propriety and integrity in relation to financial or other interests that might be perceived to be in conflict with the discharge of duties as an elected representative, or as part of the promotion, passage or support of legislation. That is understandable, and it is right and proper. This is not the view of the Equality Commission, but I think that the privilege that is given to assemblies of this nature, or to national parliaments, is entirely proper and justifiable. In my view, the more comprehensive the privilege, the better, as it entitles elected representatives to do their parliamentary business.

63. The code is not deficient in the level of privilege that is enjoyed by Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. If that is recognised as the context within which this is situated, the code does what it is intended to do.

64. Mr W Clarke: If Members speak about their religious beliefs, or speak with a moral conscience, perhaps there should be a caveat in the code to cover times when Members are speaking as led by their faith rather than as elected Members. I am thinking of, for example, interviews or newspaper articles.

65. Mr Collins: There are few circumstances in which somebody should be precluded from expressing his or her faith. The right to freedom of belief is meaningless unless one has the right to express and practise that belief. The European Convention on Human Rights reflects that reality.

66. However, believing something to be so does not entitle one to exemption from the law, nor is it an entitlement to disregard the legal position of others. Less still does it give the right to use behaviour or language that might be perceived as incendiary or inciteful.

67. It is important that people can express clear views. As I said earlier, I do not have a right to hear only those views with which I agree — no one does, or there would be an end to democratic discussion. I do not have a right not to hear somebody who is trying to persuade me to change my view, because that is part and parcel of the exchange of ideas.

68. I do have a right not to be denied access to my lawful entitlement because of religious views that are held by someone else. That has been a fundamental principle since the late seventeenth century. That is what the developments that took place in 1688 were all about. Therefore, it would be perfectly proper — although not strictly necessary, given all the other legal provisions — for a code such as the code of conduct to recognise that people have individual values or beliefs, whether they are based on faith or not, and that Members, by virtue of being elected, do not forfeit their entitlement to hold personal beliefs. At the same time, the code should make the point that Members should be expected to adhere to certain principles, because the amended code says:

“Members shall observe the following principles."

69. There is no ambiguity about that. It is not a counsel of desirable behaviour; it is an imposition. It is important and desirable to say that that extends to a range of areas. The two concepts are compatible.

70. At the start of my remarks, I introduced the slight qualification of there being “few circumstances" in which people should be precluded from expressing beliefs, because some people, in some parts of the world, believe very strange things, which law and democracy in Northern Ireland would not permit. I have no difficulty with that. Cultures differ, and this is the culture in which we live.

71. There are very few faith-based positions that cannot be articulated clearly without being offensive or denigratory or, worse still, capable of inciting others to unlawful activity. All that it requires is attention and genuine regard for the validity of other people’s points of view and the inherent dignity of their humanity.

72. The Chairperson: Thank you very much, Bob. We have had a very good exchange. You have captured the dilemma for the Committee in trying to have as strong a code of conduct as possible in order to send out the clear message that this is the Assembly’s code and that it takes it very seriously. We want the public to have confidence in us.

73. However, it is how that message is expressed that is the issue. It is the dividing line between how a Member expresses his or her views within the law and gives leadership without giving offence. You have talked a lot about leadership, and leadership is important. However, there are grey areas. Our code of conduct deals with certain issues, and if those issues are outside our code, we will refer people further — either to the police or other bodies. Nevertheless, we are limited to some extent. It is a code — a guideline, a regulation — and much of it deals with membership and, as you said, finance.

74. However, we are trying to be positive, although you said earlier that the code was not sufficiently positive or a live document as regards good relations and equality. I know what you are saying, but that is our challenge.

75. Mr Collins: It is extremely difficult to write a code that is, on the one hand, a counsel of good behaviour, a set of legal obligations, a set of legal entitlements for citizens so that they can have recourse and, on the other hand, not represent the Committee as a Salem, or a thought-police group, that assigns a representative to the shoulder of every Member who will be with him or her at all times and will download that Member’s thoughts. One must draw the line somewhere. In general terms, the code navigates those waters fairly effectively.

76. The statement of principles is good, although it could be a little more ambitious in how it is worded, but not necessarily a great deal longer or embodying any more principles. It could probably be a little bit more effectively committed to the machinery.

77. How does one make a complaint or investigate a complaint about the absence of selflessness? One cannot. It is a counsel — a principle that should be observed. However, it is possible to give greater meaning to some of the elements that are embodied in the principles of conduct in the more substantive parts of the code without burdening individual Members or without making an impossible task for this Committee or any Committee, or for the Assembly itself.

78. Ms McKeown: The Chairperson asked earlier about the links between the Assembly’s code and the code of conduct at local government level, and what the chief commissioner said has particular importance at local government level.

79. The issues in the code should be reflected at a local level, and if you are setting the bar — for want of a better term — at a regional level, what we want to see at a local level can be better embodied. The fundamental difference between the code of conduct that the Committee is examining and the code of conduct at local level is that local councils are designated for the purposes of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and the new local councils will be designated, and leadership is absolutely critical. The Equality Commission is interested in a code of conduct at a local level because of the potential that it brings to embedding equality and good relations at a local level and because so much of our work is focused on providing advice on those issues to local councils.

80. As regards the context of new local councils, there will be new institutions and new boundaries that bring new demographics and buzz opportunities, but also recognise challenges and new communities without diminishing the importance and need to preserve the identity of the existing councils, and there will be new members to councils. We are looking not only for support for the effective implementation of section 75 but for proactive leadership in its implementation at local government level.

81. We commissioned independent research to inform the commission’s recently completed effectiveness review of section 75. The research found that advice provided by local government offices to council members with regard to the implementation of section 75 was often ignored. That concerned the commission. The chief commissioner said earlier that consequences and comments have an impact. Our citizens are still interested in the age-old concept of public good, and when decisions are taken contrary to advice on legislative requirements, that raises a question about the public good.

82. The commission is interested in how to balance majoritarianism while protecting the interests of minority groups, which will vary in different parts of Northern Ireland with the introduction of new electoral boundaries and local councils. Therefore, the overall public good is important in protecting minority groups.

83. The commission wants a recognition in the code of conduct that public-service provision in a local council area is for the good of everyone. All ratepayers who pay their rates should benefit equally from public-service provision. We want local council offices and community facilities to be good and harmonious places of employment as well as being welcoming places to ratepayers and local residents to visit and enjoy.

84. There are links between a code of conduct, the principles of promoting equality and good relations, and value for public money, because the code has to reflect policymaking and public-service provision for all citizens in a local council area. That is why it is critical that, recognising the challenges as laid out by Bob, a way is found to give more expression in the body of the code to the principles of equality and good relations. That would greatly support our work with the Department of the Environment’s review of public administration implementation team and local councils in developing opportunities that the formation of the new councils will bring.

85. The Chairperson: Thank you. Your presentation and responses have been very helpful. As you know, this is a consultation document, and we want to get it as right as possible. The Committee will reflect on your views and, I am sure, take some of them on board.

86. Mr Collins: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to appear before the Committee.

87. The Chairperson: I welcome Mr Tom Frawley, the Interim Commissioner for Standards, and Mr John MacQuarrie, the Deputy Ombudsman in the Northern Ireland Ombudsman’s Office. Our ‘Code of Conduct for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly’ and ‘Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members’ are of particular importance to the work that you carry out on the Committee’s behalf. Therefore, we have a particular interest in what you have to say. I understand that you are to make an opening statement. Witnesses representing the Equality Commission have just given evidence. Listening to them beforehand was a good idea. It was an interesting exchange, and it has probably raised the bar for us.

88. Mr Tom Frawley (Interim Commissioner for Standards): I hope that I will not do that. With your permission, Chairman, I will make my opening statement. Later in the consultation process, I may have the opportunity to formalise some of our comments. The Committee published its draft report only last month, and we wish to reflect on the detail and consider what was said during the consultation process. That will be important for us.

89. I thank the Committee for inviting me to give evidence on its ongoing work on revising the current code of conduct for Members of the Assembly, as set out in your publication ‘Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members’. My comments should be considered against the backdrop of the current arrangements, which have informed the Committee’s work since it was re-established in May 2007. I commend the Committee’s secretariat for its support and for the significant effort that they have invested in assisting the Committee to bring the draft proposals to their current stage of development.

90. The theme that underpins my comments is “ethical governance". My contribution has two distinct components. First, there will be a review of some of the principles that should underpin effective codes of ethical governance and, secondly, I will make observations on how effective codes can be developed and lived out. Taken together, they form a logical and holistic framework — an ethical-governance framework — for the Committee’s consideration.

91. The work that the Committee has undertaken on the development of the code of conduct is vital. However, ethics cannot be ring-fenced — they are not a set of mechanical, abstract rules to be wheeled out and applied to a particular circumstance. They should inform all the fundamental values that determine our professional and personal behaviour and our conduct. Ethics should be concerned with honesty, fairness, justice and respect for others. Fundamentally, those values should make us think about the impact of our behaviour on others and, by extension, on our reputation.

92. Ethical behaviour is also fundamentally about culture, capacity and competence to support the highest standards of conduct. That is vital in public life, where our central objective must be to secure and maintain the trust of the public, whom we all serve.

93. The Committee’s work in formulating a code of conduct is, therefore, not happening in a vacuum. The subject is receiving much attention in different fields across many jurisdictions and sectors, and thus is being applied across a wide spectrum of circumstance. For instance, common themes that receive attention in formulating codes of conduct can include employment, ethical management practices, data and information protection, and public communication and information, which encompasses issues such as access to information and transparency, conflicts of interest and environmental issues. The Committee’s work necessarily focuses on those themes and issues most relevant to considering and dealing with Members’ conduct.

94. That brings me to the second part of my presentation, which is on how effective codes can be developed and directly influence the way in which Members conduct the business of the Assembly. In the task of developing a code of conduct for Members, the Committee performs an absolutely essential public duty. That fact was brought home to me when reviewing research on this topic in advance of today’s meeting. I read papers from the Standards Board for England, wherein reference was made to the following quotation:

“at the heart of good local democracy is a bond of trust between communities and the people who represent them. High standards of conduct contribute to building an ethical organisation which can establish that bond of trust".

95. The Committee is the custodian of that bond of trust, and you, its members, should do all in your power to ensure that your work supports the Assembly and its reputation, the protection of which should be at the core of your work — whatever the outcome of your deliberations. To quote the poet Goethe:

“Things that matter most must never be at the mercy of things that matter least."

96. For the specific provision of how best to develop ethical codes of conduct, I commend to you the words of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD):

“Public service ethics are a prerequisite to, and underpin, public trust, and are a keystone of good governance."

97. As such, I suggest that you conduct your deliberations to develop not simply a code of conduct but an ethical-governance framework. The OECD also helpfully points out that the specifics of codes should:

“combine aspirational values and more detailed standards on how to put them into practice."

98. I commend the Committee’s efforts to separate the principles that underpin the code from the detailed arrangements. Following on from that observation, I suggest that the Committee adopt a middle-ground approach to structuring the code of conduct so that it is neither too brief nor too lengthy and legalistic. It is essential that the code be accessible to the public. Having reviewed research in that area, I suggest that a best-practice code would include: a specific statement of the Assembly’s core values; a more general statement of public-service standards; and substantive matters pertaining to code provisions. Furthermore, it should contain relevant information and resources, and details of how those can be accessed. The Committee’s draft proposals represent a significant step in that direction.

99. An effective code of conduct that operates in an ethical-governance framework should identify and express the Assembly’s values. Those values must feature prominently in the code, not simply be presented as a list. The code should explain the meaning of the values and reinforce their importance in the context of the Assembly and its work. Members, and the public whom they represent, need clear definitions of organisational values in order to be able to understand and apply them effectively. I look forward to discussing those matters with you in greater detail, because as Plato once remarked:

“For our discussion is about no ordinary matter, but on the right way to conduct our lives."

100. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to make those remarks this morning.

101. The Chairperson: Thank you very much, Tom. I welcome and value your opening statement. You have helped to illustrate to us, if we did not already know, the importance of the code and that we must send a message to the public that we take it seriously. We want it to be a code and guide for every Member — it is a relevant and live issue.

102. I was going to ask you about the role of the commissioner for standards, but I will leave that to the end. It would be better to move on to members’ questions and their responses to some of the challenges that you have set.

103. The Committee on Standards and Privileges deprecates the making of statements to the press by complainants while an inquiry is in progress. Publication or disclosure of evidence or correspondence to anyone other than the Interim Commissioner or Committee without the Committee’s agreement would be contempt of the House. A Member who engages is such activity is therefore liable to sanctions.

104. Mr Hilditch: Under paragraph 14 of “Volume 4: The Complaints Procedure", the Committee proposes that sanctions may be applied to a Member who lodges a complaint and subsequently discloses to the press, or makes public, any evidence before or during an inquiry. I accept that each case will be different, but what are your thoughts on sanctions, Tom?

105. Mr Frawley: The one thing that the Committee does not want is to become a referee in a game of political football, which is about people scoring points. Inevitably, when complaints are made, the opportunity arises to score points, so it is important that Members be constrained from discussing a complaint in public during an investigation. Constraints are not only appropriate but necessary, and the code process must not be allowed merely to provide an opportunity to score political points. If complaints were to become debates in the public arena, it would undermine the seriousness of the Committee’s business and the seriousness with which it takes breaches of the code.

106. Moreover, the person who stands accused of a serious allegation is entitled to due process and the opportunity to assemble, develop and deliver a defence before a judgement is made, rather than have the matter decided in the media or by the public before the facts have even been assembled. It is, therefore, important that such rules exist, and if rules exist, there must be some sanction for breaching them.

107. I consider it wholly inappropriate for an MLA or member of the public to announce to the media that he or she is to lodge a complaint or to discuss that complaint before it has been lodged. To some extent, if someone has prejudged an issue in that way, that should affect how, or whether, the complaint is considered.

108. Therefore, if the issue is about premature disclosure, one must consider the standing of the complaint in that circumstance. It is a difficult issue because the public interest continually, and rightly, pursues transparency and openness. A balance is to be found, but we want to avoid becoming a political football. We want to have an integrity to our process that respects not only the rights of the complainant but the rights of the people who have been complained of to offer a proper response to the complaint.

109. Mr W Clarke: Gentlemen, you are welcome. On occasions, the Committee has not accepted cases for investigation because they were based solely on media reports. In one instance, that caused a problem, because the accused party interpreted that as the Committee’s vindicating the Member. You are quite au fait with that case. Clarity is needed, so can you suggest a way forward?

110. Mr Frawley: It is hard to offer a definitive response. The first part of your question referred to media reports. On one occasion, I rejected a complaint because I felt that it was entirely based on media reports. That complaint has now been resubmitted with a great deal of supporting information. In such situations, I can tell the complainant that I am initially rejecting the complaint because it is based only on a media report, but that I am willing to reconsider and change my mind in the light of other information or evidence in support of that complaint.

111. Some media reports have significant public-interest issues attached to them, and those must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. My general principle, however, is that it is not good enough for someone to ask me in the afternoon to investigate a story that appeared in a newspaper that morning. However, an issue of substance may arise that must be tested and examined. Therefore, I reserve my position; I am not absolute in saying that I would never take on a case that was based on a media report. The nature and detail of that report is important.

112. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the issues that surround the terms “cleared" and “vindicated", because I feel a little frustrated sometimes. The use of those words is not simply a matter of semantics. In my view, a person who is the subject of a complaint can only be vindicated if the facts have been examined and the complaint against him or her is found to be without basis. That is the definition of vindication. A different issue arises when people feel that they have been vindicated, yet no investigation is initiated. That is a subjective view on their part; an investigatory body would not objectively regard that as vindication. I contend that that does not constitute vindication in the accepted sense of the word.

113. However, we live in a media-driven world, which looks for sound bites and headlines. The public do not have the time or the patience sometimes to take the time to examine in detail the balance of fine judgement, which may be contained in a carefully prepared investigative analysis. Nonetheless, it is important to remember that this Committee is the guardian of the integrity of the Assembly — a concept that I have raised before. The Committee works not only on behalf of Members but on behalf of the public. Therefore, the Committee cannot afford to bow to pressure to produce reports that fail to examine the complaint in detail, simply due to the fact that no one wants to take the time to read and digest detail because the presentation of that detail is inconvenient.

114. In some circumstances, there may a case for the Committee to engage the Assembly’s Information Office to prepare a communication strategy when a report is about to issue. Through that process, it is possible that the Committee could focus the media on matters that it considers salient to a proper understanding, because that is sometimes difficult to achieve. In other words, the process cannot all be one way. The Committee must also have an opportunity to state its position in the public arena. That judgement may have to be made on occasions, but a balance must be struck. We are a prisoner of the media’s appetite for headlines, and we must be able to respond to that reality, rather than hope that it will go away.

115. Rev Dr Robert Coulter: In its evidence session, the Equality Commission made a statement, which I will sum up as, “An elected representative is never not an elected representative." Will you explain your thinking on the code of conduct’s definitive statements, or lack of them, on the difference between private and public life?

116. Mr Frawley: I will prepare a book on that. [Laughter.]

117. That is a difficult question to answer. One’s private life must be protected. It has been suggested that people will no longer enter politics because it prevents them from having a private life; for instance, the behaviour of a public representative’s children or spouse becomes a matter of public scrutiny and debate. As individuals, Members have a right to a private life, and a line must be drawn — difficult though it may be.

118. Perhaps the Committee should offer some protection to an individual, by way of a judgement. Alternatively, the Committee might judge that a private-life defence is not acceptable. In any case, the Committee on Standards and Privileges must demonstrate that it sees a line beyond which it will judge in given circumstances. That is preferred to ruling that nothing is private — as is implicit in the statement attributed to the Equality Commission — because that is a difficult position to sustain.

119. If one recognises, as the law does, such issues as data protection and personal data, one will realise that, by implication, Members are as entitled to a private life and place as much as anyone else.

120. It is a more difficult arena for Members, but that is the world in which you live. It will be difficult to find people who are willing to participate and engage in politics unless they are offered them some level of protection when it comes to their private lives, because people will see it as a bridge too far and an area in which they will not want to be involved. That would be regrettable. It is a judgement that the Committee will have to exercise.

121. Mr Easton: Do you think that the Committee is brought into disrepute if, after discussion, it recommends that no further action be taken on a complaint, and a party ignores the decision and votes according to its designation rather than the facts? How can we get around that sort of situation’s arising? In fact, such a scenario has already happened in this Committee.

122. Mr Frawley: I am always reluctant to enter family arguments, so to speak, but the family metaphor is a good one for the work of the Committee. I know how difficult it is to transcend party politics and, if there is a higher cause, allude to that higher cause.

123. To return to my opening statement and a theme that, I hope, has been woven through my comments. The business of the Committee is to protect the Assembly’s integrity. Party politics will always be part of who you are and what you are expected to do on occasions. A representative from every party here will find him or herself in a particular situation, and the objective of the Committee must be to uphold the integrity and reputation of the institution. The judgement reached must always be about the reputation of the Assembly and the trust of the public. If one tries to focus on that and to recognise that the realistic circumstance will always have a party dimension to it, and even to acknowledge that in Committee discussions, that will happen over time. You will have to work at it, because the public eye is, and will be, on you.

124. Unfortunately, the public are rather cynical, and they will assume that they know how you achieved a particular result, how you voted, what you said and from where you are coming. The real challenge for the Committee will be, on occasion, to confound that public perception. It is up to each Committee member to bring such an approach to the table. Outcomes are difficult to predict; however, in difficult moments and when faced with really challenging decisions, rather than seek the right answer for his or her party, members must continue to strive to secure this institution’s integrity.

125. Mr Brolly: I was going to ask what is fundamentally the same question. Depending on which party a Member who is facing a complaint belongs to, if, in fact, it comes to a vote, the Committee’s decision-making ability will obviously fall apart if voting is done along party lines. Should we accept the outcome of that vote or simply note that we could not reach a decision?

126. Mr Frawley: Whether such an outcome should be the Committee’s decision would be for the Committee to decide. Someone from outside must not be able to say that a decision was clearly made along party lines and, therefore, the outcome is not to be accepted. You experience the discomfort of sitting on this Committee, and the wider membership of the Assembly may not fully understand the responsibility that is invested in the Committee.

127. I repeat that the Committee on Standards and Privileges represents the integrity, reputation and conscience of the institution, and central to that is the public’s trust that the Committee will act fairly and not be a prisoner of a political position. Ironically, there may be outcomes that are consistent with party wishes, and people may be cynical about that, but in such circumstances to thine own self be true.

128. I take some comfort from the fact that — I use this language advisedly — I am the Committee’s “instrument". Supported by Mr MacQuarrie, and to the best of my ability, I investigate as much of the available detail as I can find. I then organise and assemble that information into an analysis, which I submit to you. The Committee is free to say whether that is good enough or whether it likes what I have submitted to it — it is the Committee’s decision. As I intended to say in one of my asides to the secretariat, it is OK to publish such a decision as long as the public are reminded that my report is sitting alongside it. Having seen what Frawley said, and in the knowledge that the Committee — not me — is the ultimate authority, the public would then be able to consider whether the decision was right. Such levels of transparency provide balance and insight, and would prevent people from accusing members of acting along party lines. Committee members are individuals who must act collectively in the name of the Committee, and its decisions are its decisions for better or worse.

129. Mr Ross: Some of those questions were more about an internal dispute. I shall seek your opinion on the revised code. Therefore, to return to what you are here for today, is there anything in the revised code that might make your job easier or more difficult? Furthermore, is there anything that could have been included that would make your job easier?

130. Mr Frawley: The revised code is a huge step forward. It now includes helpful details and explanations. Eventually, the code will make things more complicated, because people will be able to consider the nuances that different parts of the code offer. In the past, the code was merely a general statement of principles; however, we are now getting detail, which, when applied and interpreted, will be helpful.

131. As I suggested earlier, it would probably be helpful to reconsider how the code is structured and organised. For example, it requires a crisp and effective introduction in order to map out the document and set it in context with other Assembly guidance.

132. Whatever happens in the Chamber itself is not a matter for this Committee to deal with but a matter for the Speaker. Equally, what happens in any other Committee is not a matter for this Committee but for the Chairperson of that Committee to deal with. Otherwise, this Committee ends up making judgments about how a Chairperson dealt with a particular issue in Committee, and that is not the intention of the code of conduct. Some clarification and delineation would certainly be helpful to us in those areas.

133. Another major issue will be that of employment of family members. There are opportunities for developing references in the code to that issue, perhaps by making it clear who is counted as a family member; for example, whether a daughter-in-law is a family member. It is very important that that issue be addressed, because it is in the public mind. It might be helpful were a Member’s declaration to include a statement about the qualifications and skills that a family member brings to a post. If someone has a degree in politics, a good secretarial background, or whatever it may be, that makes it clear that people have not been brought on board because they happen to be an MLA’s family members but because they have the relevant skills. Such expansion of detail would be helpful, because employment of family members will be a contentious issue when the report goes out to consultation. There are other issues, the detail of which I will go into at a later date, but, overall, the review of the code of conduct is a very helpful step forward.

134. Finally, I can tell Mr Ross that the Committee’s work on the code will never be complete. The Committee must sit down, probably annually, or at least every two years, and ask whether the system is working, based on the previous two years’ experience. Where should it be changed? Are new issues emerging? The nature of the public mind is that it changes, so there must be a response to that. There is never an end point, but the review of the code marks a significant step forward.

135. Rev Dr Robert Coulter: Will you provide some clarification on one point? You said that anything that happens in the House is the domain of the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, and that this Committee should not become involved. What happens if someone makes a statement in the House, which is recorded in Hansard, and someone from outside the Assembly brings a complaint to this Committee? How do we deal with that?

136. Mr Frawley: The nature of that statement, whether it was intentionally misleading and what the circumstances were would inform the decision. The Speaker and the Chairperson of this Committee should have a close working relationship, and a discussion should inform whether it is a matter with which the Speaker or the Committee should deal. On occasions, that would be a judgement that only those two key actors could make, because there is a very close relationship, set out in the Standing Orders, between the Speaker and the Chairperson of this Committee, and the Committee itself.

137. One further matter that is in this Committee’s bailiwick is a failure to declare an interest, in either the Chamber or a Committee; in other words, a breach of the Register of Members’ Interests would be a matter for this Committee. However, behaviour and conduct in Committees, or in the Chamber, is in the realm of the Speaker or the Committee Chairperson. Failure to declare an interest, however, is different. If there is an alleged misleading statement, that should be dealt with in a judgment made by the Chairperson of this Committee in discussion with the Speaker.

138. Mr Brolly: To return to the question of how decisions are arrived at in this Committee, there is no mention in the code of conduct of how this Committee should conduct itself. Would it be useful if, for example, reference were made to the possibility of Committee members taking decisions along party lines rather than on the merits, or otherwise, of the case? Should the code perhaps advise Committee members to leave their party hats outside the door?

139. Mr Frawley: It seems to me that there may be merit in an introductory paragraph in the code that describes the way in which this Committee should undertake its work, and how it aspires to undertake that work.

140. I do not think that someone can just say that a Committee member has made a decision on the back of his or her party’s view, or that he or she is wrong and is not to be believed. That will not work. The Committee is here to work collectively, but it should aspire to work on behalf of the Assembly and its Members. It should be aware that its clear responsibility is to maintain the integrity of the institution and, fundamentally, to underpin the trust that the public have in the way in which the institution undertakes its business. If it does not fulfil that role, that trust will be breached, and a fundamental pillar of the Assembly’s relationship with the public is undermined.

141. Mr W Clarke: Members may have occasion to defend a statement on the grounds of freedom of speech by saying that they were expressing a personal view, or a religious belief; that it was their faith that led them to make their statement; and that, because they were being guided by their faith, they were not breaking the code of conduct,. How should the Committee deal with such a situation in future? How do we protect vulnerable groups? How do we take the lead and show that we will take those issues seriously, and that there will be no loopholes for people to abuse?

142. Mr Frawley: I do not want to revisit complaints that we have dealt with before. However, I will simply say that it is important that people have the right to articulate their firmly held convictions, beliefs or faith — call it what you will. In dealing with the matter before, I asked whether it was better to have people who tell you what they believe and value than to have people who say, “Well, that is what I want you to think I believe, but I don’t actually believe that at all. In fact, I have a totally different view."

143. There is a difficult line to be drawn between people’s beliefs and how they express those beliefs within the law, to which everyone is subject. If people break the law by making racist comments, or by making comments about a person’s decisions, behaviour or responsibilities based on gender or sexual orientation, we must judge them in that way. However, if Members participate in a piece of publicity — as they are required to do often in the public eye — during which they are asked about their beliefs, it is important that they are able to articulate those beliefs. Otherwise, the democratic principle that underpins this democracy will be hugely at risk. That is not to be offensive, or to give offence, because that would be to take things to a different place, but it is important that each circumstance be judged on what was said, by whom it was said, where it was said, how it was said and to whom it was said. Then, any clarification or qualification that was put on the statement would give it proper consideration. To simply say “You can say this" or “You cannot say that" would be impossible to police.

144. Mr W Clarke: If a Member is being derogatory, or is regularly discriminating against a section of the community, what can we include in the code of conduct to help the Committee to deal with such behaviour?

145. Mr Frawley: I say again that there is clarity in the scope for dealing with public and private utterances. I would argue that one should look for a pattern or a trend, if that is the way to examine it, and one should also look at the context for the particular debate. However, it is impossible to put into a code the proviso that, for example, the fourth occasion on which a Member makes a certain statement should be regarded as a breach of the code. One cannot say that, on the first occasion, it is OK; on the second occasion, we can live with it; and, on the third occasion, we start to make an issue of it. With respect, Chairperson, we cannot deal with the world in that fashion. We must examine each circumstance against its context, how the situation arose and how things were said.

146. I know that Mr Clarke is pressing me to give a definitive answer, and I am trying to be as open-ended as I can. The new commissioner may provide more definitive answers. It is difficult to be definitive. Some people will be described to me as criminals, whereas others would describe them as heroes. Individuals’ different views and experiences impact on their perceptions. Therefore, we must constantly consider the context.

147. Mr Ross: I agree that employment of family members and employees’ qualifications are the major issues. You mentioned expanding the code to list Members’ employees’ qualifications. If a complaint were made that a particular Member employed his wife — who did not hold the relevant qualifications — as a researcher or secretary, how could you, practically, investigate that case? How can you determine the qualifications required for a job that is not based on academic qualifications but on people skills, initiative, and so on?

148. Mr Frawley: I spend my life examining complaints about employment and recruitment decisions. However, I accept that this situation is different, and I recommend applying some context in order to reassure the public. We could introduce availability criteria that stipulate a requirement to be available on a Friday night or a Sunday morning, and trust is a major factor. Qualifications are not just academic — availability, trust, relationships and commitment are important considerations.

149. I would not necessarily accept a complaint about an appointee’s lack of qualifications. The inclusion of detailed background would reassure the public that appointments are made on the basis of availability and quality of work, rather than because the appointee is a relative. The public are uncomfortable with the idea of appointing family members.

150. Members must be transparent and open in explaining that an appointment will not simply place money into a family kitty — as may be the public perception — but will facilitate the greatest level of representation and public interaction. That is not, technically, a qualification against which to judge people; rather, it is a means of support and clarification.

151. Mr John MacQuarrie (Northern Ireland Ombudsman’s Office): The code requires clarification. It will require Members to declare that they employ a close relative. The code is not designed as a complaints process for people who have not been appointed, and, therefore, it does not support complaints from rejected applicants who feel that they are better qualified than the appointee. The requirement to outline the reasons for appointment simply reinforces transparency and demonstrates the specific reasons for the appointment of family members, which might include weekend availability, and so on.

152. The code is not designed to facilitate complaints about an appointee’s lack of qualifications but to increase transparency by giving Members the opportunity to outline why they appoint a particular family member. The code is not intended as a means of judging a complaint. Furthermore, the Committee’s role is not to judge that type of complaint.

153. Mr Ross: I am concerned that people, instead of recognising that the intention is to increase transparency, will focus on that part of code, make their own judgements and then make complaints.

154. Mr Frawley: I accept that the code might increase the possibility of that happening. However, the public are currently very cynical and see the current appointments process as a “gravy train" that is being boarded by people who are related to Members. Therefore, a balance must be struck. The code might create other issues, and I am aware that people sometimes challenge transparency on the basis that it creates more possibilities for people to challenge issues. It is new territory and it will be difficult, because Members may feel uneasy or uncomfortable discussing the matter of appointing their staff.

155. That is why it is important that Members elaborate on the context of appointments, so that people can understand that the issue is not as straightforward as, for example, a Member employing his wife, because there may be a wider rationale for why that appointment works for a particular constituency or a particular office.

156. The Chairperson: Thank you very much, Tom and John. Obviously, your input to our consultation is particularly important, because, as a Committee, we respect and value your role, and, in particular, our relationship with you. That is why the Committee takes it on board when you emphasise the fact that the Assembly values what the Committee is trying to do, and the importance of our getting it as right as possible when we put the code and guide together. Sometimes we do not get things right in the Committee either, but the buck stops with us.

157. The problem is that there are grey areas and dividing lines, and one person’s grey area or dividing line might not be the same as someone else’s. It is difficult to leave the party political baggage at the door, but, at present, that is nowhere more important than with this Committee. It is a real challenge for us.

158. Mr Frawley: One image that I will leave with the Committee is that of auditors, who had always been described as the absolute nightmare of most public officials but are increasingly described as the “shield" rather than the “sword". That is quite a nice image for this Committee — to be regarded as a shield for the Assembly and its membership.

159. Offering real protection to individuals’ integrity is a position that the Committee must earn, as is a reputation for being fearless and being absolutely clear on what is right for the Assembly, the individual and the complainant. That is the difficult line that the Committee must traverse all the time. That reputation will come over time, because it is not realistic to put a group of people into a really challenging environment such as this and expect it all to work perfectly well. There will be lots of bends and twists in the road, but we must focus on aspirations and ambitions.

160. The Chairperson: It is not just about public confidence but about protecting and informing our Members so that we do our best by them.

161. Tom, I want to mention your role because, as you know, one of the main issues that the Committee must deal with is the appointment of a commissioner for standards. You know that it can be achieved, and the Committee has visited Scotland and has seen how the post operates in other places. The question of how the Committee does that — whether we delegate the responsibility to an office such as your own, or appoint someone on a contractual basis — is the next big item on our agenda after we deal with the code. Do you think that the code and the guide will have to be revisited, depending on the approach that the Committee takes?

162. Mr Frawley: I do not think that they will have to be revisited. I do not foresee a problem with a person’s fulfilling the role of commissioner for standards according to the detailed arrangements that are described in the code. I do not want this evidence session to become a job interview, Chairperson, if I can avoid it.

163. The Chairperson: I do not either; I am just throwing it out for discussion.

164. Mr Frawley: I could see you far enough away a lot of the time — to use that wonderful Irish phrase — when I sit out in the corridor waiting to be summoned.

165. It will be quite easy to appoint a person to the role of commissioner for standards, so many changes will not be needed in order to do that. The problem arises when there is a new beginning and the basis of the relationship must be re-established, but that is inevitable.

166. It is a different model here. You could have a commissioner à la Westminster or Cardiff; or, indeed, the Republic, which has its own arrangement. You have chosen this particular arrangement, which gives the Committee primacy. That is an arrangement with which some people are comfortable, and others not. Perhaps some people would like greater independence so that the separation, so to speak, of the roles could be seen. However, I do not see how that would impede the code or change it significantly.

167. Through the code, you have left me in no doubt that I am the Interim Commissioner for Standards. I counted the number of times that it refers to me, in case I was becoming complacent or thought that I was here for a longer term. I am beginning to feel like a football manager, to be quite honest. [Laughter.] Therefore, please do not give me your confidence or else I will go and resign.

168. The Chairperson: You are not the commissioner for standards. [Laughter.] Thank you very much, Tom and John. The Committee values and respects your input, and you have been extremely helpful.

169. I welcome Dr Henrietta Campbell, Mr Seamus Magee and Mr Michael Gallagher, who are representing the Electoral Commission for Northern Ireland. Much of our discussion will concern the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA), and the development of a code of conduct and a guide to the rules on the conduct of Members. Those are still works in progress, but I hope that the meeting will be informative.

170. Dr Henrietta Campbell (Electoral Commission for Northern Ireland): Thank you. We were glad to be invited to give evidence to the Committee. Alongside me are Seamus Magee, whom Committee members know, and Michael Gallagher from the Electoral Commission’s London office, whose presence I will explain in a couple of minutes.

171. We are delighted to answer some of the questions that the Committee has raised. As I have previously explained, we intend to provide a more detailed written submission to the Committee after 10 July. That is because the electoral commissioners will meet in July, when we will bring this topic to the table. Committee members will know that the Committee on Standards and Privileges at Westminster is also discussing this matter. From the Electoral Commission’s viewpoint, it is good that the two processes run in tandem to ensure that we do not say something to MLAs that contradicts what we say at Westminster.

172. Although the Committee’s brief is comprehensive, out interests are narrow due to our statutory responsibility, and we try to stick to those. As Committee members know, the Electoral Commission has regulatory functions that are dictated by PPERA, and it is our responsibility to fulfil those. Therefore, it is good to work with the Committee to examine how we can ensure that the process becomes easier for you and more responsive to the requirements of the Electoral Commission.

173. The Electoral Commission supports any mechanism that aims to break down the bureaucracy that tends to exist in mechanisms where there is dual reporting. We want to help to ease the burden on MLAs in reporting, and to work with you to ensure that we streamline that process. Having said that, the Electoral Commission must be absolutely satisfied that any reporting mechanism that is put in place meets the requirements of PPERA, because that legislation underpins those requirements, and the public will expect us to meet our responsibilities as a commission and as regulator. I know that MLAs will want to ensure that they do not fall foul of the legislation. Together, we will ensure that trust is central, and that the public can trust us.

174. We are happy to respond to any questions. Michael Gallagher is fully conversant with the discussions that are ongoing at Westminster. We are interested in those discussions, from your point of view and from ours, to ensure that they are co-ordinated and responsive to each other. Seamus Magee is conversant with all the detail, and I will rely on him to provide that.

175. The Chairperson: Thank you very much. We all know Seamus Magee — we have met him in various places over the past few years. Members are aware of the issues, so I will open the floor to questions.

176. Mr W Clarke: You are very welcome. The Committee has recommended that any gifts or hospitality received by a Member’s partner, dependant or children should be registered. Is that reflected in the Electoral Commission’s guidelines?

177. Mr Seamus Magee (Electoral Commission for Northern Ireland): No; that is not the case in our guidelines. The Electoral Commission’s register is concerned with regulated donees. In this case, that would be MLAs or other holders of elected office — so it would also cover councillors. The rules do not apply to partners, except in circumstances wherein, for example, someone’s partner was also an elected MLA. Therefore, the commission’s remit does not cover partners, but it does cover those who are elected to office.

178. Mr Hilditch: The dual mandate issue affects most Members who serve on this Committee. Will you explain the potential difficulties with dual mandates and the use of local government facilities?

179. Mr Magee: Under the provisions of PPERA, local councils in Northern Ireland are not permissible donors. Therefore, local councils cannot make donations to councillors. There are circumstances in which MLAs who are also councillors may wish to hold a surgery in a council-owned facility. In most circumstances, that would be permissible. However, if the amount charged for the hire of the facility is more than £200, it would not be permissible. The important point to remember is that if the hire of the facility costs more than £200, there is an issue. Therefore, if a councillor holds a surgery in a leisure centre, which is normally council owned, and the hire of that facility costs less than £200, it is not an issue in respect of PPERA. However, if the donation is more than £200, it would represent an impermissible donation.

180. In summary, if the code covers the issue of councillors and dual mandates, it is important that MLAs understand that donations from councils are impermissible, unless they amount to less than £200.

181. The Chairperson: We have discussed the matter of dual reporting with you, and we have been examining areas in which we can reduce replication when our code and your requirements cover the same ground. However, I know that you still have an issue regarding confidentiality, on which your position may differ from ours.

182. Mr Magee: When the legislation came into force in 2001, political parties and regulated donees in Northern Ireland were excluded. At that time, there were fears that people who donated to political parties could come under threat. However, in 2005, the Government signalled a change in policy. In 2007, further legislation introduced a semi-transparent regime, whereby from 1 November 2007 political parties and regulated donees provide the Electoral Commission with information on a confidential basis. That will be the case until 2010. After 2010, we anticipate that there will be full transparency.

183. Currently, political parties that receive donations in excess of £5,000 — or, to accounting units, in excess of £1,000 — will report that to us on a quarterly basis. In respect of regulated donees, the rules state that an MLA who receives a permissible donation in excess of £1,000 must report it to the Electoral Commission within 30 days. Therefore, in respect of the register that we hold, there are issues of confidentiality. However, it may be argued that, if MLAs are happy that the information held on the Register of Members’ Interests is publicly available, confidentiality is not an issue.

184. The Electoral Commission is unable to reveal any information that it receives from a regulated donee — that is, an MLA or a political party. However, we hope that the position will change after 2010, and the Commission’s policy is that full transparency is desirable to bring the position in Northern Ireland into line with that in the rest of the UK. We want to see that as soon as possible.

185. The Chairperson: This is a practical matter. If dual reporting continues for the foreseeable future, and MLAs must register interests both in the Register of Members’ Interests and with the Electoral Commission, is there a need to agree where responsibility lies when a Member fails to report information to the commission?

186. Mr Magee: Under the provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Electoral Commission is responsible for ensuring compliance with the law. It is a criminal offence for an MLA — that is, a regulated donee — not to provide the Commission with that information. It is important to point that out. We consider that a strong sanction.

187. We are working with the Government to bring about a range of sanctions so that we can address a range of different regulatory issues, instead of some of the sanctions being criminal offences. However, it is a criminal offence for regulated donees not to provide us with such information.

188. We understand that this Committee has its own way of dealing with a situation in which Members fail to make returns to the Register of Members’ Interests.

189. The Chairperson: For some Members who have been in politics for a long time and who have otherwise taken changes on board, there may still be some confusion about this matter, perhaps because they have not deliberately addressed it. However, we need to ensure that the categories are in agreement with the requirement. That is our bottom line.

190. Mr Magee: That is a good point. The Electoral Commission consults the Register of Members’ Interests. Although it is early days in the process, we have identified a few instances in which MLAs have reported information in the Register of Members’ Interests, but not to the Electoral Commission. That is not unsurprising, given that the requirement is new. There is a significant learning curve for MLAs. We have written twice to all MLAs to outline the position. However, any issues that have been flagged up to date have been quickly addressed.

191. Dr H Campbell: Seamus and I want to ensure that the Electoral Commission continues to work with MLAs and their advisors. MLAs must be fully conversant with the requirements of the legislation because, as Seamus pointed out, there are not many sanctions available. Rather than bringing criminal prosecutions, we would prefer to prevent such a situation arising in the first place.

192. Reporting needs to be comprehensive, even if the sums of money involved are relatively small. However, people have busy lives, and the administration of such reporting is difficult. We want to protect MLAs, but we also want to ensure that the Electoral Commission is a good regulator, and that it equips itself as the public would expect.

193. Mr Magee: It would be ideal if the Assembly’s code of conduct mirrored the detail of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That would go some way towards making single reporting to the Assembly sufficient. It would also ensure co-operation between MLAs and the Electoral Commission in transmitting that information.

194. We recognise that dual reporting is not in the interests of bureaucracy or MLAs themselves. However, the Electoral Commission’s legislation must be covered in the Assembly’s code of conduct. The current code goes a long way towards meeting that requirement. We could improve it further by highlighting the issues outlined in PPERA that should be included. Completion of that work would enable the implementation of the legislation necessary to end dual reporting. That would be a satisfactory conclusion.

195. The Chairperson: That is what we want from the Electoral Commission. We recognise that there is an overlap between the requirements of the Register of Members’ Interests and those of the Electoral Commission. We must consider the ways in which the Assembly’s code of conduct needs to be changed, and we must avoid confusion in making those changes. Any input from the Electoral Commission would be helpful.

196. Mr Magee: There are specific reporting requirements that should be contained in the Register of Members’ Interests, but are not. As I said, we can inform you of those requirements. Only a tweaking of the code of conduct is required. If the PPERA definitions are adopted in the code, it will have been a job well done.

197. Dr H Campbell: The anonymity of the semi-transparent mode of reporting — which Carmel mentioned — needs to be examined carefully. I hope that that broad system will help to increase MLAs’ confidence in reporting from whom they have received donations. That is the position of the Electoral Commission. If MLAs want to retain anonymity at Assembly level, some mechanism must be put in place to do that. However, the Electoral Commission must receive a full disclosure.

198. The Chairperson: We have proposed the retention of anonymity for the interim period because that is still the case with the Electoral Commission. However, we will no doubt receive responses on that matter.

199. Mr Magee: Category 4 of registerable interests relates to sponsorship and is contained in the Committee’s ‘Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members’. One option that could be considered is for information about donations received by the clerk to be retained confidentially in the Register of Members’ Interests, but transmitted to the Electoral Commission for regulatory purposes. On the other hand, MLAs might argue for full transparency. However, those are matters for the Committee and its consultees to discuss.

200. The Chairperson: Thank you very much for coming before the Committee. It has been good to see you. We look forward to receiving your detailed submission.

Appendix 3

Written Evidence

The Speaker

Response to Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

June 2008

At its meeting on 17 June, the Business Committee considered your Committee’s proposed revisions to the Code and Guide.

While agreeing that the revisions proposed in relation to the declaration of interests in committee proceedings do not directly impact on the operation of the Business Committee, no further comments on the revised Code and Guide were proposed.

The Business Committee appreciated its inclusion in the consultation process.

Ards Borough Council

Response to Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

June 2008

Thank you for your letter dated 13 May 2008 about the above.

The revised Code and Guide was considered at a recent meeting of the Council. The Council resolved to respond expressing the view that both should be based on the same principles as those applied in Parliament at Westminster.

I hope that this is of assistance to you.

Women’s Forum Northern Ireland

Response to Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

Women’s Forum Northern Ireland welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members.

Volume 1 Personal Conduct

It is the view of Women’s Forum that all matters pertaining to public life should be transparent and open. Consequently, we welcome expansion on the principles of public life that underpin adherence to the Code - Public Duty, Respect, Equality, Working Relationships and Promoting Community Relationships. It is essential that the public regain regard for, and confidence in, both Members and the Assembly itself. Their conduct will largely determine the public’s respect for them.

In addition, we recognize that Members should, by example and practice, promote equality of opportunity and not discriminate against any person on the grounds enshrined in Section 75. Members must be seen to serve the whole community and work for the benefit of the whole community.

Elected public representatives are accountable to the people of Northern Ireland. This necessitates a close scrutiny/audit of their conduct both inside and outside the Assembly. They must be prepared to accept this.

Question 1. Yes . We welcome the extension.

Question 2. Public Duty could become part of the over-arching title - ‘Personal Conduct and Public Duty’, since it embraces all the other principles of conduct.

Question 3. Yes. All must be itemised.

Volume 2 Purpose of the Code

Question 4. Yes

Question 5. Yes. We believe the duties as an elected Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly need to be defined. Thus there could be no ambiguity about what is expected of a Member nor confusion as to the nature of the role.

Question 6. Yes.

Question 7. In our view No. It is necessary to have detailed and comprehensive rules for the items on a job description since it cannot be assumed that each and every MLA will adhere to best practice unless formal rules are specified and binding.

Question 8. That would depend on the levels of maturity, understanding and even education of the respective Member. Again we stress the need for no ambiguity of language or understanding, together with the need for openness and transparency in all matters.

Question 9. Yes. More guidance is required to indicate what would be considered an acceptable level of compliance by a Member with the Interim Commissioner’s investigation. Unless response times are clearly specified compliance will at best be ad hoc and transitory.

Volume 3 The Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

Question 10. Where a Member has a registrable interest which has not at the time been registered , then that Member should not undertake any action, speech or proceeding of the Assembly to which the registration would be relevant, nor should they vote in such circumstances. The Member must not be given the discretion of whether it is appropriate to vote. This must be a specified rule.

Question 11. In our view a separate category on Clients should be maintained.

Question 12. Yes.

Question 13. We do not understand what title it refers to.

Question 14. No. The desired clarity is lacking.

Question 15. Without practical/inside knowledge we are not competent to make this judgement.

Question 16. Yes.

Question 17. Yes, providing the system is reliable and robust.

Question 18. Yes. Again transparency and openness are important.

Question 19. Gifts above 0.5% of salary should be registered in terms of the nature and source of the gift, together with the date it was received.

Question 20. Yes. How will gifts and benefits available to all Members of the Assembly be known if they need not be registered.

Question 21. They seem reasonable.

Question 22. A reasonable value BELOW which exemption occurs is 1% (not ABOVE as stated in the question).

Question 23. All gifts above 0.5% of salary should be registered.

Question 24. Yes.

Question 25. Yes.

Question 26. It appears so.

Question 27. In spite of the volatility of the stock market, all share holdings should be declared.

Question 28. Yes.

Question 29. Yes. All trusts should be registrable.

Question 30. We do not have the expertise to comment.

Question 31. Details of the role, salary and relationship of family members employed by MLAs must be provided. There has already been much adverse publicity over previous cases and the public demands and expects greater accountability for the use of public money. No family member should ever be employed to do nothing.

Question 32. Yes.

Question 33. There is no reasonable level. All payments to family members must be registered.

Question 34. Yes. For purposes of accountability.

Question 35. Yes. Consistent transparency and openness is important.

Question 36. The Complaints Procedure should be a distinct procedural guidance document, separate from the Code.

Question 37. We approve of the inclusion of admissibility criteria to provide greater clarity for potential complainants. Yes. They are sufficiently clear and reasonable.

The whole aspect of the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members is necessary because of the importance of openness, accountability and the public’s confidence in Members. It is also necessary to ensure that those employed by MLAs meet professional standards, have the necessary qualifications and meet the competencies of the specific post.

Women’s Forum Northern Ireland wishes to see best practice applied and is anxious to ensure value for money in terms of public service. We consider the proposed amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct will go a long way to create greater openness, accountability and transparency than hitherto.

In conclusion, Women’s Forum is anxious to know when the office of Interim Commissioner for Standards in Public Life will become a fully fledged Commissioner’s post. This would be appropriate and necessary now that a devolved Assembly is up and running.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Response to Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

July 2008

Thank you for your letter dated 13 May 2008 in which you invite the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments (SPPA) Committee to provide views on the Committee on Standards and Privilege’s recent review of its Code of Conduct.

The SPPA Committee was formed in September 2007 following the Parliament’s decision to merge the Procedures Committee with the Standards and Public Appointments Committee. Since that time the Committee has undertaken work in all three areas of its remit including a review of Section 8 of the Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament.

In considering your request for views the Committee agreed that it would be appropriate to focus any of its comments on its experiences of working with the Scottish Parliament’s Code of Conduct and, in particular, its current review of Section 8. The Committee hopes that its experiences may assist the NIA Standards and Privileges Committee with work on its Code of Conduct.

Section 8 of the Code of Conduct sets out the conduct expected of Members when working with members of the public, Members, Parliamentary staff, Ministers and other bodies. In undertaking its review of Section 8, the Committee noted that the language used in Section 8 sometimes lead to confusion as to the conduct which Members and the public might reasonably expect.

Written evidence to the Committee highlighted conflicting views as to whether Members should be held accountable for their level of service or quality of representation other than through the ballot box at a general election. Some evidence identified the difficulty for Members to determine what conduct was expected when the Code of Conduct referred a ‘general duty’ (such as to be accessible), especially given the very different ways in which such a duty could be interpreted by members of the public and by Members themselves.

In addition, the Committee noted that some of the language used also resulted in confusion as to whether the conduct referred to was a rule (and therefore a sanctionable obligation) or guidance (in which case it did not require to be observed although that may be recommended).

Although the Committee’s review of Section 8 is currently ongoing, the Committee’s intention is to strengthen the language used in Section 8 to ensure that Members and the public are clear about whether the conduct referred to is required while not unreasonably raising expectations about the action Members are obliged to take on behalf of their constituents.

In that regard I have attached links to the SPPA Committee’s evidence taking on its review of Section 8 which may assist the Standards and Privileges Committee with its deliberations.

Terms of the Section 8 review and written evidence:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/stanproc/inquiries/Section8Review.htm

Oral Evidence

Committee meeting: 26 February 2008
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/stanproc/or-08/stpr08-0301.htm

Committee Meeting: 18 March 2008
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/stanproc/or-08/stpr08-0501.htm

Northern Ireland Human
Rights Commission

Response to Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

May 2008

Further to our previous correspondence on the above consultation we are happy to provide a written comment on behalf of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Due to the tight deadline of 30 May 2008 and with receipt of your letter on 15 May 2008, it is unfortunate at this stage that extensive comment is not possible.

Therefore at this present time we only wish to draw attention to aspects of volume 1 (Personal Conduct) and volume 2 (Scope) due to a perceived contradiction between standards and scope. The public duty of Members to promote equality and good relations appears to be compromised by the wide scope granted to Members to be permitted exemption from these standards. The Member is exempt in the chamber, as a Minister and when expressing political views in their capacity as a member of a political party. This leads us to question: in what area of the Member’s public duty are they abiding by these standards?

It is noted that you referred to Codes of Practice in other jurisdictions which informed your research on ethical standards and conduct in public life but the Commission would also be interested in what considerations were made by the Committee in terms of equality and human rights assessments. Related to these assessments we would like to know which international human rights standards informed the Committee’s decision-making in formulating the ‘Scope’ of Member’s conduct as noted in volume 2 of the report. In this regard we would direct you to Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law"[1].

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Disability Action

Response to Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

29 July 2008

Introduction

Disability Action is a pioneering Northern Ireland charity working with and for people with disabilities. We work with our members to provide information, training, transport awareness programmes and representation for people regardless of their disability; whether that is physical, mental, sensory, hidden or learning disability.

More than one in five (300,000) people in Northern Ireland has a disability and over one quarter of all families here are directly affected by disability issues.

As a campaigning body, we work to bring about positive change to the social, economic and cultural life of people with disabilities and consequently our entire community. In pursuit of our aims we serve 45,000 people each year.

Our network of services is provided via our Headquarters in Belfast and in three regional offices in Carrickfergus, Derry and Dungannon.

Disability Action welcomes the opportunity to respond to this draft and to aid our response has put the relevant page/paragraph of the draft in brackets at the end of our comments.

Specific Commentary

1 In relation to its constituents Disability Action has no particular comments to make regarding this policy.

Disability Action recognises the time and effort that have gone into producing this document for consultation and thanks the Committee on Standards and Privileges for the opportunity to respond and looks forward to continued dialogue.

Northern Ireland Council
for Voluntary Action

Response to Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

August 2008

1.0 Background to NICVA

1.1 NICVA (the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action) is the umbrella body for the voluntary and community sector in Northern Ireland. It provides over 1,000 members with information, advice, training and support services on a wide range of issues, together with representation for the sector as a whole.

1.2 NICVA works to achieve progressive social change, based on equality and equity, working through a community development approach, to empower local communities to pursue their own needs and agendas.

2.0 Comments

2.1 NICVA welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation. Unfortunately, our comments will be brief due to only having become aware of the consultation close to its closing date. The good conduct of MLAs is vital, not only for a functioning and fair exercise of democratic practices, but to build confidence within the general public and to provide a model of behaviour in the public interest.

2.2 NICVA has had occasion to correspond with the Speaker of the Assembly within the past year when we felt that the conduct of MLAs was inappropriate and damaging to individuals and to the reputation of the Assembly. This occurred on 15 October 2007 when representatives of voluntary and community organisations were individually named and insulted in the chamber. Our letter pointed out:

“Voluntary and community organisations quite often take part in government sponsored or organised working groups. They bring the experience of their organisations to the working group and offer that experience to help government develop policy. The individuals representing the organisations represent the corporate view of that body rather than their own political point of view or, indeed, community background. For example, NICVA employs people from both the main communities in Northern Ireland and staff members undoubtedly vote for a whole range of political parties but when they represent NICVA, they represent the corporate view of the organisation, not their own opinion. The references to individuals and organisations during the debate on the Bill of Rights Forum may have an extremely detrimental effect on the involvement of individuals from civil society organisations in the future. Quite frankly many people would be reticent to become involved if they feel that they could be read out at the Assembly with comments made about them which may be accurate or inaccurate but to which they have no right of reply. The cut and thrust of politics may be fair for those in the Assembly working on a level playing field but it is unfair to treat nominees to government working groups or forums in such a cavalier fashion. This would if sustained have a detrimental impact on the engagement between civil society organisations and government."

2.3 No sanction or right of reply was available at that time and we would like to see the opportunity being taken now to further strengthen the Code of Conduct and related procedures so that this situation does not arise in future. We do not feel that the current draft provides solutions in this regard.

2.4 We welcome the addition of principles in Volume 1. Genuine adherence to, for example, the principle of equality, would preclude permission of the recent homophobic remarks made inside and outside the chamber. In order for principles such as this to be implemented meaningfully, there must be appropriate sanctions in place and these must be used. It is unacceptable for sectarian, homophobic, racist or other discriminatory remarks to be made publicly by those who not only set an example of what is acceptable in our society, but who also are responsible for upholding and implementing legislation which outlaws such discrimination. Claiming the parliamentary privilege currently extended to MLAs must be balanced with using privilege responsibly and where this is judged not to be the case, sanctions and redress must be available.

2.5 In Volume 2 we believe that public duty should form part of the code as the issues involved are not purely financial. We welcome the interim Commissioner but believe that this office should be independent and not subject to the decision of the committee, composed as it is of MLAs and colleagues of those who may be the focus of complaint.

2.6 In Volume 3 Q12 we believe it is reasonable to require members to register all public offices. Registration of overseas benefits and gifts, land, property and shareholdings should relate not just to partners, but also to Members’ dependent children. We believe it is reasonable to require MLAs to state if they employ family members of other MLAs.

2.7 We believe it is reasonable for non-financial interests such as ‘material benefit’ to a Member to come under the parameters of the Code.

2.8 The complaints procedure should be widely publicised so that there is broad awareness of its existence. Unfortunately the circumstances considered outside of this procedure, namely “Members expressing political views in their capacity as a member of a political party and conduct or comments made in the Chamber when the House is sitting" allow for a great deal of damage to be done to trust and confidence in the political institutions and potentially to individuals and to go without sanction. This offers no improvement in the situations noted above concerning personal attacks on individuals and homophobic remarks. We would urge further revision of the code to ensure that elected representatives are not ever in a position to abuse their respected office to legitimise or encourage violence or hatred in our community and that some form of redress is offered to organisations or members of the public when necessary.

Lesbian Line

Response to Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

August 2008

Lesbian Line works for and on behalf of Women from the LGBT Community in NI and has been involved in service delivery[2] to this Community since 1974 / (distinctly as ‘Lesbian Line’ since 1979).

The following is given to highlight some of the issues and to aid understanding / appreciation of the impact of what I have termed the ‘violence’ (and I stress violence) of ‘enforced invisibility’.

Lesbians and Bisexual Women suffer a ‘double discrimination’ in society i.e. gender and sexual orientation. The following summarises their experience of the ‘violence of enforced invisibility’ and homophobia in all aspects of their daily lives:

This review is as an opportunity to redress the inherent gaps and barriers in the MLA Code of Conduct through production of a comprehensive ‘Code’ ensuring the protection of People from our Community and indeed minorities generally.

In the current climate we have witnessed repeated attacks which have gone unsanctioned. It is vital that the public have confidence in those in public office; this can only be created – after such damaging and dangerous statements – by having standards of behaviour in keeping with public office and in the provision of enforceable sanctions when this is breached.

One of the main difficulties experienced by the LGBT Community has been the ‘verbal hate campaigns’ waged to date, by two MLAs one as a Junior Minister – with a remit to promote / protect equality and social inclusion and the other a Chair of the Assembly Health Committee. This has occurred in an environment which provides no effective redress. There is no sanction available to bring public representatives to account. Our Community has experienced / will continue to experience the adverse impacts of such irresponsible and injurious statements. In the 21st century it is unacceptable for such attacks on any Community to go unsanctioned and without public redress. We need to move towards a society where all are treated equally and seen to be treated equally as such.

We are pleased that all MLAs are reminded that they must not act ‘outside the law’.

Volume 1

The Principles of Conduct – Personal Conduct

The Principles of Conduct underpinning the Code need not only to cover ‘financial interests’ but should be expanded to include ‘unacceptable behaviour’ which is ‘incompatible’ with the office/s they hold.

We need a code of conduct which prevents a public representative (ab)using their position to – as many have perceived it - promote hate and discrimination. If this occurs then there needs to be effective levels of sanctions.

The ‘equality’ clause should be at the beginning of this section after ‘public duty’ and should include ‘equality of access, opportunity and outcome’… and as stated include all S.75 grounds.

Technically, the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2006 do not apply to the actions of MLAs within the Assembly, even in relation to discrimination in performance of public functions under reg 12. Reg 12(3)(d) exempts:

“(d) a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in the Assembly;"

Nonetheless, at a public meeting (organised by CoSO on 16 June 2008 and attended by Lesbian Line), in response to the first set of homophobic remarks by the MLA for Strangford, a senior executive in a community health organisation expressed the view that she could not be treated equitably in making representations to the Assembly Health Committee in light of the appalling homophobia of the MLA’s remarks. Although some attention has been given to gay men’s health in NI, virtually none has been given to the health of our lesbian citizens. How can this homophobic MLA preside over the Assembly’s Health Committee while holding such obnoxious homophobic views?

Lesbian Line in its submission to the CEDAW Committee earlier this year, refers to the Yogyakarta Principles which set out in ‘international covenant template’ those principles necessary to ensure equality and human rights protections for People from the LGBT Community. We also note aspects of Yogyakarta Principle 25 (‘The Right to participate in public life’). In particular YP25.A, referring to “the full enjoyment of the right to participate in public and political life and affairs", concludes on the basis this full enjoyment should be “without discrimination on the basis of, and with full respect for, each person’s sexual orientation and gender identity" (emphasis added).

So also YP25.B provides: - “Take all appropriate measures to eliminate stereotypes and prejudices regarding sexual orientation and gender identity that prevent or restrict participation in public life;"

Hence, participation in public life can be adversely affected by pejorative and humiliating remarks made by those already in public office. Although this may broaden the scope of these provisions, it is implicit in YP 25, and more generally, that all citizens should be governed without discrimination and with full respect for their citizenship. We do not necessarily envisage disturbing the proposed clauses above but consideration should be given to a general provision based on YP25.A and B."

The example given above is but one example of how LGBTs are inhibited from, and indeed harassed out of, participation in public life, contrary to the Yogyakarta Principles but also the principles which ought to underpin this Code of Conduct. We therefore insist that our public representatives are held accountable for grossly homophobic remarks, as they ought to be also for sexist, racist, sectarian remarks or remarks which demean our disabled citizens. It is essential that they should not hold the Chairs of Assembly Committees.

We also make the point that “functions in connection with proceedings in the Assembly" does not cover the employment and promotion of Assembly staff. Indeed ‘Working Relationships’ with Assembly staff is specifically referred to in the Consultation Document.

In our view, it is essential, as a vital element of the Assembly’s Equal Opportunities Policy, that MLAs who make homophobic (or other discriminatory) remarks are debarred from any involvement in any employment-related decisions or any decisions in relation to the Assembly’s equality scheme.

The ‘respect’ clause should be after the equality clause and should be extended to include ‘respect for all including members of the public’. In light of the Yogyakarta Principles, we consider that respect for all citizens, respective of their sexual orientation and gender identity, is a fundamental human right reflected in international human rights law. Public representatives should not be permitted to abuse public office through statements which are ‘in conflict’ with their office/s. They are in office/s to serve all people not some.

Volume 2

Purpose of the Code

Lesbian Line agrees with amendments in red in this section – though believes there should be a ‘read across’ / ‘overlap’ with the ministerial code in carrying out duties and functions as a public representative (either as MLA or MP).

We support the amendments in ‘public duty’.

We believe in ‘rules of the code of conduct’ it is necessary to revert back to ‘shall’ and not ‘should’ where amended in red.

Volume 3

Guide to the rules relating to the Conduct of Members

Time pressures prevent us responding to this section in detail.

Volume 4

Procedures for Complaints

Under ‘Sanctions’ at paragraph 30, it is vital that this is expanded to include ‘declaration of unsuitability to serve’ – it may be the case that public representatives are deemed ‘unfit for public life’ and as such there should be an ‘ultimate sanction’ which can be enforced if / when necessary.

Enforcement mechanisms need to be clearly stated and understood.

The right for the public to be kept informed should also be clearly stated and understood.

It is imperative that this opportunity to create / strengthen public confidence in our elected representatives is taken to redress the inherent gaps and difficulties already identified. As N. Ireland moves forward in the 21st century we should seek to create a society where all are valued / treated equally and where the human rights of all People are protected.

Appendix

Lesbian Line

Lesbian Line has been in operation since 1974 – as part of the CaraFriend Organisation (distinctly ‘Lesbian Line’ since 1979) in Northern Ireland. During that time we have been involved in Service delivery for / by / to Women who identify as Lesbian and Bisexual across N. Ireland (and indeed further afield). This service delivery has involved the following:

All of this frontline service delivery has been / is carried out by Volunteer Workers – Lesbian and Bisexual Women - (since 1974) from a diverse range of backgrounds and professions.

Parliamentary Standards
Commission in Scotland

Response to Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

I am happy to respond to the consultation with this written evidence. As Parliamentary Standards Commissioner in Scotland, it would not be appropriate for me to comment in exhaustive detail on the proposed changes or indeed to promote at length ways of doing things in the Scottish Parliament. However my experience may allow comment of some usefulness on selected aspects of the proposals.

Division into 4 volumes. I note the intention here, but I am not sure that it is sufficiently clearly expressed in practice. Which parts are mandatory, breach of which could lead to sanctions? Presumably the answer is volumes 2 and 3, but this needs to be spelled out. The status of volume 1 appears unclear. It begins: “Members shall observe the following principles…." This conveys an obligation to comply. If the principles are simply underpinning and aspirational, this should be made clearer.

Vol. 1, Q3: Is there a need to refer specifically to legislation in the paragraph on “Equality"? I think not. There is already an exhortation to uphold the law under “Public Duty".

Vol.2: “Public duty" appears in similar terms in volume 1 and volume 2, and the first two paragraphs of “Rules of the Code of Conduct" are also repetitive of material in volume 1. This further confuses the difference in status of the two volumes.

Vol. 2, Scope of the Code: I think this is clearly and appropriately set out.

Vol. 2: I noted no provision here for ensuring that the privacy of constituents should be protected by Members (save in extenuating circumstances such as prevention of imminent serious crime).

Vol. 2, Q9: Is more guidance required to indicate what would be considered an acceptable level of compliance by a Member with the Interim Commissioner’s investigation? It would be difficult in practice to define an appropriate level of compliance. It would not be necessary if the Commissioner was given independent statutory powers, as in Scotland, to compel evidence and the attendance of witnesses (see below).

Vol. 3, para. 11. There seems to be an omission here in saying who is to provide the advice and guidance.

Vol. 3, Q17: Should there be a single point for the registration of interests rather than the current need for dual reporting? Yes, this would help to avoid confusion and any feeling of tedious repetition. A vehicle exists for this aim in relation to Westminster, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament in an amendment to section 59 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006, added in the House of Lords on 7 June 2006. The solution is to remove the requirement to report under Schedule 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA) to the Electoral Commission, while maintaining the requirement to register in parliamentary registers. The amendment is not yet implemented; it is awaiting suitable convergence between the requirements of the Electoral Commission and the relevant parliamentary/assembly registers. In the House of Lords debate, Baroness Ashton of Upholland explained the amendment in these terms:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 61, line 5, leave out “member of the House of Commons" and insert “holder of a relevant elective office unless he is not a member of a registered party and is either—

(a) a member of the Scottish Parliament, or

(b) a member of a local authority in Scotland."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 to 18 inclusive. Perhaps I may start by explaining the reasoning behind this group of amendments. As noble Lords will be aware, the regulatory regime established by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 followed from the recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the then Neill committee, in 1998. Schedule 7 to that Act sets out, among many other things, the requirement that holders of elective office should report the donations they have received to the Electoral Commission, which will then publish them. That has the effect that MPs, MEPs, Members of devolved Administrations and local councillors throughout the United Kingdom have to report donations to both the Electoral Commission and the relevant Register of Members’ Interests of the body of which they are a Member.

Transparency and accountability on the funding of holders of relevant offices are of crucial importance. Reporting donations that holders of elected office receive and publishing them are valuable and important activities, and we should do nothing to diminish that. However, many holders of these electoral offices take the view that such duplication is unnecessary. It can lead to confusion, and unintentional errors can sometimes be made in the reporting of donations.

This group of amendments follows from amendments tabled in another place that applied only to MPs which received widespread support from all parts of another place. Those amendments became Clause 58 and removed the need for duplication in reporting from MPs only. When that clause was tabled, the Government gave a commitment to resolve to work with the devolved authorities on a solution to remove the requirement for all holders of elective office to report donations to the Electoral Commission. We have been successful, and I am pleased to present this group of amendments, as I promised we would.

These amendments remove the requirement of dual reporting for MPs, MEPs, Welsh Assembly Members, Welsh and English local councillors, Members of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local councillors who are members of a political party. They mean that holders of any relevant elected office would not have to report any donations received to the Electoral Commission, whether the donations were received in their role as a relevant elected officer or in their role as

7 Jun 2006 : Column 1299

a member of a registered political party. However, the Electoral Commission will still be obliged to record any such details it receives from the relevant Registers of Members’ Interests. The commission will also continue to monitor compliance with the regulatory system set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. However, it would have no role to play regarding the non-reporting of donations. The Register of Members’ Interests of the body that Members belong to will retain its functions on that issue.

The provision will commence only once the Electoral Commission is content that the relevant authorities have in place sufficient arrangements to ensure that it is still able to maintain an accurate register. This amendment seems to us to strike the right balance between, on the one hand, requiring transparency in the donations made to holders of elective office and, on the other hand, removing the bureaucratic duplication of reporting requirements.

I should add that the amendments I present today are supported by the Electoral Commission as well as by other relevant bodies including the Scottish Executive and the Standards Board for England. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to."

Vol. 3, Q18: Should donations made to Members of the Assembly in relation to leadership elections within their political parties be registered? Having just dealt with a complaint in Scotland where this was the central issue, I would suggest yes. I received legal advice, which our Standards Committee subsequently accepted in the context of the complaint, that such donations are to considered gifts (within the terms of our legislation) irrespective of whether or not the donations are within the direct ownership or control of the Member, for example even if put into a campaign account to which the member is not a signatory, as the Member still has a beneficial interest in them.

It would avoid doubt to require clearly that such donations should be registered and to state that this does not depend on them being paid directly to the Member. I also think that the category of “Electoral Support and Political Donations" is sensible.

Vol. 3, “The Rule". I am not sure of the reason for the change in terminology from “paid advocacy" to “lobbying for reward or consideration". To my mind, advocacy seems a more extensive concept than lobbying and better fitted to what is described.

Vol. 4, Procedure - Independence of Commissioner. I believe that public confidence in the robustness and impartiality of the process for dealing with conduct complaints will be greater the more the independence of the Commissioner from the Assembly and from the Committee can be strengthened (in relation to dealing with individual complaints). The Standards Committee of the Scottish Parliament took such a view in its 4th Report 2000 (Models of Investigation of Complaints). It concluded:

“… the Committee agreed to recommend the appointment of a Standards Commissioner with a view to maximising public confidence in the Parliament’s commitment to maintaining the highest levels of probity in conducting its affairs. The critical factor in the Committee’s decision was the degree of independence which a Commissioner could apply to the investigation of complaints about the conduct of MSPs."

The Committee then went on in its 2nd Report 2001, “Proposal for a Standards Commissioner Committee Bill" to set out the framework for a statutory post of Commissioner. It argued that:

“Whilst the Committee could have recommended the appointment of a Standards Officer without the need for enabling legislation, the Committee felt that the post holder’s reliance on the Committee’s own powers to summon witnesses and compel evidence could impact adversely on the perceived independence of the post. In contrast, a Standards Commissioner appointed under an Act of the Scottish Parliament would have specific statutory powers to summon witnesses and to compel the production of evidence, thus enhancing the credibility of the post. The Bill will therefore provide the Commissioner with the powers to summon witnesses and order the production of documentary evidence."

Short of creating the statutory powers discussed above, the Commissioner could be made more independent by being the recipient of complaints, rather than the Committee, and having the final decision on the admissibility of complaints.

Vol. 4, para. 27. Given the potential significance for the Member of a finding of a breach of the Code, should it not be routine for a Member who is the subject of a complaint to see and be able to comment on a draft of the Commissioner’s report before it goes to the Committee?

Vol. 4, Rectification Procedure. I am interested in this provision, which we do not have in Scotland. On the one hand one could see that it might sensibly avoid use of a weighty procedure for a minor failure to comply with the rules. On the other hand, one might be concerned that its availability might encourage a lax attitude to compliance with the rules. Comparison of experience over a period of time might help to inform which system is more effective.

Help the Aged

Response to Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

June 2008

Further to your recent consultation request, I regret to inform you that we are currently unable to respond to the request. As a result of the increased number of consultation requests we receive. We now assess all requests against a number of criteria central to the charities key objectives. Unfortunately, your consultation request has not been prioritised at this time.

We would be grateful if you would keep Help the Aged on your consultation database as future requests may receive a different prioritisation.

I look forward to working with you in the future and have registered interest to receive future consultation.

The Electoral Commission

Response to Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

1. The Electoral Commission welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Committee on Standards and Privileges review of the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members. The opportunity afforded to the Commission to outline our initial thoughts on the review at an evidence gathering session on 4 June 2008 was helpful. At the end of this session we agreed to submit a written response to the Committee in advance of the consultation deadline of 4 August.

2. We understand the scope of the Committee’s consultation extends beyond our specific interest in the review of the Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules relating to the Code of Conduct of Members as an opportunity to simplify reporting requirements for Members of the Assembly. In responding to the review we have focused on the Categories of Registerable Interests and have addressed, where appropriate, specific questions related to these. We acknowledge the work that the Committee on Standards and Privileges has undertaken to date in addressing the statutory reporting requirements for regulated donees outlined in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA).

3. The Commission is currently in discussions with the Ministry of Justice in Great Britain on the changes we think are necessary before section 59 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 (EAA), which provides for an end to dual reporting requirements concerning donations, can be commenced.

4. The Commission intends to continue working with other legislatures in Great Britain to streamline the reporting requirements of their members in respect of permissible donations and other regulated transactions such as loans and credit facilities. However, this has to be done in a way that will preserve compliance with the statutory regulatory requirements on the information reportable to the Commission.

5. We recognise that the statutory arrangements for the reporting of donations and loans in Northern Ireland differ from those in other parts of the UK, due to the transitional confidentiality requirements that are in place until 2010. If the information supplied to the Assembly Registrar is to be published an anomaly will exist where although the information is publicly available the Commission will still need to maintain our register confidentially. Given this situation, it may be an appropriate time to seek the views of the Northern Ireland Office. We note that the Commission and the Committee will need to consider further how best to arrange the reporting requirements so that they comply with the law while providing as much transparency as possible in the circumstances.

6. Before addressing the questions in the draft Code it is important to set out the background in which the Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland operates as the regulator of party and election finance.

Background

7. PPERA established a new regulatory framework designed to bring greater openness and transparency to the financial activities of political parties, candidates and holders of elective office (regulated donees) in the UK. The Electoral Commission is responsible for regulating party and election finance in the UK. Since 2001 all political parties in Great Britain have had to report donations over a prescribed threshold to the Commission on a quarterly basis and details of these are published on the Commission’s website.

8. When PPERA was introduced parties and regulated donees in Northern Ireland were exempt from controls on donations. This was because of concerns that donors could be at personal risk if their details were made known publicly. This exemption lasted until 1 November 2007 when the government introduced a new donations regime in Northern Ireland. Unlike in Great Britain, information on Northern Ireland donations is held by the Commission on a confidential basis. The current scheme will run until 2010 when it is anticipated that a fully transparent system will be introduced in line with that operating elsewhere in the UK.

9. The Electoral Administration Act 2006 (EAA) amended PPERA to require parties in Great Britain to report loans over a prescribed threshold to the Electoral Commission from 11 September 2006. From 1 July 2008 similar provisions were extended to Northern Ireland. As with donations, information submitted on Northern Ireland loans is held on a confidential basis by the Commission. The Commission has produced detailed Guidance for political parties and regulated donees in respect of donations and loans. This can be downloaded from the Commission’s website: www.electoralcommission.org.uk

Comments on the draft Code

10 The consultation on the draft Code covers a range of issues relating to the conduct of MLAs. As mentioned above we have limited our response to those questions relating directly to our statutory role as the regulator of party and election finance. In particular, the Commission supports enabling holders of elective office to report through a single reporting mechanism, rather than the overlapping requirements that presently exist. There are, however some outstanding issues to be resolved to ensure that regulatory control is maintained. We anticipate that any necessary legislative changes will be resolved with the Ministry of Justice shortly.

Category 4 – electoral support and political donations

11. Q13. Does this title (Electoral Support and Political Donations) adequately reflect the registration requirements of the category?

The Commission is satisfied with the proposed heading of ‘Electoral Support and Political Donations’. It avoids any potential confusion with the definition of ‘Sponsorship’ in PPERA which has a particular meaning relating to the following:

12. Q14. Does the guidance provide clarity on what the member needs to register?

The scope of the guidance under category 4 adequately covers the requirements for donation reporting under PPERA and helpfully includes the same financial thresholds. The guidance to the Code, however, would benefit from including some further detail on the way that regulated donees are required to treat donations and loans. This is summarised in response to Question 17 below and the information required by the Commission is outlined in Annex A of this response.

13. Q15. Are the levels of financial and material support required for registration set at an appropriate level? If not what level would be appropriate and why?

We welcome the fact that the reporting levels outlined in the draft Code are compatible with those set out in PPERA. MLAs can accept donations over £200 from a number of UK and Irish sources; full details are available on the Commission’s website. However, we note that impermissible or unidentifiable donations[3] to MLAs over £200 must continue to be reported to the Commission, directly as section 59 of the EAA does not extend to provide a single point of reporting for impermissible or unidentifiable donations (required under paragraph 11 of schedule 7 of PPERA).

14. Q16. Should a Member have to register the use of council maintained rooms for scheduled constituency surgeries?

Local authorities in Great Britain and local councils in Northern Ireland are not permissible donors under PPERA. Therefore elected members cannot accept benefits in kind above £200 from these sources. In the case of the use of a council-maintained room for surgeries, this threshold would apply to each individual room booking, rather than to a series of bookings over a period of time. The Commission’s view is that the cost of using a council-maintained room in the UK for a routine surgery is generally unlikely to exceed this threshold.

While the Commission recognises that this practice in Northern Ireland is not widespread, MLAs would need to be reminded that they should not accept any use of council premises which would amount to a donation in kind of more than £200 per booking.

15. Q17. Should there be a single point for the registration of interests rather than the current need for dual reporting?

PPERA places a requirement on holders of certain elective office to report donations and loans to the Electoral Commission. In addition, holders of certain elective office, including the Northern Ireland Assembly, are required to report donations to the relevant register of members’ interests for the body to which they are elected. As a result MLAs are required to report to two separate authorities. The Commission is in favour of reducing, where possible, the requirement for dual reporting. However, it is important that any move towards a single point of reporting does not undermine effective regulation. In order to achieve this, acceptable arrangements will need to be in place to ensure that the Commission continues to receive the information required under PPERA. Annex A outlines the information required by the Commission.

The Commission supports, where possible, the removal of duplicate reporting requirements in order to improve good regulatory practice for holders of elective office. However, we note that it is important for the Commission to have effective sanctions available to ensure regulatory compliance. We are particularly concerned with donations to elective members in their capacity as members of registered parties (e.g. those standing for internal party leadership positions). We are currently involved in discussions with the Ministry of Justice and the House of Commons Authorities as how best this can be achieved at Westminster and will keep the Committee informed of developments in the near future.

16. Q18. Donations to individuals taking part in party leadership contests at a national level have come under public scrutiny. Should donations made to Members of the Assembly in relation to leadership contests within their political parties be registered?

MLAs may receive donations in respect of contesting party leadership elections. While this may not be as significant an issue in Northern Ireland as elsewhere, given the size and structure of political parties, consideration should nevertheless be given as to whether the Assembly needs to record such donations. The amendments made to PPERA by the EAA make clear that such donations must be reported to the Commission. We will explore with the Committee how this can best be achieved.

17. The Committee also seeks comment on the following:

Within the PPERA legislation the definition of reportable donations is tied in with the idea of ‘political activities’. The Electoral Commission has generally interpreted this phrase broadly to encompass party political as well as governmental and legislative activity. The Committee seek comment on whether the requirement to report donations received by an MLA ‘in support of his or her role’ as an MLA is analogous to the PPERA definition of ‘political activities’.

Confusion may arise, should MLAs have to consider different definitions. For consistency the Assembly may wish to consider using the definition of political activity under PPERA. Paragraph 1(4) of schedule 7 PPERA states that political activities of a party member or (as the case may be) of a members association include, in particular—

(a) promoting or procuring the election of any person to any position in, or to any committee of, the party in question;

(b) promoting or procuring the selection of any person as the party’s candidate for election to a relevant elective office; and

(c) promoting or developing policies with a view to their adoption by the party;

and in the application of paragraph (a) or (b) to a party member the reference to any person includes that member.

Proposed category 5 – gifts, benefits and hospitality (UK)

18. Q19. What is a reasonable level above which a gift/benefit/hospitality to a member should be registered?

Under PPERA, all permissible donations to an MLA with a value exceeding £1,000 must be reported to the Commission. Gifts and benefits relating to an MLA’s political activities are also considered as controlled donations and reportable under PPERA, should they exceed £1,000 in value or, in the case of members associations, £5,000.

19. Q20. Are the exemptions referred to in (a) – (c) reasonable?

Paragraph 41 of the draft Code sets out the following exemptions to the reporting of gifts, benefits and hospitality:

(a) gifts and benefits known to be available to all Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly need not be registered

(b) a Member need not register attendance at a conference or a site visit within the UK or the Republic of Ireland where the organiser meets reasonable travel costs and subsistence only; and

(c) hospitality provided by the UK government, any of the devolved institutions in the UK, the government of the Republic of Ireland, the Member’s local council or Non-Departmental Public Bodies is exempt from Registration

Under PPERA the exemptions from (a) to (c) do not apply. This means that if a donation in one of these categories is valued at over £200 it needs to be from a permissible source. Gifts or benefits available to all MLAs, or visits and hospitality in the United Kingdom, also need to be reported to the Electoral Commission if they exceed £1,000 in value or, in the case of members associations, £5,000. The Commission suggests that in order for Category 5 to fully reflect the reporting requirements under PPERA the exemptions outlined in (a) – (c) be removed.

Proposed category 6 - overseas visits

20. Before addressing the specific questions posed by the consultation on the draft Code, it may be helpful to set out the reporting requirements under PPERA for overseas visits. In circumstances where a donation arises from an overseas visit, the Commission requires the following information:

PPERA recognises that a regulated donee, as part of his or her responsibilities, may undertake overseas visits. The costs of such visits can be met by an individual or organisation based outside the UK. A donation provided to a regulated donee to meet the cost of an overseas visit is regarded as a donation from a permissible donor if it is made to meet ‘qualifying costs’ (i.e. travel, accommodation or subsistence costs) incurred during a visit made in connection with the regulated donee’s political activities. The legislation specifies that any donation to meet the cost of an overseas visit should only be treated as a donation from a permissible source to the extent that it does not exceed a reasonable amount in respect of such costs. In the Commission’s view, a reasonable amount would not significantly exceed the likely cost of the visit.

In circumstances where the cost of a visit is met by a host organisation or an individual, a regulated donee should calculate the notional value of the trip, based on the equivalent commercial travel and accommodation costs. In line with the reporting requirements for permissible donations, a donation to meet the cost of an overseas visit should be reported to the Commission if it exceeds £1,000. Where there is no readily available commercial equivalent, the regulated donee should provide a statement to this effect, together with confirmation that they consider the value of the visit was likely to be in excess of £1,000.

21. Q.21: Are the exemptions reasonable? Should any other categories be included on this list?

Paragraph 45 of the draft Code lists those categories of overseas visits the Committee considers exempt from registration. Most of the exemptions listed under category 6 are consistent with those considered exempt by the Electoral Commission, with the exception of visits as part of an Industry and Parliamentary Trust fellowship or Northern Ireland Assembly Business Trust. In the interests of aligning reporting, we ask that donations in this category be reportable.

The Commission considers that overseas visits paid for on behalf of the Assembly authorities, or through inter-parliamentary reciprocal arrangements, or undertaken for an organisation established by Treaty, are considered part of an MLAs obligations as a member of the Assembly, and are therefore not reportable. In circumstances where these criteria are not met, the visit is reportable under PPERA if its value exceeds £1,000.

It should be noted that some inconsistencies may arise in relation to reporting requirements over ‘publicly funded’ trips. For example, overseas visits provided by an organisation such as the British Council are not undertaken as an obligation as an MLA and are reportable under PPERA.

22. Question 22: In relation to the last paragraph of this category what is a reasonable value above which visits may be considered exempt i.e. in terms of percentage of Member’s current Assembly salary or set value?

As stated above, overseas visits in excess of £1,000 are reportable under PPERA. Any threshold equal to or below this value would satisfy the Commission’s reporting requirements. In the interests of consistency the Assembly may wish to set the same value for categories 5, 6 and 7.

Loans

23. The provisions in the EAA for the reporting of regulated transactions (loans and credit) by regulated donees to the Commission, commenced in Northern Ireland on 1 July 2008. There are no provisions in the Register of Members’ Interests to report loans to the Assembly. The Committee will need to establish a separate category for loans or include them within one of the other categories. Paragraph 16 of schedule 7A, established in the EAA, reflects provisions in section 59 for regulated transactions.

Annex A

Reporting of donations

From 1 November 2007, MLAs were required to report to the Commission all donations for political purposes as a member of a party or as office holder of over £1000 (taking account of aggregation of other benefits over £200 received from the same source that year). Reports must be delivered within 30 days of acceptance of the donation.

In order for the requirement for dual reporting to be lifted, the Assembly would have to record the following information in Register of Members’ Interests.

The report must:

Reporting of loans

Since 1 July 2008, MLAs have been required to prepare a report to the Commission of all loans (including credit facilities and guarantees/giving of security) entered into for political purposes as a member of a party or as office holder, which are over £1,000 (taking account of aggregation of other benefits over £200 received from the same source that year). Reports must be delivered within 30 days of entering into the transaction.

In order for the requirement for dual reporting to be lifted, the Assembly would have to record the following information in Register of Members’ Interests.

The report must:

The Electoral Commission

Additional written submission to Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members.

3 June 2009

Thank you for your letter of 2 April attaching a draft of the Assembly’s new Code of Conduct. At our meeting on the 12 March we discussed, amongst other issues, implications arising from the Political Parties and Elections (PPE) Bill which is currently before the House of Lords. You may wish to consider the points below before finalising the Code.

Category 4 – Electoral Support and Political Donations

The PPE Bill proposes an increase in the level at which donations may only be accepted from permissible sources from £200 to £500 and an increase in the reporting threshold for individual regulated donees (including Assembly Members) from £1,000 to £1,500. Earlier this year the House of Commons agreed to revise its Rules in accordance with the report from its Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 208). This included scope to update the Rules to match thresholds, where these were based on those in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (such as category 4 – ‘Sponsorship’). Although the commencement date for any changes to thresholds in the Bill is not yet known as they are to be prescribed, it is our understanding that the House of Commons will update its Rules with the new Bill thresholds, when commenced.

Paragraph 35 of the draft Code makes reference to a £200 threshold. As stated above, under the legislation, currently before Parliament, individual regulated donees such as Assembly Members will be able to accept hospitality from impermissible sources, including councils, up to the value of £500.

Category 5- Gifts, benefits and hospitality (UK)

The exemptions listed under paragraph 41 (depending on value as mentioned in paragraph 40) would not be exempt from reporting to the Commission. For this reason the House of Commons removed these exemptions from its exemption list.

Paragraph 42 states that, gifts and material benefits do not have to be registered if they do not relate to membership of the Assembly. Members, as regulated donees, are required to report to the Commission donations received in relation to their political activities, which relates to them as a member of a registered party and as a holder of elective office. Donations for political activities may therefore fall beyond Assembly membership and need to be reported to the Commission.

In order to avoid confusion to Members it would be helpful to insert text which explains that Members are required to report to the Electoral Commission certain gifts, benefits and hospitality which are received in their capacity as a member of a party or holder of elective office (other than the Assembly).

Category 7- Overseas benefits and gifts

Under the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA) with the exception of certain permissible donors in the Republic of Ireland regulated donees may not accept gifts and benefits from sources outside the UK if they exceed the threshold of £200 (proposed to increase to £500 in the PPE Bill). You may wish to consider making reference to legal requirements relating to the value of what may be accepted from overseas sources under this category.

Awareness raising

We are keen to contribute to any awareness raising sessions which the Committee carry out. This would be a useful way of reinforcing Members’ awareness of their responsibilities under PPERA as well as to the Assembly.

If you would like to discuss any of the issues listed above, or would like additional information, please feel free to contact me or Roisin.

Coalition on Sexual Orientation

Response to Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

August 2008

CoSO – as ‘Umbrella’ Organisation for Groups and Organisations from the LGBT Community in NI – sees this review as an opportunity to redress the inherent gaps and barriers in the MLA Code of Conduct through production of a comprehensive ‘Code’ ensuring the protection of People from our Community and indeed minorities generally.

In the current climate we have witnessed repeated attacks which have gone unsanctioned. It is vital that the public have confidence in those in public office; this can only be created – after such damaging and dangerous statements – by having standards of behaviour in keeping with public office and in the provision of enforceable sanctions when this is breached.

One of the main difficulties experienced by the LGBT Community has been the ‘verbal hate campaigns’ waged to date, by two MLAs one as a Junior Minister – with a remit to promote / protect equality and social inclusion and the other a Chair of the Assembly Health Committee. This has occurred in an environment which provides no effective redress. There is no sanction available to bring public representatives to account. Our Community has experienced / will continue to experience the adverse impacts of such irresponsible and injurious statements. In the 21st century it is unacceptable for such attacks on any Community to go unsanctioned and without public redress. We need to move towards a society where all are treated equally and seen to be treated equally as such.

We are pleased that all MLAs are reminded that they must not act ‘outside the law’.

Volume 1

The Principles of Conduct – Personal Conduct

The Principles of Conduct underpinning the Code need not only to cover ‘financial interests’ but should be expanded to include ‘unacceptable behaviour’ which is ‘incompatible’ with the office/s they hold.

We need a code of conduct which prevents a public representative (ab)using their position to – as many have perceived it - promote hate and discrimination. If this occurs then there needs to be effective levels of sanctions.

The ‘equality’ clause should be at the beginning of this section after ‘public duty’ and should include ‘equality of access, opportunity and outcome’… and as stated include all S.75 grounds.

Technically, the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2006 do not apply to the actions of MLAs within the Assembly, even in relation to discrimination in performance of public functions under reg 12. Reg 12(3)(d) exempts:

“(d) a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in the Assembly;"

Nonetheless, at a public meeting organised by CoSO on 16 June 2008, in response to the first set of homophobic remarks by the MLA for Strangford, a senior executive in a community health organisation expressed the view that she could not be treated equitably in making representations to the Assembly Health Committee in light of the appalling homophobia of the MLA’s remarks. Although some attention has been given to gay men’s health in NI, virtually none has been given to the health of our lesbian citizens. How can this homophobic MLA preside over the Assembly’s Health Committee while holding such obnoxious homophobic views?

Although also relevant to the ‘Respect’ principle below, we feel that this is an appropriate opportunity to quote from our 2007 submissions to the Bill of Rights Forum. CoSO stated the following:-

6.1 Democratic rights

1.1.1 Voting and candidacy rights

CoSO originally chose [in 2001] not to comment upon these proposals. However, while the rights of LGBT people have expanded in the past 6 years, so also have public attacks on the equal status of LGBT people as citizens increased.[4] There is, for example, controversy over pledges which local councillors should be required to give upon assuming public office.

We note aspects of Yogyakarta Principle 25 (‘The Right to participate in public life’). In particular YP25.A, referring to “the full enjoyment of the right to participate in public and political life and affairs", concludes on the basis this full enjoyment should be “without discrimination on the basis of, and with full respect for, each person’s sexual orientation and gender identity" (emphasis added).

So also YP25.B provides: - “Take all appropriate measures to eliminate stereotypes and prejudices regarding sexual orientation and gender identity that prevent or restrict participation in public life;"

Hence, participation in public life can be adversely affected by pejorative and humiliating remarks made by those already in public office. Although this may broaden the scope of these provisions, it is implicit in YP 25, and more generally, that all citizens should be governed without discrimination and with full respect for their citizenship. We do not necessarily envisage disturbing the proposed clauses above but consideration should be given to a general provision based on YP25.A and B."

The example given above is but one example of how LGBTs are inhibited from, and indeed harassed out of, participation in public life, contrary to the Yogyakarta Principles but also the principles which ought to underpin this Code of Conduct. We therefore insist that our public representatives are held accountably for grossly homophobic remarks, as they ought to be also for sexist, racist, sectarian remarks or remarks which demean our disabled citizens. It is essential that they should not hold the Chairs of Assembly Committees.

We also make the point that “functions in connection with proceedings in the Assembly" does not cover the employment and promotion of Assembly staff. Indeed ‘Working Relationships’ with Assembly staff is specifically referred to in the Consultation Document.

In our view, it is essential, as a vital element of the Assembly’s Equal Opportunities Policy, that MLAs which make homophobic (or other discriminatory) remarks are debarred from any involvement in any employment-related decisions or any decisions in relation to the Assembly’s equality scheme.

The ‘respect’ clause should be after the equality clause and should be extended to include ‘respect for all including members of the public’. In light of the Yogyakarta Principles, we consider that respect for all citizens, respective of their sexual orientation and gender identity, is a fundamental human right reflected in international human rights law. Public representatives should not be permitted to abuse public office through statements which are ‘in conflict’ with their office/s. They are in office/s to serve all people not some.

Volume 2

Purpose of the Code

CoSO agrees with amendments in red in this section – though believes there should be a ‘read across’ / ‘overlap’ with the ministerial code in carrying out duties and functions as a public representative (either as MLA or MP).

We support the amendments in ‘public duty’.

We believe in ‘rules of the code of conduct’ it is necessary to revert back to ‘shall’ and not ‘should’ where amended in red.

Volume 3

Guide to the rules relating to the Conduct of Members

Time pressures prevent us responding to this section in detail.

Volume 4

Procedures for Complaints

Under ‘Sanctions’ at paragraph 30, it is vital that this is expanded to include ‘declaration of unsuitability to serve’ – it may be the case that public representatives are deemed ‘unfit for public life’ and as such there should be an ‘ultimate sanction’ which can be enforced if / when necessary.

Enforcement mechanisms need to be clearly stated and understood.

The right for the public to be kept informed should also be clearly stated and understood.

It is imperative that this opportunity to create / strengthen public confidence in our elected representatives is taken to redress the inherent gaps and difficulties already identified. As N. Ireland moves forward in the 21st century we should seek to create a society where all are valued / treated equally and where the human rights of all are protected.

Committee on the
Administration of Justice (CAJ)

Response to Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

Thank you for inviting the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) to respond to the above-named consultation, and apologies for the slightly delayed reply.

In general, CAJ welcomes this review of the Code of Conduct and the emphasis it places on the need for propriety, particularly in relation to financial matters, from MLAs. However, we are disappointed that the review chose to focus in most detail on this particular issue, rather than taking the opportunity to expand the code of conduct and its enforcement mechanisms in a more general sense. We feel this would have been especially pertinent given some of the comments made by MLAs and Ministers in recent times both in and outside the Assembly Chamber.

As one of the organisations whose staff and members were named in the debate about the Bill of Rights Forum on 15th October 2007, CAJ wrote to the Speaker to express our concern at the lack of any effective remedy to those who had been “named and shamed" (see copies of correspondence attached for convenience). We were pleased with the efforts made by the Speaker’s Office to address some of the concerns raised by ourselves and others, and particularly his subsequent statement to the Assembly reminding members that that the protection of parliamentary privilege “comes with responsibility" and encouraging members to “remember their responsibilities when speaking in the Chamber."

While we understand that this current review was initiated prior to that incident, we would have hoped that some of the issues raised as a result of that debate might have been considered by the Committee as part of the review? We further understand that the issues also fall partly under the remit of the Committee on Procedures, and that in response to a request from the Speaker they have conducted some research into the right to reply and advance notice to those named in parliamentary debates. However, it appears that the rights of those subjected to potentially disparaging or defamatory remarks are no further advanced despite the work of both Committees.

We understand that the right to freedom of speech under parliamentary privilege is an extremely important right, and one that should not be undermined. However, few rights are absolute, and in particular with the exercise of rights comes a responsibility to respect the rights of others.

We welcome the addition to the Principles of Conduct of the standard of respect which states that individuals should not be “subjected to unreasonable and excessive personal attack." However, we would respectfully suggest that - given the current absence of any effective mechanism of redress for those subjected to such attack - that this should form part of the Rules of the Code of Conduct rather than a Principle, given that the complaints and investigation system appears to us to apply only to breaches of the Rules of the Code. Indeed, we would suggest that since there is no remedy for personal attack of any nature, the standard should be higher and the words unreasonable or excessive removed.

In the absence of effective mechanisms of redress within the Code of Conduct, an alternative would be the provision of a right to reply or advance notice to those named in Assembly proceedings, and as noted above we understand that this issue falls within the remit of the Committee on Procedures. However, it seems to us that there is obvious overlap in this regard, and we would not want to see this issue “fall between two stools" as it were. We would therefore encourage the Committee to discuss the issue further with the Committee on Procedures to ensure that the rights of everyone are respected and the high standards and responsibilities that come with public office are observed.

We hope you find these comments helpful and we are happy to answer any further queries you might have.

Letter from Committee on the administration of Justice (CAJ) to The Speaker


Letter from The Speaker to the Committee on the Administration of Justice


Letter from Committee on the Administration of Justice to The Speaker

Children’s Law Centre

Response to Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

August 2008

Introduction

The Children’s Law Centre is an independent charitable organisation established in September 1997 which works towards a society where all children can participate, are valued, have their rights respected and guaranteed without discrimination and every child can achieve their full potential.

We offer training and research on children’s rights, we make submissions on law, policy and practice affecting children and young people and we run an advice/ information/ representation service. We employ a full-time mental health solicitor and child and adolescent mental health services are one of the organisations’ main priorities for action. We have a dedicated free phone advice line for children and young people and their parents called CHALKY and a youth advisory group called Youth@clc.

Our organisation is founded on the principles enshrined in The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, in particular:

From its perspective as an organisation, which works closely with Government, with and on behalf of children, the Children’s Law Centre is grateful for the opportunity to make this submission to the Committee on Standards and Privileges’ Review of the Assembly’s Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members.

Consultation

We welcome the publication of this review of the Assembly’s Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members by the Committee on Standards and Privileges. We believe that it is absolutely fundamental to upholding the standards of public office that all Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly are governed by a stringent enforceable Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members to ensure that they act at all times with the integrity the position of MLA demands and that they do not compromise the integrity of, or public confidence in, the Northern Ireland Assembly. While we welcome the opportunity to provide comment on the review of the Assembly’s Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members we wish to express our concern at the fact that part of the consultation period fell over the summer months. While we appreciate the extended time frame for responses we feel that not all respondents who wished to make a response to this consultation exercise may have been able to do so, particularly given time term working arrangements and staff leave commitments etc.

General Comments

It is with great disappointment that we note the failure of the Assembly’s Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members to extend to the conduct and behaviour of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly beyond matters solely of financial concern. While we appreciate the importance of stringent rules which govern the conduct of MLA’s with regard to their financial interests, there have been a number of instances over the last year which we believe have brought the Assembly into disrepute which will not be prevented from reoccurring as a result of the application of the revised Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members. We perceive this failure as a fundamental omission and strongly urge the Committee on Standards and Privileges to further revise the Code and Guide to ensure that if a Member of the Assembly acts unacceptably and in a manner which is not reflective of the standards of the public office which they hold that they can and will be held to account and subject to enforceable sanctions.

On the 15th October 2007, a number of NGO’s and individuals, including the Children’s Law Centre itself, was the victim of slanderous, untrue, damaging and dangerous statements made on the floor of the Assembly by MLA’s. By virtue of section 50 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Parliamentary Privilege conferred on Members of the Assembly when making a statement in the proceedings of the Assembly, prevented the Centre and others from recourse to effective redress of any kind. CLC, an organisation which has and continues to work tirelessly to ensure the protection, promotion and realisation of the rights of all children in Northern Ireland, is concerned that such attacks on civil society organisations will silence and intimidate some NGOs from legitimate engagement with the body politic. Should the Code and Rules continue to fail to provide sanctions for dealing with Members of the Assembly when they abuse both the processes and privilege which exists by virtue of their position, the democratic process will be seriously damaged, thus undermining both the public regard for and confidence in MLA’s and the Assembly.

More recently we have witnessed repeated and dangerous homophobic statements being made in Assembly proceedings by Members of the Assembly which have undermined the constitutional and fundamental principle of equality of opportunity which were seen by the signatories to the Good Friday Agreement as a particular priority and were intended by the signatories to apply to all the functions of such public authorities. The case of Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland & others[5], compounded the importance of the Agreement in relation to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and clarified the constitutional status of the 1998 Act, thus enshrining the principles of equality and human rights for all within the Northern Ireland constitution. However under the guise of Parliamentary Privilege, effective redress was again denied in respect of these homophobic outbursts and the role of public office has been undermined.

Such behaviour by elected representatives is of particular concern in that Members of the Assembly are perceived by the general public as role models, both in terms of the positions that they hold and the views which they express. Public attacks on individuals, slanderous remarks about organisations and homophobic statements in the course of the proceedings of the Assembly by these emulated MLA’s are dangerous in the extreme. Northern Ireland is a society emerging from conflict and the actions of non-state forces are still very keenly felt. MLA’s have, not only a political responsibility, but also a social responsibility to ensure that their comments do not legitimise violence, sectarianism and hatred in our communities. It is vital that the Committee on Standards and Privileges takes this opportunity to revise the Code and Rules in order to protect some of the most vulnerable members of our society, such as homosexual young people, as well as individuals and organisations from unprovoked, slanderous and extremely dangerous attacks by Members of the Assembly who do so under the cloak of Parliamentary Privilege and with apparent disregard for the safety of these citizens whom they have been appointed to serve.

On the 9th January 2008 the Committee on Procedures held a Committee debate dealing with the issues which arose from the slanderous attacks by MLA’s in the Assembly on the 15th October 2007. In the course of this debate it was agreed that the Committee would examine additional options for redress, such as a suitable complaints processes and/or consideration of the position in Australia, where the Hansard record can incorporate a response by an organisation or individual who has been the victim of such an attack. In addition, it was agreed that Committee members would, in a planned visit to the Dail in Dublin, ask specifically about their experience with such problems and obtain information on how these matters have been handled there. During the Committee debate alternative suggestions were offered, such as vesting authority in the Speaker of the Assembly to deal with complaints and to develop guidance on how this discretion might be exercised. It was also proposed that MLA’s should be subject to sanctions by the Speaker, or a Committee, for using unacceptable, racist or homophobic language. It was agreed that the Committee on Procedures would begin a process of consultation with the Committee on Standards and Privileges to develop an options paper on the issue of redress in such circumstances and on an effective “right to reply".

CLC, as one of the organisations directly impacted upon by a slanderous attack by MLA’s in the course of Assembly proceedings, is therefore extremely disappointed, that despite the Committee on Procedures debate, the revised Code and Rules make no attempt to provide redress for individuals or organisations or sanctions for MLA’s who abuse their position and the Parliamentary Privilege which they enjoy. We do not believe that the Assembly can, whilst failing to provide any redress for individuals and organisations subject to attack such as those aforementioned instances, demonstrate a convincing commitment to the principles of respect, equality, accountability or integrity - principles which go to the heart of democracy. The absence of such procedures undermines the work of the Assembly and its Members and calls into question the commitment of the Assembly to effectively police MLA’s conduct.

Volume 1 – Personal Conduct

We are supportive of the Principles of Conduct detailed at this section of the Code and are in agreement that holders of public office should comply with these principles in carrying out the work of their office. However, the Children’s Law Centre has firsthand experience that this is not always the case and we wish to see these Principles of Conduct being extended to the conduct of MLA’s in all aspects of their professional life and not just being restricted to matters of financial interest. We also wish to see the introduction and use of strict sanctions if an MLA breaches the principles of conduct by acting in a way that is outside of or in conflict with these principles. For example, we are very supportive of the introduction of the principles of respect and equality and we are particularly encouraged in the context of the Assembly debate of the 15th October 2007 to see the inclusion of,

“It is acknowledged that the exchange of ideas, and opinions on policies may be robust but this should be kept in context and not extend to individuals being subjected to unreasonable and excessive personal attack. Members should keep in mind that rude and offensive behaviour may lower the public’s regard for, and confidence in Members and the Assembly itself. Members should therefore show respect and consideration for others at all times."[6]

However, the failure by the Committee on Standards and Privileges to include sanctions for MLA’s if they fail to comply with the principles of conduct somewhat undermines the Assembly’s commitment to these principles. We wish to see clear sanctions included in the Code of Conduct and Rules to ensure that MLA’s who act in a manner which is in conflict with the Code of Conduct and Rules can be held to account.

Volume 2 – The Code of Conduct for Members of the
Northern Ireland Assembly

We are broadly supportive of the Code of Conduct for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly but again wish to see it extended to all aspects of Members of the Assembly’s professional life and not just to matters of financial interest. We also wish to see the obligations detailed in the Code and Rules being extended to the Ministerial Code to ensure that all Northern Ireland Ministers are under the same obligations in terms of their behaviour and actions. We note the amendments to the Rules of the Code of Conduct[7] and wish to see the newly introduced wording, which has been amended from ‘shall’ to ‘should’, should either remain as ‘shall’ or ‘must’. This wording would make the obligations which MLA’s are under as a result of the Code and Rules much clearer and firmer, which we believe they should be given the position of influence and importance holders of public office assume.

Volume 3 – The Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members

We are extremely supportive of the duties imposed on MLA’s at this section of the Code and Rules and believe that the financial obligations detailed are very clear which we believe should prevent any instances of financial impropriety. We have some concerns that where Members have a declared or registrable interest the Code states that they should consider whether or not it is appropriate for them to vote where this would be relevant to them financially or otherwise. While we do not wish to be prescriptive as there may be instances where the Member’s declared or registrable interest may be only tenuously relevant, we do not believe that the decision about whether or not to vote should be that of the Member, but rather it should be made in compliance with the advices of the Clerk of the Committee who is responsible for implementing the Code and Rules and who already advises Members on its operation. In addition, in relation to gifts, benefits, donations and visits we wish to see material value limit being set at a very low level in order for all financial benefits enjoyed by Members as a result of their position being registered. We assume that this level will be sufficiently low in the final version of the Code and Rules but as no figure has been included in the consultation version of the document we cannot make any further comment. Also in relation to gift, benefits, hospitality and visits the Member and his/her partner must register where they receive any financial benefits enjoyed as a result of their position. We wish to see this extended to the Member, his/her partner and any dependent children as is the case in relation to overseas benefits and gifts, land and property and shareholdings both in the interests of consistency and propriety. We are also supportive of the inclusion of the section on employment of family and friends.

We wish to query the number of times to date that the Committee for Standards and Privileges has reported a non-disclosure to the PPS and also wish to know the outcome of any of these reports. It is vital that the Code and Rules, including sanctions, are consistently and stringently applied to Members of the Assembly to ensure that all Members are aware of the obligations which they are under and the fact that the Committee for Standards and Privileges will take action where these obligations are not upheld. We also wish to query the number of declarations of interests there have been since the restoration of devolved Government in order to satisfy ourselves that this process is being sufficiently adhered to. Again, under the section of ‘Declaration of interest in Committees’ the Code states that where a member of a Committee, particularly the Chairman, has a financial or other interest which is directly affected by a particular inquiry or when he or she considers that a personal interest may reflect the work of the Committee or its subsequent Report, the Member should consider whether he/she should stand aside from the Committee proceedings related to it. This has been amended from obliging the Member with a financial interest to stand aside to obliging the Member to consider whether he/she should stand aside. We are concerned about the level of personal responsibility in such cases and do not believe that the Code is clear enough in its Guidance to Members about when it would be appropriate to vote and when it would be appropriate to stand aside. There will also be issues where a Member believes he/she should vote and if other Members of the Committee do not. Again, we wish to see this section being amended to ensure that such decisions are taken with independent advice and in the interests of the Code in compliance with the advices of the Clerk for the Committee on Standards and Privileges to ensure the highest level of propriety in all Assembly proceedings where possible. This also applies in relation to divisions.

Volume 4 – Procedure for Complaints

We wish to see the information on how to make a complaint against an MLA being widely publicised so that members of the public are aware of how to complain and how to hold MLA’s to account for their actions. While one of the Considerations of Admissibility of a complaint is that the complaint must relate to the conduct of an MLA in regard to Assembly duties, this appears to refer only to a Members conduct as it relates to financial interests. This is perhaps the biggest and most concerning omission in the Code and Rules and we believe it must be rectified as a matter of urgency. Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly must be held to account for conduct which is in conflict with the Code and Rules and is an abuse of their public office as it relates to all aspects of their professional life. Unfounded attacks on individuals and organisations bring both the Member and the Assembly into disrepute. The current Parliamentary Privilege operating in the Assembly and the extremely limited avenues of the right to reply offer little or nothing in the way of effective recourse for those individuals or organisations who have come under attack.

With regard to the Interim Commission which will determine the admissibility of a complaint and investigate complaints which they consider to be admissible, we would request more detailed information on the Commission. It is fundamental to the fair and effective operation of the complaints procedure that the Interim Commission is made up of independent members and is wholly independent from Members of the Assembly. This is of particular importance given the degree of power vested in the Interim Commission with regard to complaints. In addition, there does not appear to be recourse to any appeal mechanism where the Interim Commission decides that a complaint is inadmissible which we believe is contrary to the principles of natural justice. We wish to see the introduction of an appeal mechanism which should include the consideration of the appeal by a different independent member of the Interim Commission than the members who made the original decision. We have some concerns with regard to the role of the Committee for Standards and Privileges in making decisions about complaints. It appears from the Code that the Committee has the final decision making power and may or may not agree with the decision of the Interim Commission in relation to a complaint. We do not believe that this sufficiently independent given that the Committee is comprised of other Members of the Assembly, some of which may be party colleagues of the Member being complained about. It is central to the integrity of the complaints process that it operates totally independently from all other work of the Assembly. Allowing the Committee for Standards and Privileges to overrule the decision of the Interim Commission seriously undermines the integrity of this process.

Conclusion

The Children’s Law Centre is grateful to have the opportunity to comment on the Committee on Standards and Privileges’ Review of the Assembly’s Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members. We hope that our comments have been constructive and useful to the Committee and are happy to meet with Committee staff and/or Members to discuss anything in this response. We wish to be kept fully informed of progress in the development of the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members and look forward to the issues raised and recommendations made in this response being addressed and taken forward by the Commission.

We await receipt of the information requested and look forward to engaging with the Committee in the near future.

Progressive Unionist Party

Response to Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

August 2008

I write to you in response to your correspondence dated 13th May 2008 on the Consultation on the Code of Conduct and the Rules to the Guide Relating to the Conduct of Members.

Having considered the documents produced by the committee the Progressive Unionist Party have no outstanding issues of concern. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for their deliberations on this matter.

Women’s Aid

Response to Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

August 2008

Introduction

Women’s Aid is the lead voluntary organisation in Northern Ireland addressing domestic violence and providing services for women and children. We recognise domestic violence as one form of violence against women. Women’s Aid seeks to challenge attitudes and beliefs that perpetuate domestic violence and, through our work, promote healthy and non-abusive relationships.

Women’s Aid services across Northern Ireland include:

1. Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is one form of violence against women;

2. Core Work of Women’s Aid

The core work of Women’s Aid in Northern Ireland, including the Federation and local Women’s Aid groups is:

The following response is based on consultation with Women’s Aid Federation Northern Ireland and our ten local Women’s Aid groups. The term Women’s Aid refers to the Federation and the local groups.

Women’s Aid welcomes the publication of the Committee of Standards & Privileges’ Review of the Assembly’s Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members and the opportunity to comment upon it.

Comments :

Volume 1 – Personal Conduct

Women’s Aid supports the Principles of Conduct outlined in this section of the Assembly Code and agree that these general principles represent appropriate standards of conduct for those holding public office. Whilst we acknowledge and support the efforts at financial regulation, we believe that these standards should be applicable in all aspects of an MLA’s public and professional life. Similarly that the Code should be enforceable by appropriate sanction.

We welcome the specific recognition of the need for respect and equality and support the terms as defined in the Code. (pg.65) The need for a focus on gender equality in public life in Northern Ireland is particularly pertinent given the recent comments by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) which noted that in Northern Ireland there is an, “underrepresentation of women in public office, standing at 16.7% of the Assembly and in key institutions established directly as a result of the peace process." (CEDAW/C/GBR/CO/6, pg. 10) They noted with concern that, “varying levels of public understanding of the concept of substantive equality have resulted in the promotion of equality of opportunity and of same treatment only, as well as of gender-neutrality, in the interpretation and implementation of Gender Equality Duty."(CEDAW/C/GBR/CO/6, pg.4-5) The Committee also observed that many public bodies, including Government, had struggled to develop equality schemes which achieved actual results and action and to mainstream, “gender equality into all policies and processes."(CEDAW/C/GBR/CO/6, pg.5) Women’s Aid is anxious that any expression of equality is therefore supported by meaningful action to ensure that it is realised.

Volume 2 – The Code of Conduct for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly

We are supportive of the overall Purpose of the Code as outlined, (pg.66) however it is our belief that the Scope should be extend to encompass aspects of an MLA’s professional life, beyond their financial dealings. In addition, it is also our contention that there should be a uniformity between the Ministerial Code and that applicable to MLAs in order to ensure a coherent and consistent approach in these matters.

In respect of the proposed ammendments to the Rules of the Code of Conduct and the change of the term “shall" to “should", it is our opinion that the wording should remain in it’s original form or be strengthened to indicate that these terms do not represent ideal or optional standards of behaviour but rather a binding series of obligations on all members of the Assembly.

Volume 3 - The Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members

Women’s Aid strongly supports the rules detailed in volume 3, which appear to provide a thorough Guide for members in respect of the conduct of their financial affairs. We are however, somewhat concerned that in the event of a member, “having a registrable interest which has not at the time been registered,"(pg.71) the responsibility for determining, “whether it is appropriate to vote in such circumstances,"(pg.71) rests with the member themselves. Similarly, “The sole responsibility for complying with the duties placed upon them by this Guide rests with members."(pg.71) This includes determining whether or not, “a financial interest is sufficiently relevant to a particular debate, proceeding, meeting or other activity to require declaration."(pg.84) We would contend that by placing this responsibility in the hands of individual MLAs, the potential exists for errors, confusion and failures in compliance.

In addition, we note that no figure has yet been set for the value of gifts, benefits and hospitality which are registrable. We would urge that when this figure is determined, for purposes of ease of reference and transparency, it should be represented as a set figure rather than a percentage of “Member’s current Assembly salary."(pg.77)

We also welcome the clarity regarding the employment of family members. (pg.83)

Volume 4 - Procedure for Complaints

It is the opinion of Women’s Aid that the nature of the Procedure for Complaints and in particular the very specific criteria governing the Consideration of Admissibility, requires that the public should be fully informed of the processes involved. It is essential that the electorate should have an ability to express legitimate concerns regarding their elected representatives and have an understanding of how to present those concerns should they wish to do so. It is also essential that the process of determining the admissibility or inadmissibility of a complaint, be both transparent and devoid of any suggestion of a party political agenda. We also note with concern, that there does not seem to be a formal appeals process for those whose complaints are determined to be inadmissible. This would appear to be a significant omission.

We would also seek clarification of the specific circumstances under which a complainant’s name will be withheld from the member against whom they have issued a complaint.

It is a source of considerable disappointment that admissible complaints must allege a breach of “the code," which at present appears to largely confine it’s focus and scope to financial matters. The wider conduct of MLAs discharging the duties and responsibilities of public office, requires much greater oversight.

General Comments

Women’s Aid supports the principle of ongoing review and scrutiny of the Code of Conduct and the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members of the legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland and the efforts of the Committee of Standards & Privileges in this regard. We believe that in a functioning democracy, it is essential that those in public office are held to a rigorous standard of conduct and are accountable for their behaviour both to the Assembly and to the electorate whom they are privileged to represent. We welcome the terms governing the financial dealings of Members and recognise that this is an essential aspect of regulation. We are however, extremely disappointed that the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members does not contain similar stipulations governing the wider conduct and behaviour of MLAs and the possible sanctions that may be imposed should a member be found to be in breach of conduct considered appropriate to an individual in a postition of public office.

Women’s Aid believes that democracy is best served when all sections of our society are afforded an equal opportunity to participate in the democratic process. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 specifically enshrines, “the mutual respect, the civil rights and the religious liberties of everyone in the community... in particular... the right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity, regardless of class, creed, disability, gender or ethnicity." (Part VII, 68-78) It is our opinion that MLAs must have an individual responsibility to uphold and adhere to these principles and ensure through their behaviour in office, that members of the community and the electorate, are not subject to discrimiation and misrepresentation. Members hold an unique position of influence and authority in Northern Ireland society. As such it is essential that they reflect upon the impact their conduct can have on wider societal attitudes and in particular on the danger of legitimising prejudice.

We are deeply concerned by the recent conduct of individual MLAs, particularly in respect of a number of homophobic remarks, which by their nature serve only to perpetuate prejudice, hatred, discrimination and intolerance and further marginalise a section of our population which has been subjected to abuse, isolation and indignity for too long.

In addition, we urge greater scrutiny of the terms of Parliamentary Privilege as outlined in Section 50 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Whilst we support the essential right of MLAs to utilise Parliamentary Privilege to facilitate scrutiny and oversight, we were shocked and disturbed by the highly defamatory comments and inferences levelled at the Women’s Sector, as well as several NGOs and individuals, by a number of MLAs on 15th October 2007, on the floor of the Assembly under Parliamentary Privilege. Women’s Aid would wish to further encourage the Committee to investigate possible methods and options for rebutal and redress for organisations and individuals who are subjected to similar unwarranted attacks which become a matter of public record. We would also request that sanctions are considered for Members who engage in this behaviour.

The nature of the work carried out in the community by many NGOs, including Women’s Aid, is largely dependent upon public trust and it’s ability to work on a cross-community, bipartisan basis. Unsubstantiated allegations which call into question the ability of the organisation and or individuals working within it to operate on this basis, can be enormously damaging both to the reputation of the organisation and to it’s ability to obtain and retain the confidence and trust of those who use it’s services or seek it’s assistance. In the case of Women’s Aid, such comments are not only highly irresponsible but could have potentially devastating consequences. Women’s Aid notes that consequent to a Committee debate on 9th January 2008, the Committee on Procedures had agreed to embark on a consultation process with the Committee on Standards and Privileges with a view to developing proposals for possible sanctions for MLAs found to have used unacceptable, racist or homophobic language. It was additionally proposed to explore the possibility of a “Right to reply." Women’s Aid welcomes this initiative and would be grateful for any detail on the progress of this consultation. We believe that the absence of specific guidance and sanction in this respect, represents a serious omission.

Recommendations:

POBAL

Response to Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

Lúnasa 2008

POBAL – scátheagras phobal na Gaeilge

Bunaíodh POBAL i mí Eanáir 1998 nuair a tháinig ionadaithe ó ghrúpaí Gaeilge ar an talamh le chéile le forbairt na teanga a phlé. Páirtíocht ionadaíoch é POBAL, a thugann treoir straitéiseach agus a chuireann ar fáil fóram daonlathach do na dreamanna a chruthaigh tionscadail rathúla shóisialta, gheilleagracha, ealaíonta agus oideachasúla do phobal na Gaeilge i dtuaisceart na hÉireann.

Tá POBAL ann le leas an phobail Gaelaigh agus leas ár mballraíochta a chur chun cinn. D’fhás POBAL ón talamh mar fhreagra na ngníomhaithe Gaeilge ar riachtanais phobal na Gaeilge ag am corrach i stair na tíre. Tháinig POBAL ar an saol i dtréimhse na hidirbheartaíochta uile-pháirtithe a chríochnaigh i síniú Chomhaontú Aoine an Chéasta; i mbunú an Tionóíl agus na mBord uile-Éireannacha.

Miseán POBAL

Comhairliúchán

Agus sochaí an tuaiscirt ag teacht amach as tréimhse fada comhlinte, is léir go bhfuil tábhacht ar leith le hiompar agus le hard-chaighdeán de chleachtas sa saol poiblí. Is ceart agus is cóir go bhfuil an chomhairliúchán seo ar siúl agus is oth linn nach raibh níos mó poiblíochta ann le freagraí a spreagadh ón phobal agus ó na páirtithe leasmhara.

Cearta do phobal na Gaeilge agus an Cód

Creideann muid go bhfuil sé tábhachtach cúrsaí airgeadais a bheith luaite sa Chód. Is léir, áfach,go bhfuil gnéithe eile d’iompar na mball atá lán chomh tábhachtach agus ba chóir iad a chur san áireamh le linn don Athbhreithniú. Tá gnó an Tionóil ag brath ar dhea-chleachtas agus toil na mball cothrom na Féinne a thabhairt don phobal ar fad. Caithfear muinín a spreagadh go bhfuil an cleachtas is fearr i bhfeidhm ag na baill uilig gan cúngchlaonadh polaitiúil.

Mar is eol do chách, i gComhaontú Chill Rímhinn, thug rialtas na Breataine gealltanas Acht na Gaeilge a reachtú. Dúirt sé,

The Government will introduce an Irish Language Act reflecting on the experience of Wales and Ireland and work with the incoming Executive to enhance and protect the development of the Irish Language.

I mí an Mhárta 2007, áfach, dúirt Státrunaí na Breataine, Peter Hain, gur ceist chineachta a bhí i gcosaint teanga, ráiteas a spreag urlabhraí ar Chultúir an DUP, Nelson McCausland, leis an barúil seo a leanas a nochtadh sna meáin: ‘The message is that if unionists go into an executive and the assembly is operational the Irish language act will become a devolved matter and unionists can veto it. Once again Downing Street and the NIO have politicised the Irish language.’ (McCausland, News Letter, 14 Márta 2007). Sula raibh an Tionól ag feidhmiú go fóill, dúirt Ian Paisley, Chéad Aire tofa agus ceannasaí an DUP, ‘No Assembly the DUP lead will pass such an act’ (Paisley, News Letter 2 Aibreán 2007). Ar ndóigh, rinneadh na ráitis seo roimh athbhunú na nInstitiúidí, ach léiríonn siad meon ar leith atá i ndiaidh dul i bhfeidhm ar pholasaí, ar mhaoiniú agus ar reachtaíocht don Ghaeilge sa Tionól.

I rith an ama, ó athbhunaíodh Tionól TÉ, tá ionsaithe gránna searbha ar siúl le linn na díospóireachtaí Tionóil ar gach gné de shaol na Gaeilge agus ar a húsáid sa saol poiblí. Ar na hionsaithe seo, tá ionsaithe ar an Ghaeloideachas (18 Mean Fómhair 2007; 13 Samhain 2007; 13 Bealtaine 2008) ar úsáid na Gaeilge sa Tionól féin (9 Deireadh Fómhair 2007) agus, dár ndóigh, cuireadh ar ceal pholasaí teoranta Roinn an Sláinte ar fhógraíocht poiblí agus ar chumarsáide sa Ghaeilge (1 Deireadh Fómhair 2007). Is fiú a lua nach gnáthchleachtas é, athrú a dhéanamh ar pholasaí atá in áit i Roinn céanna féin. Leoga, thar 5 bliain, níor athraigh Airí Riail Díreacha na Breataine an polasaí seo sa Roinn Sláinte.

Ag cruinniú an Tionóil, 16 Deireadh Fómhair 2007, d’fhoilsigh Edwin Poots, Aire Cultúir, Ealaíon agus Fóillíochta, torthaí dhá phróiseas comhairliúcháin ar Reachtaíocht Ghaeilge atá á Beartú do TÉ, comhairliúcháin rialtasach a d’eagraigh an Roinn Cultúir, Ealaíon agus Fóillíochta mar gheall ar ghealltanas Chill Rímhinn maidir le hAcht na Gaeilge. Dhearbhaigh Edwin Poots go raibh 11,629 freagraí faighte thar an dhá phróiseas agus go raibh 75% acu ar son reachtaíocht chuimistheach don Ghaeilge, reachtaíocht bunuithe ar mholtaí POBAL. (DCAL Summary of 2nd Consultation, Oct 2007: 5, pointe 2). Cé go raibh na torthaí seo iontach soiléir, d’fhógair an tAire nach raibh sé de rún aige Acht na Gaeilge a thabhairt isteach.

Ó shin i leith, lean urlabhraí an DUP ag ionsaigh na Gaeilge agus ag déanamh mórtais as na constaicí atá á gcur roimpi. Is léir ón mhéid atá le rá acu gur glacadh cinneadh ar Acht na Gaeilge, ar mhaoiniú don Ghaeilge agus ar húsaid na Gaeilge sa saol poiblí bunuithe ar chúngchuspóirí an DUP in áit iad a bheith fréamhaithe i gcomhairliúcháin poiblí, i ngealltanais rialtasacha nó tomhaiste de réir chás na Gaeilge agus chás na reachtaíochta féin. Téann an cur chuige seo salach ar an dualgas um dea-chaidreamh pobail agus ar an dualgas chun chothrom na Féinne a sholáthar do ghach dream sa phobal.

I ndiaidh fothoghchán an Droma Móire, 15 Feabhra 2008, agus é ag labhairt ar chlár an BBC, Hearts and Minds, dúirt an tAire Poots,

... the unionist people will recognise that had they been depending on Allister’s party we would have seven super councils with the effective repartition of the Province, Northern Ireland would have legislation putting Irish on a par with English and we would be governed by Direct Rule Ministers with a greener tinge.

Ar chlár raidió an BBC, Good Morning Ulster, 11 Márta 2008, dúirt ball sinséarach an DUP, Nigel Dodds, agus é ag labhairt faoi chineachtadh chumhachtaí póilíneachta,

…We saw previously what happened to legislation that the NIO drafted, namely the Irish Language Act. That was binned, courtesy of the DUP because again, the DUP had a veto... on Irish language issues and we binned that, courtesy of the DUP. That’s one issue we delivered on.

Tá dualgas ar fheisirí tofa cinntí ar mhaoiniú agus ar thacaíocht airgeadais a bhunú ar dhea-chleachtas agus ar churaimí dlí. Creideann muid go bhfuil an cuma air go bhfuil roinnt cinntí glactha anois ag feisirí maidir leis an Ghaeilge a théann salach ar na curaimí seo. Ar 25 Feabhra 2008, dúirt feisire an DUP, Jimmy Spratt,

Over the last 9 months devolution has delivered real benefits for you. We were told that there would be an Irish Language Act, yet DUP Minister Edwin Poots has rubbished that proposal…We have also seen devolution deliver greater funding for our culture. For the first time, funding to Ulster-Scots will be greater than funding to the Irish sector. This money can be used for capacity building in order to increase community activity within the Unionist and Protestant family.

Anois, tá Aire nua ag an Roinn Cultúir, Ealaíon agus Fóillíochta, Gregory Campbell ón DUP agus deis aige taispeáint go bhfuil sé féin incurtha le curaimí a chomhlíonadh de réir an dea-chleachtais aireachta agus de réir Chód Iompair na mBall. Tagraíonn muid, áfach, ar ráitis atá déanta aige go dtí seo ar Acht na Gaeilge, mar shampla, ar 24 Meitheamh 2008, nuair a dúirt sé,

The campaign for legislation to place the Irish Language on a par with English has been rejected. This would have been virtually impossible under Direct Rule. Significant progress has been made, not just in preventing this costly and absurd piece of legislation, but in remedying the imbalance in funding between the promotion of Ulster-Scots and Irish culture. Prior to devolution, the under-funding of Ulster-Scots culture compared to Irish was something opposed by Unionists but we had little ability to turn the situation around. Devolution has changed that situation. Now instead of simply opposing things that are wrong we have the ability to make the needed changes. Indeed, the headlines show that for some republicans there is anger at equity in funding between Ulster-Scots and Irish culture.

Tá contúirt ann go gcuirfidh a leithéid seo ráiteas in iúl don mhórphobal nach bhfuil Gaeilgeoirí i dteideal cearta agus cothrom na Féinne ón Tionól.

An Cód Iompair agus Cur i gCríoch na Reachtaíochta Idirnáisiúnta

Tá cnuasach mór reachtaíochta ann anois faoi na cearta teanga atá mar dhúshraith ag an chaighdeán idirnáisiúnta. Tá cás na dteangacha dúchais bunaithe ar roinnt fachtóirí: gnéithe dlí, staire agus teanga; neart an phobail a labhraíonn an teanga; agus an freastal ar leith atá riachtanach do theangacha atá faoi bhagairt. Maidir leis an Ghaeilge, is ceann amháin den dá theanga oifigiúla sa Deisceart í; aithníonn an Comhphobal Eorpach mar theanga conartha í; tá sí faoi chosaint íosta ag an dlí cheana. Tá sí ar cheann de na teangacha scríofa is sine san Eoraip, í dá cothú agus dá cleachtadh leis na céadta bliain. Mar bharr air sin, tuilleann sí cosaint agus cothú daingean taobh istigh de Thionól TÉ.

Tá an Bhreatain i measc sínitheoirí an Coinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta Daonna, (atá anois mar chuid de hdlí intire na RA chomh maith), An Chabhailchoinbhinsiún um Chosaint na Mionlach Náisiúnta, an Chairt Eorpach do Theangacha Réigiúnda nó Mionlaigh, agus, ar ndóighe, Comhaontú Aoine an Chéasta. Tá na prionsabail chéanna le fáil sna cáipéisí seo a leanas de chuid an eagrais um Shlándáil agus Chomhoibriú san Eoraip: Moltaí Oslo faoi Chearta Teanga na Mionlach Náisiúnta, Moltai na Háige faoi Chearta Oideachais na Mionlach Naisiúnta; agus fosta tá siad le fáil i gcáipéisi de chuid na Náisiún Aontaithe ar nós Forógra faoi Chearta na nDaoine a bhaineann le Mionlaigh Náisiúnta, Eitneacha, Creidimh nó Teanga. Taobh istigh den Comhphobal Eorpach cuireadh neart moltaí i láthair na Pairliminte: Teangacha agus Cultúir Réigiúnacha, Mionteangacha , agus Mionlaigh Teanga agus Cultúir.

Is léir go mbíonn costais ag baint le feidhmiú na reachtaíochta a bhaineann le cearta teanga agus le feidhmiú reachtaíocht chearta daonna a chuimsíonn cúrsaí teanga. Ach i dtír ar bith a chleachtaíonn oscailteacht agus freagracht sa saol poiblí, ba chóir go mbeadh an caiteachas seo bunaithe ar dhúshraith an dlí, ar dhúshraith an chaighdeáin idirnáisiúnta.

Téann an cur chuige thuas luaite, an freastal ceannan ceanna a dhéanamh ar an Ghaeilge agus ar Albainis-Uladh salach ar Chairt na hEorpa Do Theangacha Réigiunda nó Mionlaigh. Cuireann an Chairt dualgas ar rialtas na Ríocht Aontaithe agus ar an Tionól, gníomhú de réir chúinsí ar leith gach teanga reigiúnda nó mionlaigh. Mar is eol dúinn, i dtuaisceart na hÉireann, de réir dhaingniú na Ríochta Aontaithe ar an Chairt, tá an Ghaeilge agus Albainis-Uladh aitheanta faoi Chuid II den Chairt agus tá an Ghaeilge amháin aitheanta faoi Chuid III. Sa chomhthéacs seo is fiú scrúdú géar a dhéanamh ar struchtúr na Cairte Eorpaí do Theangacha Réigiunda nó Mionlaigh, agus idirdhealú a dhéanamh idir sainchuspóirí Pháirt II agus sainchuspóirí Pháirt 111.

I gCuid II, leagann an Chairt síos cnuasach bunphrionsabal a bhaineann le gach teanga réigiúin nó mionlaigh. Ach i gCuid III den Chairt, tá sraith d’fholáirimh shonracha leagtha amach a bhaineann le háit na dteangacha réigiúin nó mionlaigh sna réimsí éagsúla de shaol an phobail …agus taobh istigh de roinnt mhaith de na foláirimh seo tá roghanna ann, cuid acu níos doichte ná a chéile, a gcaithfear ceann amháin acu a chur i bhfeidhm ‘de réir chás na teanga atá i gceist.

(Réamhrá na Cairte)

Deir an Chairt fosta, ‘Tugann an tsolúbthacht seo san áireamh na difríochtaí móra atá ann idir staid de facto na dteangacha réigiúin nó mionlaigh.’ Agus, rud a bhaineann go dlúth le cleachtas reatha roinnt bhall de Thionól TÉ, tugann sí rabhadh,

…nach gnó an Stáit é glacadh leis an rogha is fearr a oireann dó féin. Caithfidh gach Stát glacadh leis an rogha is fearr a fhreagraíonn do chomharthaí sóirt agus staid fhorbartha gach teanga, de réir na foclaíochta atá in úsáid sa chuid seo den Chairt.

Ní leor do bhaill an Tionóil a rá gur mian leo a cheart a thabhairt don Ghaeilge agus d’Albainis Uladh. Caithfidh siad modhanna oibre a úsáid atá ag teacht leis an reachtaíocht reatha idirnáisiúnta. Ní iarrann an Chabhailchoinbhinsiún um Chosaint na Mionlach Náisiúnta nó an Chairt Eorpach do Theangacha Réigiúnda nó Mionlaigh go roinnfí mar a gcéanna le gach teanga. Leoga, b’ionann róbhéim ar an chur chuige seo agus leithcheal i leith na Gaeilge mar go dtéann sé salach ar fad ar chur chuige na Ríochta Aontaithe, soláthar níos cuimsithigh a chur ar fáil do na teangacha a bhfuil lion na gcainteoirí níos airde. I dTÉ, mar a fheiceann muid í mbeart daingnithe na RA ar an Chairt, is é an Ghaeilge príomhtheanga dúchais na dlínse. I dtuairisc Coiste na Saineolaithe ar chur i gcrích na Cairte (Comhairle na hEorpa, 14ú Marta 2007, www.coe.int) déantar tagairt ar leith:

One feature of the discussions with representatives of regional or minority language speakers in the UK was the extent to which comparisons were made between the treatment of different regional or minority languages. While such comparisons in many cases may have positive effects on the promotion of regional or minority languages, they may also lead to some problems. In Northern Ireland, representatives of Irish speakers reported practical problems of language promotion due to calls for parity of treatment with Ulster Scots. The Committee of Experts was informed that in a number of instances, the request for action appropriate to the Irish language therefore led to the result that no measures were taken, since it was not practically possible to apply identical measures to Ulster Scots. The Committee of Experts wishes to underline that each regional or minority language should be protected and promoted according to its own situation.

Riamh anall ó bunaíodh an stát seo, ba chuid lárnach den chomhrac í an bhail a tugadh ar an Ghaeilge agus ar lucht a labhartha: toisc naimhdeas an stáit i leith nochtadh an “Ghaelachais", ba ghnách riamh cleasanna polaitíochta agus bearta docharacha a imirt i dtaca leis an Ghaeilge. Ní amháin go raibh lucht na Gaeilge thíos leis seo ach ní raibh cead ag duine nó dream ar bith a bhí báúil leis an teanga a dtacaíocht a fhógairt go poiblí ar eagla go ndéanfaí leithcheal air/uirthi, nó ionsaí féin air/uirthi, dá barr. Le tríocha bliain anuas fearadh freasúra fíochmhar ar thuistí ar bith ar mhian leo scolaíocht Ghaeilge a thabhairt dá gcuid páistí. Leithcheal laethúil an luach saothair a ghnóthaigh an gnáththeaghlach Gaelach. D ‘fhulaing siad gorta fada i maoiniú na hearnála Gaeilge, agus ‘síleáil ghloine’ i gcúrsaí forbartha, agus poiblíocht dhiúltach faoin teanga agus lucht a labhartha. D ‘fhulaing siad ciapadh agus ionsaithe briathair agus birt ar chainteoirí agus chomharthaí na Gaeilge. Agus má rinneadh beart ar bith ar mhaithe leis an teanga, ba rud leamh, folamh, ceachartha é, sop in áit na scuaibe.

Ar an drochuair, d’fhéadfaí a rá go bhfuil an cur chuige seo á nochtadh i ndíospóireachtaí agus i gcinntí Tionóil.

Deir lucht na Cairte go bhfuil de rún acu a chinntiú, ‘…go mbainfear úsáid as na mionteangacha agus as na teangacha réigiúnacha sna na nuachtmheáin agus i gcúrsaí oideachais agus go mbeidh cead úsáide acu i gcúrsái dlí agus riaracháin, agus in imeachtaí geilleagair, sóisialta agus cultúir.’ De réir réamhrá na Cairte ‘Is é an cur chuige seo an t-aon dóigh amháin le cúiteamh a dhéanamh leis na teangacha seo as aon drochíde stairiúil a d’fhulaing siad, agus chun iad a chaomhnú agus a fhorbairt mar bheoghné d’fhéiniúlacht chultúrtha na hEorpa…’ Baineann an léir-ráiteas polasaí seo go díreach le tábhacht na Gaeilge i bpróiseas na síochána sa Tuaisceart agus tá dualgas dosheachanta ar an Athbhreithniu seo ar Chód Iompair na mBall modhanna sonracha oibre na Cairte a ionchorprú sa Chód Iompair.

Leanann réamhrá na Cairte ar aghaidh mar seo:

Cé nach gnó na Cairte é déileáil leis na pobail sin atá ag iarraidh neamhspleáchais nó athruithe críche, is dócha go gcuideoidh sé leis na pobail a bhfuil a dteanga mar chomhartha sóirt acu socrú síos san áit ar fhág córa na staire iad. Ní baol dó cur le héagobhsaíocht na dúiche. A mhalairt de sin ar fad, cothóidh sé muintearas idir pobal na teanga sin agus na pobail eile atá in aon-tír leis. Cuirfidh sé deireadh leis an seanfhaltanas sin nach ligfeadh dóibh a n-áit a ghlacadh sa tír sin agus a n-ionad ceart a ghlacadh san Eoraip féin.

Cearta an uile Duine agus an Cód

Sa reachtaíocht idirnáisiúnta a liostáladh thuas, agus sna haguisíní a ghabhann leis, tá cur síos mion déanta ar na ceisteanna faoi chearta na ndaoine i dtaca lena rogha teanga a labhairt (seachas daortheanga nó teanga éigeantach). Díríonn na cáipéisi seo ar an líon agus an dlús atá ag lucht na teanga dúchais mar shlat tomhais don fhreastal a ba choir a chur ar fáil. Ní dhéanann ceann ar bith acu aon tagairt don dóigh a bhfuair siad cumas labhartha sa teanga sin nó don chumas atá acu in uachtartheanga na críche sin nó i dteanga oifigiúil na críche sin. Leanann sé uaidh sin nach lúide cearta lucht na Gaeilge faoin dlí agus faoin chleachtas idirnáisiunta, Béarla a bheith ar a dtoil acu.

Tá an dlí ag admháil anois gur chóir bail ar leith a thabhairt ar na teangacha dúchais, agus thairis sin gur chóir roinnt leo ar dhóigh níos féile. Ní abrann ceann ar bith de na conarthaí gur chóir roinnt mar a gcéanna le gach pobal teanga , nó gur chóir freastal níos fearr a dhéanamh ar na mionlaigh eitneacha. Is léir gur choir, agus gurbh éigean, mionteangacha dúchais ar nós na Gaeilge a chothú ar dhóigh níos féile agus níos solúbtha.

Is fiú a rá arís agus arís eile go n-aithníonn lucht na Gaeilge cearta na mionlach teanga uilig eile, agus go bhfuil meas mór againn ar éagsúlacht i gcúrsaí teanga agus cultúir. Ní chreidimíd go bhfuil aon phlé a dhéanaimid ar son stádas na Gaeilge ag teacht salach ar chearta na mionlach eile ar sheirbhísí stáit. Is cuma más mionlaigh eitneacha iad, nó daoine atá i muinín lámhchainte (Bhriotanach nó Éireannach), nó lucht aon chóras cumarsáide eile, tacaímid leo.

San aighneacht seo, dhírigh muid ar cheist na Gaeilge sa Chód Iompair. Aithníonn muid, áfach, chomh maith leis na hionsaithe ar phobal na Gaeilge, go raibh ráitis diúltacha, bréagacha déanta chomh maith faoi roinnt eagraíochtaí pobail agus faoi dhaoine aonair le linn do dhíospóireachtaí sa Tionól agus le cois ar sin, go raibh ráitis diúltacha déanta maidir leis an phobal homaighnéasach. Is oth linn spiorad scoilteach, gránna na ráitis seo.

Conclúid

Ba chóir an Cód a leasú sa dóigh is gur féidir gníomh cuí forfheidhmithe a ghlacadh mura léiríonn iompar agus ráiteas feisire an caighdeán cuí.

Report to Standards and Privileges from Dr T Frawley, Interim Commissioner for Standards


Report to Standards and Privileges from Dr T Frawley, Interim Commissioner for Standards


Report to Standards and Privileges from Dr T Frawley, Interim Commissioner for Standards


Report to Standards and Privileges from Dr T Frawley, Interim Commissioner for Standards


Report to Standards and Privileges from Dr T Frawley, Interim Commissioner for Standards


Report to Standards and Privileges from Dr T Frawley, Interim Commissioner for Standards

 

Northern Ireland
Assembly

COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES

Room 284
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Belfast

BT4 3XX

Tel: 028 9052 0333
Mob: 077 3312 8131
Email: paul.gill@niassembly.gov.uk

Ms Gail McKibbin
Departmental Assembly Liaison Officer
Office of the First and deputy First Minister
Stormont Castle
Stormont Estate
Belfast

BT4 3TT

26 May 2009

The Committee on Standards and Privileges has been carrying out a review of the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members. The review is nearing completion and the Committee intends to bring a revised Code to the Assembly for approval before the summer recess. However, before this can happen, there are a couple of outstanding issues that the Committee needs to resolve.

One such issue is the application of the Assembly’s Code to Ministers. I should explain that the Committee is not considering whether it should investigate alleged breaches of the Ministerial Code: it has agreed that it should not. Nor has the Committee any difficulty in agreeing that the Assembly’s Code should apply to Members who are Ministers with respect to complaints relating to their conduct as Members. Rather, the question that the Committee wishes to resolve is whether the duties set out in the Assembly’s Code of Conduct continue to cover the conduct of Ministers when they are acting solely in their Ministerial capacity and when the Ministerial Code applies anyway.

The Committee has already rehearsed the different arguments underpinning this question. One particular issue that has arisen out of these discussions is the question of complaints relating to alleged breaches of the Ministerial Code of Conduct; in particular in relation to conduct which is, ostensibly, also inconsistent with the requirements of the Assembly’s Code. The Committee has discussed how such complaints would be handled if the Committee agreed that it was not appropriate for it to investigate them.

The Committee understands how, if a Minister fails to observe any of the terms of the Pledge of Office (including complying with the Ministerial Code of Conduct), the Assembly has the power to resolve that that Minister no longer enjoys its confidence. However, it has also been put to the Committee that there is no mechanism for investigating complaints that allege that a Minister has failed to comply with the Ministerial Code of Conduct. This is in contrast to the Assembly’s Code of Conduct which provides for complaints to be investigated by the Assembly’s Commissioner for Standards, and has led to some discussion in the Committee about a perceived gap in how Ministers are held to account in comparison to Members.

Accordingly, the Committee has given some consideration to the option of it recommending that OFMdFM introduce an independent process to investigate complaints which allege that a Minister has failed to observe the Pledge of Office in respect of duties set out in the Ministerial Code of Conduct. However, before giving further consideration to this option, the Committee wishes to establish whether there are already any such plans within OFMdFM.

I’d be grateful if you could provide the Committee on Standards and Privileges with advice on whether there are any existing or forthcoming plans for OFMdFM to introduce an independent process to investigate complaints which allege that a Minister has failed to observe the Pledge of Office; and, if appropriate, any other relevant comments from OFMdFM on this issue. Given that the Committee needs to discuss this issue at its next meeting in order to ensure that the new Code is put to the Assembly before the summer recess, I would be grateful if you could provide me with your response by 4 June.

Thank you for considering this issue; please contact me if you wish to discuss further.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Gill
Clerk to the Committee on Standards and Privileges
Appendix 3 footnotes

[1]http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm#art20

[2] See Appendix for information

[3] Paragraph 6 of schedule 7 (PPERA) provides for controls on donations, including the prohibition on accepting donations from impermissible donors (for example from individuals not on the Electoral Role). Permissible donors are listed at section 54 of PPERA and at paragraph 7 of schedule 7 (PPERA)

[4] This was before the intensified homophobic remarks by the MLA for Strangford

[5] [2002] UKHL 32

[6] Page 65

[7] Page 67

Appendix 4

Consultation Document — Proposed Amendments to the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

Second Report

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

Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly “Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members"

Background

1. The Northern Ireland Assembly Committee on Standards and Privileges is responsible for:

2. The Northern Ireland Assembly approved “The Code of Conduct" and “The Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members" on 14 December 1999 and was subsequently amended on 15 October 2001.

3. Although the previous Assembly Committee on Standards and Privileges conducted a review of “The Code of Conduct" and “The Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members" in 2002, amendments proposed by that Committee were not implemented due to suspension of the Assembly.

4. The current Committee on Standards and Privileges agreed on 5th September 2007 that it should conduct a comprehensive review of “The Code of Conduct" and “The Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members". The Committee subsequently agreed that it would be appropriate to consult widely on any changes that the Committee might propose to the Code and Guide.

Issues Considered by the Committee

5. In this review the Committee considered a range of issues with a view to expanding the Code and Guide where necessary and proposed a series of amendments to ensure greater transparency in respect of registration of interests. These include expanding on the principles of public life that underpin adherence to the Code and significant changes to the categories of registrable interest including a new category on employment of MLAs’ family members.

6. The Committee would welcome the views of Members and others on the proposals contained in this Consultation Report. Following any representations that may be made, the Committee will review the proposals and will make a further Report to the Assembly. Any comments should be submitted to the Committee Clerk not later than noon on the 4th August 2008.

7. The existing “Code of Conduct together with The Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members" is reproduced at Appendix 2. This version indicates where the changes have been proposed by the Committee.

8. To inform the Committee and to assist in their deliberations research has been undertaken to identify codes of ethical standards and conduct in public life. Members particularly noted the codes approved by the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and Dáil Éireann.

Structure

The Committee considered proposals to restructure the Code. One of the main issues for discussion in respect of this was the difficulty for complainants to delineate between the Code proper and the principles that underpin it. The proposed changes therefore restructure the Code into four distinct volumes.

Volume 1: Introduction and
Principles of Conduct

The Committee proposed that Volume 1 should be comprised solely of a section on Personal Conduct. The seven principles of conduct in public life which were annunciated by the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1995 (“the Nolan Principles") were discussed at length and the Commitee concluded that these should be expanded to include Public Duty, Respect, Equality, Working Relationships and Promoting Community Relationships.

Volume 1
Personal Conduct

Members shall observe the following principles of conduct which are based upon the general principles of conduct identified by the Committee on Standards in Public Life as applying to holders of public office:

Public Duty

Members have a duty to uphold the law and to act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them.

Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the community as a whole.

Members have a special duty to their constituents and are responsible to the electorate who are the final arbiter of their conduct as public representatives.

Selflessness

Members should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not act in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, their friends or associates.

Integrity

Members should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations which might reasonably be thought by others to influence them in the performance of their duties as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Objectivity

In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly should make choices on merit.

Accountability

Members are accountable for their decisions and actions to the people of Northern Ireland and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

Openness

Members should be as open as possible about the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

Honesty

Members should act honestly. They have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties. Members should take steps to resolve any conflicts between their private interests and public duties at once and in a way that protects the public interest.

Leadership

Members should promote and support these principles by leadership and example in order to establish and maintain the trust and confidence of the people of Northern Ireland, and to ensure the integrity of the Northern Ireland Assembly and its Members in conducting business.

Respect

It is acknowledged that the exchange of ideas, and opinions on policies may be robust but this should be kept in context and not extend to individuals being subjected to unreasonable and excessive personal attack. Members should keep in mind that rude and offensive behaviour may lower the public’s regard for, and confidence in, Members and the Assembly itself. Members should therefore show respect and consideration for others at all times.

Equality

Members should promote equality of opportunity and not discriminate against any person by treating people with respect regardless of race, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, political opinion, marital status and whether or not a person has dependents.

Working Relationships

Members should work responsibly with other Members of the Assembly for the benefit of the whole community. Members must treat other Members and the staff of other Members with courtesy and respect. Members must abide by the Assembly Standing Orders and should promote an effective working environment within the Assembly.

The relationship between Members and Assembly staff must at all times be professional, courteous and based on mutual respect. This also applies to contract staff at the Assembly.

Promoting Good Relations

Members will act in a way that is conducive to promoting good relations by providing a positive example for the wider community to follow by acting justly and promoting a culture of respect for the law.

Q1: The Committee has expanded upon the Nolan Principles to include Respect, Equality, Working Relationships and Promoting Good Relations. Do these, and the original seven principles, encapsulate the general principles of conduct to be expected of elected public representatives?

Q2: In the paragraph on ‘Public Duty’ do the three points sufficiently reflect the fundamental elements which constitute ‘Public Duty’?

Q3: Is there a need to refer specifically to legislation in the paragraph on ‘Equality’ e.g. Section 75?

Volume 2: The Code of
Conduct for Members of the
Northern Ireland Assembly

The Committee also gave consideration to the content of Volume 2 and concluded that this should provide guidance on the Code proper and include the Purpose of the Code, Scope of the Code, reemphasis on Public Duty, the Rules of the Code of Conduct, and Duties in respect of the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards.

Volume 2
The Code of Conduct for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly

Purpose of the Code

The purpose of the Code of Conduct of the Northern Ireland Assembly (‘the Code’) is to assist Members in the discharge of their obligations to the Assembly, their constituents and the public at large.

The Code aims to:

Scope

It is important to note that this Code aims to cover the conduct of all Members with respect to their duties as an elected Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, it does not cover the conduct or activities of Members in any other capacity, for example:

It is also important to understand that the obligations of Members detailed in this Code are complementary to those that apply to all Members by virtue of the procedural and other rules of the Assembly including the rulings of the Speaker.

Public Duty

Members have a duty to uphold the law and to act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them.

Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the community as a whole.

Members have a special duty to their constituents and are responsible to the electorate who are the final arbiter of their conduct as public representatives.

Rules of the Code of Conduct

Members should 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 should 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 into disrepute.

The acceptance by a Member of a bribe to influence his or her conduct as a Member, including any fee, compensation or reward in connection with the promotion of, or opposition to, any Bill, Motion, or other matter submitted, or intended to be submitted to the Assembly, or to any Committee of the Assembly, is contrary to law. Any Member who is offered a bribe as described above should refer the matter to the appropriate authority and to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

Members should fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the Assembly in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Interests and shall always draw attention to any relevant interest in any proceeding of the Assembly or its Committees, or in any communications with Ministers, Government Departments or Executive Agencies.

In any activities with, or on behalf of, an organisation with which a Member has a financial relationship, including activities which may not be a matter of public record such as informal meetings and functions, he or she must always bear in mind the need to be open and frank with Ministers, Members and officials.

No Member shall act as a paid advocate in any proceeding of the Assembly.

No improper use shall be made of any payment or allowance made to Members for public purposes and the administrative rules applying to such payments, allowances and resources must be strictly observed.

Members shall at all times observe and comply with any guidance or instructions of any kind approved by the Assembly, or issued by the Assembly Commission or Assembly Directorates on its behalf or with its authority.

Members must bear in mind that information which they receive in confidence in the course of their Assembly duties should be used only in connection with those duties, and that such information must never be used for the purpose of financial gain.

Duties in respect of the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards and Privileges

The application of this Code shall be a matter for the Assembly, and for the Committee on Standards and Privileges and the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards.

Members shall co-operate at all times with any investigation into their conduct by or under the authority of the Assembly. Any substantiated allegation of non-compliance with an investigation will constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct. A Member found to have not complied with an investigation will be subject to the appropriate sanction outlined in paragraph 29 of the complaints procedure.

No Member shall lobby a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, or the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards in a manner calculated or intended to influence their consideration of a complaint alleging a breach of this Code.

Q4: Is the Purpose of the Code clear?

Q5: Is the ‘Scope’ of the Code clear? Do the ‘duties’ referred to in the first line need to be defined?

Q6: Should ‘Public Duty’ form part of this volume given it is proposed as one of the principles of the Code?

Q7: Are these rules comprehensive, given the role of an MLA?

Q8: Are the ‘Rules of the Code’ sufficiently unambiguous to allow a Member to make an informed judgment in respect of his/her conduct?

Q9: Is more guidance required to indicate what would be considered an acceptable level of compliance by a Member with the Interim Commissioner’s investigation? For example, do response times for correspondence with the Interim Commissioner need to be established?

Volume 3: The Guide to the Rules
Relating to the Conduct of Members

The Committee agreed that the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members should constitute Volume 3 of the Code and be comprised of an Introduction, Registration of Members’ Interests, the Categories of Registrable Interests, Declaration of Members’ Interests, and the Rule Banning Lobbying for Reward or Consideration.

Volume 3
The Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members

Introduction

1. The purpose of this Guide is to assist Members in discharging the duties placed upon them by the Code of Conduct agreed by the Assembly. It replaces the Guide approved by a Resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly on the 14 December 1999 and amended on 15 October 2001. The rules within this Guide derive their authority from a Resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly and are therefore enforceable by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

2. No written guidance can provide for all circumstances and the examples provided do not therefore constitute an exhaustive list. When in doubt Members should seek the advice of the Clerk of Standards who, if necessary, will seek adjudication from the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

3. The Guide is divided into four Sections dealing with (1) Registration of Interests (paragraphs 7 to 17); (2) the Categories of Registrable Interests (paragraph 18 to 63); (3) Declaration of Interests (paragraphs 64 to 76); (4) the Rule Banning Lobbying for Reward or Consideration (paragraphs 77 to 88).

4. The Code of Conduct provides a framework within which acceptable conduct should be judged and to assist Members in the discharge of their obligations to the Assembly, their constituents and the public at large. This Guide contains guidelines (paragraphs 77 to 88) to assist Members in applying the rule banning lobbying for reward or consideration. Paragraph 88 deals with the conflict of interest that may arise when a Member holding a relevant financial interest takes part in a delegation involving the source of that interest

5. The Assembly has two distinct but related methods for the disclosure of the personal financial interests of its Members: registration of interests in a Register which is open for public inspection; and declaration of interest in the course of making a speech or asking questions in the Assembly chamber or in Committee, or participation in any other proceedings of the Assembly.

The main purpose of the Register is to give public notification on a continuous basis of those financial interests held by Members which might be thought to influence their conduct in carrying out their Assembly duties.

The main purpose of declaration of interest is to ensure fellow Members of the Assembly and the public are made aware, at the appropriate time when a Member is making a speech or asking questions, written or oral, in the Assembly chamber or in Committee or participating in any other proceedings of the Assembly, of any past, present or expected future financial interest, direct or indirect, which might reasonably be thought to be relevant to those proceedings.

6. Northern Ireland Ministers and junior Ministers are subject to the rules of registration, declaration and lobbying in the same way as other Members. Ministers are also subject to the Ministerial Code in order to ensure that no conflict arises, nor appears to arise, between their private interests and their public duties. These requirements will not be enforced by the Assembly. Queries in respect of the Ministerial Code should be directed to the Office of the First and deputy First Minister.

Registration of Members’ Interests

7. The rules within this Guide derive their authority from a Resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly {date of Resolution} and are therefore enforceable by the Northern Ireland Assembly. It replaces the Guide approved by a Resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly on the 14 December 1999 and amended on 15 October 2001. Under this Resolution of {date of Resolution} Members are required to register their financial interests in a Register of Members’ Interests. The duty of compiling the Register rests with the Clerk of Standards.

Definition of the Register’s Purpose

8. The main purpose of the Register of Members’ Interests is to provide information of any financial interests or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches or votes in the Assembly, or actions taken in his or her capacity as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Provision is also made for the registration of non-financial interests and other such information as the Assembly may from time to time require to be included. The registration form specifies eleven categories of registrable interests which are described below. Apart from the specific rules, there is a more general obligation upon Members to keep the overall definition of the Register’s purpose in mind when registering their interests.

Duties of Members in Respect of Registration

9. After an election of the Assembly, Members are required to complete a registration form and submit it to the Clerk of Standards within three months of taking their seats in accordance with Standing Orders. For Members returned at a by-election the time limit is also three months from the date on which they take their seats. Members taking their seats in accordance with section 35 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 must also complete a registration form within three months of taking their seats. After the initial publication of the Register, (or, in the case of Members returned at by-elections or in accordance with section 35 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, after their initial registration) it is the responsibility of Members to notify changes in their registrable interests within four weeks of each change occurring in accordance with Standing Orders.

10. Any Member having a registrable interest which has not at the time been registered, shall not undertake any action, speech or proceeding of the Assembly to which the registration would be relevant until notification has been given to the Clerk of Standards of that interest. Members should also consider whether it is appropriate to vote in such circumstances.

11. The sole responsibility for complying with the duties placed upon them by this Guide rests with Members. Members may at any time seek the advice and guidance on the registration and declaration of interests.

12. Failure to register an interest is a breach of section 43 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Should a complaint be received in respect of failure to register an interest, and this is not subject to amendment in accordance with the Rectification Procedure, and this is confirmed by the Interim Commissioner following investigation, it will be referred to the PPS by the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

Q10: In paragraph 10 the Committee proposed that a Member ‘should also consider whether it is appropriate to vote in such circumstances’. Is it reasonable to give the Member this discretion?

Publication and Public Inspection

13. The Register is published soon after the beginning of a new Assembly, under the authority of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The Register will be published in electronic format on the Assembly’s website. Hard copies will be retained by the Clerk of Standards and the Assembly Library. The Register is available for public inspection in the Office of the Clerk of Standards. Hard copies will be made available upon request.

14. At the discretion of the Clerk, copies of individual entries in the Register may be supplied on request. However, the employment agreements deposited with the Clerk which relate to registered interests (paragraph 26) are available for personal inspection only.

Adding and Deleting Interests

15. A Member may request in writing that his/her entry in the Register of Interests is amended.

16. Where this involves adding an interest the Member must lodge a written notice with the Clerk of Standards. The Member must indicate the nature of the interest, the category under which it should be registered, and the date at which the interest was acquired.

17. Where a Member wishes to have a ceased interest removed from the Register the Member must lodge a written notice with the Clerk of Standards identifying the ceased interest and giving the date that it became a ceased interest. The Clerk of Standards will amend the Member’s entry to record the relevant interest as a ceased interest, the date it became a ceased interest and the date on which the amendment was made in the Register. Not less than 12 months after the notice is lodged the Clerk of Standards will further amend the Register by deleting the interest and sending a copy of the amended entry to the Member.

The Categories of Registrable Interest

Category 1

Directorships: Remunerated directorships in public and private companies including directorships which are individually remunerated, but where remuneration is paid through another company in the same group.

18. In this Category, and in others, “remuneration" includes not only salaries and fees, but also the receipt of any taxable expenses, allowances, or benefits, such as the provision of a company car. It is necessary to register the name of the company in which the directorship is held and to give a broad indication of the companies business, where that is not self-evident from its name. In addition to any remunerated directorships, a Member is also required to register any directorships he or she holds which are themselves unremunerated but where the companies in question are associated with, or subsidiaries of, a company in which he or she holds a remunerated directorship. Otherwise, Members are not required to register unremunerated directorships (see Category 10).

19. Companies which have not begun to trade or which have ceased trading need not be registered, either under this Category or under Category 9 (shareholdings). “Not trading" should, however, be interpreted in a strict sense; if a company is engaged in any transaction additional to those required by law to keep it in being, then a remunerated directorship in that company should be registered. If a Member wishes to register a directorship in a company which is not trading the Member should make the position clear by adding the words “not trading" after the name of the company.

20. Any provision to clients of services which depend essentially upon, or arise out of, the Member’s position as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly should be registered under this Category.

21. All clients to which personal services are provided should be listed together with the nature of the client’s business in each case. Where a Member receives remuneration from a company or partnership engaged in consultancy business which itself has clients, the Member should list any of those clients to whom personal services or advice is provided, either directly or indirectly.

22. The types of services which are intended to be covered here include those connected with any Assembly proceeding, or other services relating to membership. A Member who has clients in a non-Assembly professional capacity (for example as a doctor, solicitor or accountant) is not required to register those clients, provided it is clear beyond doubt that the services which are being provided do not arise out of or relate in any manner to membership of the Assembly.

Category 2

Remunerated Employment, Office, Profession, etc: Employment, office, trade, profession or vocation which is remunerated or in which the Member has any pecuniary interest.

23. All employment outside the Assembly and any sources of remuneration which do not fall clearly within any other Category should be registered here. When registering employment, Members should not simply state the employer company and the nature of its business, but should also indicate the nature of the post which they hold in the company or the services for which the company remunerates them. Members who have paid posts as consultants or advisers should indicate the nature of the consultancy, for example “management consultant", “legal adviser", “public affairs consultant".

24. Members who have previously practised a profession may wish to register that profession under this Category with a bracketed remark such as “[non-practising]" after the entry. This is particularly desirable in cases of sleeping partnerships and where it is likely that the Member will resume the profession at a later stage.

25. Where the remunerated employment involves any provision to clients of services which depend essentially upon, or arise out of, the Member’s position as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly but is not as a result of a remunerated Directorship (Category 1) it should be registered under this Category. If this is the case, the requirements under paragraphs 21 and 22 also apply to this category.

Q11. The provisions of Category 3 have been incorporated into Categories 1 and 2. Is this an appropriate amalgamation or should a separate category on Clients be maintained?

Employment Agreements

26. Members should deposit certain employment agreements with the Clerk of Standards. Any Member who has an existing agreement or proposes to enter into an agreement which involves the provision of services in his or her capacity as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly should:

a) ensure, that the agreement does not breach the rule banning lobbying for reward or consideration (see paragraphs 77 - 88);

b) put any such agreement in written form;

c) deposit a full copy of the agreement with the Clerk of Standards. The agreement should indicate the nature of the services to be provided and specify the fees or benefits the Member is to receive in bands of (1) up to £1,000; (2) £1,001 to £5,000; (3) £5,001 to £10,000 (and thereafter in bands of £5,000).

d) make the appropriate entry in the Register of Members’ Interests; and

e) declare the interest when it is appropriate to do so (see paragraphs 64 - 76).

Deposited agreements may be inspected in the Office of the Clerk of Standards. The terms of the Resolution of the Assembly do not permit the taking of copies.

27. The requirement for employment agreements to be put in writing will apply principally to any arrangement whereby a Member may offer advice about Assembly matters. It should also include frequent, as opposed to merely occasional, commitments outside the Northern Ireland Assembly which arise directly from membership of the Assembly. For example, a regular, paid newspaper column or television programme would have to be the subject of a written agreement, but ad hoc current affairs or news interviews or intermittent panel appearances would not.

28. A regular paid newspaper column, or regular contribution to a radio or television programme, need not be the subject of a written agreement if its subject is wholly unrelated to Assembly or public affairs (e.g. a sports column).

29. Disclosing remuneration for Assembly services separately from remuneration for other services would be justified only in exceptional circumstances; e.g. where the Assembly services are separately identifiable and form only a small proportion of the services as a whole. In any such case the entry in the Register should make it clear that the remuneration is for Assembly services as part of a wider agreement.

The Committee discussed the requirement for MLAs to be more transparent in relation to all the elected or public offices that they hold. The Committee acknowledged that while such interests could be registered under category 10 (Miscellaneous) it was agreed that Members required clearer guidance and, in the interests of transparency, a separate category should be established.

Category 3

Elected/Public Office: Members are required to register their membership of all elected and public offices whether it is remunerated or not, or if expenses only are payable.

30. Membership of all public offices, including Membership of the United Kingdom Parliament, Dáil, Seanad Eireann, the European Parliament or ministerial office must be declared. The only office that is not necessary to register is Membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

31. Membership of all public bodies, including acting in a voluntary capacity or in a public body, e.g. city, district or borough councils, education and library boards, health and social services board or health trusts, boards of governors of schools, other non departmental public bodies, etc must be registered.

Q12: Is it reasonable to expect that all public offices held by a Member, other than membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly, should be registered?

Category 4

The Committee considered the renaming of Category 4 (Sponsorships) in light of the potential confusion regarding the definition of ‘sponsorship’ in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 where it refers to paying for conferences, events or publications. It does not extend to all benefits received. The Committee therefore proposed renaming this category “Election Support and Political Donations".

The Committee was aware of the potential implications of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 on the Code and Guide and has been working with the Electoral Commission to ensure convergence where possible between the Assembly’s Register of Interests and the Electoral Commission’s Register. Currently there is a dual obligation to register certain interests in not only the Assembly’s Register of Interests but also with the Electoral Commission. The Committee and the Commission recognise the potential to establish a single point of registration for Members to reduce bureaucracy and streamline the registration of interests.

However, while the Assembly’s Register is a public document the Commission’s register is not and the information it contains is confidential. Therefore, instead of a focus on transparency, the Commission’s register is concerned with ensuring that political donations come from permissible donors. While discussions are proceeding with the Electoral Commission on how to best achieve a single point of registration, the Committee thought it best not to delay the wider consultation process on the revised Code.

The Committee therefore proposed that the Category should read as follows:

Category 4

Electoral Support and Political Donations: Members are required to register under this category:

a) any donations received by a Member’s constituency party or association, or relevant grouping of associations, which is linked either to candidacy at an election or to membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly; and

b) any other form of financial or material support as a Member of the Assembly amounting to more than £1000 from a single source, whether as a single donation or as multiple donations of more than £200 during the course of the calendar year.

However, donations made directly to a constituency party as an expression of general political support, not linked to the Member’s candidacy or membership of the Assembly, should not be registered.

32. This Category deals with financial donations or other forms of support from a ‘single source’ which in this context means from a company, trade union, professional body, trade association, other organisation or individual. Subsection (b) relates to other forms of support, which is interpreted to cover any regular or continuing support from companies, organisations or individuals from which the Member receives any financial or material benefit in support of his or her role as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Members should register any specific forms of support which they receive irrespective of whether this includes personal payment. If a company is a donor the nature of its business should be indicated.

33. Political donations which Members are required to report to the Electoral Commission should be entered under this Category unless -

a) it would be more appropriate to enter them under another Category, such as Category 5 (Gifts, Benefits and Hospitality (UK) or Category 6 (Overseas Visits);

or

b) they are exempt from registration.

Such donations would not fall within the exemption to disclosure recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life[1] Blind Trusts may not be used as a means for avoiding disclosure of individual donations.[2]

34. Members should register non-cash donations. These are defined as goods or services given to a holder of elective office without charge or at a discount of more than 10% of the normal commercial value. This might for example include the provision of services of a research assistant or secretary whose salary, in whole or in part, is met by an external organization or individual.

35. The provision of free or subsidised accommodation for the Member’s use, other than accommodation provided solely by the constituency party, should be registered, as appropriate, either in this section or under Category 5 “Gifts, benefits and hospitality"; except that accommodation provided by a local authority at no cost, or at a subsidised cost, to a Member for the sole purpose of holding constituency surgeries is exempt from registration.

In relation to this last point the Committee acknowledged that a local council is not a permissible donor under PPERA and therefore MLAs should not accept any benefits in kind from councils in connection with their political activities. However, recognising that the use of council maintained rooms for surgeries is common practice and not wishing to discourage elected representatives from having contact with their constituents the Committee will explore with the Electoral Commission what the best way is to preserve this practice within the constraints of the existing legislation.

Q13: Does this title adequately reflect the registration requirements of the category?

Q14: Does the guidance provide clarity on what the Member needs to register?

Q15: Are the levels of financial and material support required for registration set at an appropriate level? If not what level would be appropriate and why?

Q16: Should a Member have to register the use of council maintained rooms for scheduled constituency surgeries?

Q17: Should there be a single point for the registration of interests rather than the current need for dual reporting?

Q18: Donations to individuals taking part in party leadership contests at a national level have come under public scrutiny. Should donations made to Members of the Assembly in relation to leadership contests within their political parties be registered?

The Committee also seeks comment on the following:

Within the PPERA legislation the definition of reportable donations is tied in with the idea of ‘political activities’. The Electoral Commission has generally interpreted this phrase broadly to encompass party political as well as governmental and legislative activity. The Committee seek comment on whether the requirement to report donations received by an MLA ‘in support of his or her role’ as an MLA is analogous to the PPERA definition of ‘political activities’.

Category 5

Gifts, benefits and hospitality (UK): Any gift to the Member or the Member’s partner, or any material benefit of a value greater than [% of Member’s current Assembly salary or set value] from any company, organisation or person within the UK which in any way relates to membership of the Assembly.

36. The specified financial value above which tangible gifts (such as money, jewellery, glassware etc.) and other benefits (such as hospitality, tickets to sporting or cultural events, relief from indebtedness, loan concessions, provision of services etc.) must be registered is [% of Member’s current Assembly salary or set value].

37. Gifts or benefits from a single source, over the course of a calendar year, whose cumulative value is over [% of Member’s current Assembly salary or set value] should also be registered.

38. Benefits, such as tickets to sporting or cultural events, received by another person together with or on behalf of a Member should be registered as if they have been received by the Member. Gifts, or other benefits, received from another Member of the Assembly are registrable in the same way as those from anyone else.

39. Any gifts, hospitality, material benefits received by the Member or, to the Member’s knowledge, the Member’s partner or any dependent child of the Member, from any company, organisation or person which arise out of, or are related in any manner to, membership of the Assembly.

40. The rule means that any gift, or other benefit, which in any way relates to membership of the Assembly and which is given gratis, or at a cost below that generally available to members of the public, should be registered whenever the value of the gift or benefit is greater than the amount specified in paragraph 36. Any similar gift or benefit which is received by any company or organisation in which the Member, or the Member and the Member’s partner jointly, have a controlling interest should also be registered.

41. There are three important exceptions to this rule:

(a) gifts and benefits known to be available to all Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly need not be registered;

(b) a Member need not register attendance at a conference or a site visit within the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland where the organiser meets reasonable travel costs and subsistence only; and

(c) hospitality provided by the UK Government, any of the devolved institutions in the UK, the government of the Republic of Ireland, the Member’s local council or Non-Departmental Public Bodies is exempt from Registration.

42. Gifts and material benefits in this Category (and other Categories) are exempt from registration if they do not relate in any way to membership of the Assembly. The extent to which this exemption applies in any particular case is necessarily a matter of judgement. Both the possible motive of the giver and the use to which the gift is put have to be considered: if it is clear on both counts that the gift or benefit is entirely unrelated to membership of the Assembly, or would not reasonably be thought by others to be so related, it need not be registered. If there is any doubt it should be registered.

43. Where a gift is registered the Member is required to provide the nature of the gift and the date it was received.

In a number of categories the Committee sought to bring consistency to the level of benefit, financial or otherwise, above which a Member should have to register such interests. In doing so it considered set levels in corresponding categories in other administrations. A value of 1% of a Member’s salary for similar categories emerged as a possible benchmark above which such benefits must be registered. However, the Committee was mindful of the review of MLAs’ salaries which might potentially increase the value of a gift a member could receive without having to register it. After discussion the Committee agreed that a value between 0.5 and 1% may be reasonable but decided to seek views rather that advocate a specific percentage or set value.

Q19: What is a reasonable level above which a gift/benefit/hospitality to a Member should be registered?

Q20: Are the exemptions referred to in (a) – (c) reasonable?

Category 6

Overseas visits: With certain specified exceptions, overseas visits made by the Member or the Member’s partner, or dependent children, relating to or in any way arising out of membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly where the cost of the visit was not wholly borne by the Member, or by United Kingdom or Northern Ireland public funds.

44. The Member should enter in the Register the date, destination and purpose of the visit and the name of the Government, organisation, company or individual which met the cost. Where only part of the cost was borne by an outside source (for example the cost of accommodation but not the cost of travel), those details should be stated briefly. When an overseas visit was arranged by a registered All-Party or Assembly group or by a party backbench group, it is not sufficient to name the group as the sponsor of the visit; the Government, organisation, company or person ultimately meeting the cost should be specified.

45. The following categories of visit, which are mainly paid for from Northern Ireland public funds or which involve reciprocity with other Governments or Parliaments, together with any hospitality associated with such a visit and available to all participants, are exempt from registration:

(a) Visits which are paid for by, or which are undertaken on behalf of, the Northern Ireland Executive or which are made on behalf of an international organisation to which the Northern Ireland Assembly belongs;

(b) Visits abroad with, or on behalf of, a Committee of the Assembly or the Assembly Commission;

(c) Visits undertaken under the auspices of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (or the British-Irish Parliamentary Body) or the Westminster Foundation for Democracy;

(d) Visits arranged and paid for wholly by a Member’s own political party;

(e) Visits paid for wholly by an institution of the European Union or by a political group of the European Parliament;

(f) Visits as part of an Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship or the NI Assembly Business Trust.

46. Visits which are entirely unconnected with membership of the Assembly or whose cost does not exceed [% of Member’s current Assembly salary or set value] are also exempt from registration.

Q21: Are the exemptions reasonable? Should any other category of visit be included on this list?

Q22: In relation to the last paragraph of this category what is a reasonable value above which visits may be considered exempt i.e. in terms of % of Member’s current Assembly salary or set value?

Category 7

Overseas benefits and gifts: Any gift to the Member or the Member’s partner or dependent children or any material benefit of a value greater than [% of Member’s current Assembly salary or set value] from any company, organisation or person outside of the UK which in any way relates to membership of the Assembly.

47. The financial limits and guidelines which apply to the previous Category also apply here. Members should enter a cross-reference under this Category where an interest already entered in Categories 1, 2 or 3 entails the receipt of payments abroad.

Q23: What is a reasonable level above which a benefit or gift should be register red i.e. in terms of % of Member’s current Assembly salary or set value?

Q24: The Committee has proposed that gifts given to dependent children should be registered if the gift relates to the parent’s membership of the NI Assembly. Is this reasonable?

Category 8

Land and Property: Any land or property either within or outside of Northern Ireland, other than any home used for personal residential purposes of the Member, or the Member’s partner or any dependent child of the Member from which a substantial income is derived must be registered. The nature of the property should be indicated.

48. For the purposes of this category:

49. A farm on which the Member has a residence should be registered because it has a substantial value aside from the residential use. Entries should be reasonably specific as to the nature of the property and its general location, for example:

50. A Member must register any property which he/she holds as a trustee only when the Member has a beneficial interest in the income or assets of the relevant trust.

51. A Member does not have to register his/her home if it is used solely for residential purposes. However, it will have to be registered if it provides rental income that contributes to the Member’s income from his/her total property portfolio being substantial. All other properties that contribute to this total income will also have to be registered.

52. Members who own second homes but who do not receive an income from them may also register them under this category.

Q25: Should any land or property owned by a Member’s partner or dependent children, or jointly with his/her partner which is of a substantial value or which contributes to a substantial income have to be registered?

Q26: Are the definitions of “substantial value" and “substantial income" reasonable? If not, what would be reasonable?

Category 9 – Shareholdings

Shareholdings: 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 where either:

(a) the nominal value of the shares at the relevant date is, or was, greater than 1 % of the total nominal value of the issued share capital[3] of the company or other body; or

(b) the market value of the shares at the relevant date exceeds, or exceeded, 50% of a member’s salary on that date (rounded down to the nearest £10).

53. For each registrable shareholding, the entry should state the name of the company or body, briefly indicate the nature of its business, and make clear which of the criteria for registration is applicable.

54. The value of a shareholding is determined by the market price of the share on the preceding 5th April; but if the market price cannot be ascertained (e.g. because the company is unquoted and there is no market in the shares), the nominal value of the shareholding should be taken instead. The Member must then obtain a new valuation on each subsequent 5th April. If the value continues to exceed the relevant proportion of salary, then the shares should be continued to be registered. If they fall under that value then the Member may have the interest removed from the Register.

55. In considering whether to register any shareholdings falling outside (a) and (b) Members should have regard to the definition of the main purpose of the Register: “to provide information of any financial interest or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches or votes in the Assembly, or actions taken in his or her capacity as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly". If a Member considers that any shareholding which he or she holds falls within this definition, the Member should register the shareholding either in this Category or under Category 10.

Q27: Are the levels suggested in (a) and (b) reasonable? If not, what levels would be and why?

The Committee also considered the current guidance on the registration of trusts. Overseas trusts were originally singled out in the Commons Register in Session 1997-1998 because at that time it was thought that they had certain tax advantages. This is not now believed to be the case.

The Committee seeks comment on the following:

Q28: Should the rules be amended to remove the existing references to overseas trusts so that all trusts are regulated under the same basis?

Q29: Should trusts, or any specific types of trusts, be registrable? If so should the rules be amended to specify that:

a) A Member who benefits from a trust should register it under this category if the total holdings of the trust are worth more than the current Assembly Salary; or

b) A Member who benefits from a trust which brings in an income of more than 1% of the current Assembly salary should register it under this Category;

c) A Member who has placed his or her assets in a ‘blind trust’ so that he or she is not aware of and has no control over the assets should not be under any obligation to register?

Pensions are not currently registrable, although in certain circumstances they may be declarable. However, in some cases registration might be considered appropriate. These include self-investment personal pensions (SIPPS) where the person who creates the scheme knows and controls the investments which are, therefore, virtually indistinguishable in this respect from personal shareholdings.

Q30: Should the rules require the registration of identifiable holdings of registrable value which are held within Members’ personal pension plans?

Category 10

Unremunerated and Miscellaneous Interests: Any relevant financial or non-financial interest not falling clearly within one of the above categories.

56. This category has two main functions:

57. Members are required to register unremunerated directorships, e.g. directorships of charitable trusts, professional bodies, learned societies or sporting or artistic organisations, where such a body might directly benefit from public funds or from a decision taken by the Northern Ireland Assembly. Where a Member considers that an unremunerated interest, other than a directorship, which the Member holds might be thought by others to influence his or her actions in a similar manner to a remunerated interest, such an interest should be registered here.

The Committee considered the introduction of a new category specifying ‘Membership of societies’ but after some discussion it agreed that such interests should be combined in a wider category to encompass both financial and non-financial interests that do not readily fit into preceding categories. The Committee therefore agreed to the new category 10.

Category 11

Family members employed and remunerated through the Office Cost Allowance

58. For the purposes of this Category the Member should register family members remunerated through the Office Cost Allowance where the Member knows of, or might reasonably be expected to know of, any relationship, past or present:

59. In order to strike a balance between the conflicting considerations of transparency and privacy where a relationship and other relevant information needs to be registered, then the Member should state the nature of the relationship and the position in which the person is employed. For example,

“I employ my wife as a Researcher and my daughter as my Office Manager".

60. Members must also register their employment of former spouses, civil partners and their children.

61. In cases where the relevant relationship ends but the employment continues then the requirement to register will continue to apply for a period of one year.

62. Where a Member employs a family Member of another MLA then this must also be registered. For example,

“I employ the granddaughter of [MLA’s name] as my Research Assistant".

63. In the case where a family member is employed either for work experience or on a casual basis then this is exempt from registration if the total annual payments from the Office Cost Allowance to the individual concerned do not exceed [% of Member’s current Assembly salary or set value], consistent with similar thresholds applied elsewhere in the Register.

Details of standard job descriptions and salary bands which are provided for guidance can be found on the Assembly website at [insert web link].

The Committee discussed the issue of MLAs employing family members and paying them from the Office Cost Allowance. There was unanimous agreement that there should be a mandatory requirement on MLAs to register their employment of family members. There was some debate as to the information required to be registered but the Committee was unanimous in proposing the content of Category 11.

Q31: Is this category sufficiently transparent to indicate the relationship, role and salary of family members employed by Members of the Assembly?

Q32: Is it reasonable to require registration of employment of a family member e.g. spouse, when that relationship ends but the employment continues?

Q33: What is a reasonable level above which payment to a family member employed on a casual basis or employed for work experience should be registered i.e. in terms of % of Member’s current Assembly salary or set value?

Q34: Is it reasonable to expect Members to state if they employ family members of other MLAs?

Declaration of Members’ Interests

Rules of the Assembly

64. Members should declare any relevant financial interest or benefit of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, in debate, or other proceedings. The same rule places a duty on Members to disclose to Ministers, or servants of the Crown, all relevant interests. The term ‘servants of the Crown’ should be interpreted as applying to the staff of executive agencies as well as to all staff employed in government departments.

Past and potential interests

65. The rule relating to declaration of interest is broader in scope than the rules relating to the registration of interests in two important respects. As well as current interests, Members are required to declare both relevant past interests and relevant interests which they may be expecting to have. In practice only interests held in the recent past, i.e. those contained in the current printed edition of the Register, need normally be considered for declaration. Expected future interests, on the other hand, may be more significant. Where, for example, a Member is debating legislation or making representations to a Minister on a matter from which he or she has a reasonable expectation of personal financial advantage, openness is essential. In deciding when a possible future benefit is sufficiently tangible to necessitate declaration, the key word in the rule which the Member must bear in mind is “expecting". Where a Member’s plans or degree of involvement in a project have passed beyond vague hopes and aspirations and reached the stage where there is a reasonable expectation that a financial benefit will accrue, then a declaration explaining the situation should be made.

Relevance

66. It is the responsibility of the Member, having regard to the rules of the Assembly, to judge whether a financial interest is sufficiently relevant to a particular debate, proceeding, meeting or other activity to require a declaration. The basic test of relevance should be the same for declaration as it is for registration of an interest; namely, that a financial interest should be declared if it might reasonably be thought by others to influence the speech, representation or communication in question. A declaration should be brief but should make specific reference to the nature of the Members’ interest.

67. No difficulty should arise in any proceeding of the Assembly or its Committees in which the Member has an opportunity to speak. Such proceedings, in addition to debates in the Assembly, include debates in Committees, the presentation of a Public Petition, and meetings of Committees at which evidence is heard. On all such occasions the Member will declare the interest at the beginning of his or her remarks and it will be a matter of judgement, if the interest is already recorded in the Register, whether he or she simply draws attention to this or makes a rather fuller disclosure. Any declaration should be sufficiently informative to enable a listener to understand the nature of the Member’s financial interest.

68. In a debate in the Assembly the Member should declare an interest briefly, usually at the beginning of his or her speech. If the Assembly is dealing with a Committee stage of a Bill it will normally be sufficient for the Member to declare a relevant interest when speaking for the first time. It will not be necessary for a declaration to be repeated at subsequent sittings except when the Member speaks on an Amendment to which the interest is particularly relevant. When giving notice of an Amendment or a Motion, giving notice of the presentation of a Bill or adding a name to an Amendment or Motion, Members should declare any relevant interest in the appropriate manner (see paragraphs 69-72 below).

Declaration of an interest in respect of written notices

69. Declaration of relevant interest is required on Forthcoming Business or the Order Paper when tabling any written notice, i.e.:

(a) Questions (for oral or written answer, including Private Notice Questions);

(b) A notice for the presentation of a Bill;

(c) Any other Motions, Amendments, or names added in support of them;

(d) Amendment to Bills (whether to be considered in the Assembly or in a Committee) and any names added in support of them.

70. Whenever such an interest is declared, the symbol “[R]" is printed after the Member’s name on the Forthcoming Business or Order Paper. The Office accepting the written notice (including any written notice of a Member adding his or her name to a Motion or Amendment) assumes that no interest is declarable unless the notice clearly indicates a declaration; this should be done by inserting “[R]" after the Member’s name on the Motion or Amendment, or adjournment debate topic as the case may be, or filling in the appropriate box which appears on the form for Assembly Questions.

71. “Relevant interests" which should be declared include any interest which the Member is required to register in the Register of Members’ Interests, or which the Member should declare in debate. It will therefore usually be the case that the interest to which the Member is drawing the attention of the Assembly will already be entered in the Register. Provided it is readily apparent which of the Member’s registered interests are applicable, the Member need take no further action. If this is not the case, or if the interest is a new interest which is not yet available for inspection in the Register, then the Member when giving notice should attach to that notice a brief written description of the interest which is being declared. This will then be available for inspection by Members in the Office where the notice was given i.e. the Business Office or the Bills Office. In the case of Private Notice Questions which are allowed, a Member with a relevant interest should declare that interest when the Question is formally asked in the Assembly.

72. All Members need to exercise particular care when invited to add their names to any Motions or Amendments and to ensure that they have considered whether they have a relevant declarable interest. Given the informal way in which support for Motions and Amendments is often sought, the need for declaration may not be foremost in Members’ minds, but great care needs to be exercised by Members in these circumstances.

Declaration of interest in Committees

73. Members of Committees on any matter or Bill must adhere to the following rules:

(a) before the first meeting of a Committee, all Members nominated to serve upon a Committee are required to send to the Clerk of the Committee details of any financial or other interests for circulation to the Committee;

(b) when a member of a Committee, particularly the Chairman, has a financial or other interest which is directly affected by a particular inquiry or when he or she considers that a personal interest may reflect upon the work of the Committee or its subsequent Report, the Member should consider whether he/she should stand aside from the Committee proceeding relating to it;

(c) before proceeding to business, the Chair of the Committee should invite all members of the Committee to declare any interests they may have which relate to the terms of reference of that Committee, or which are likely to be relevant to a substantial part of the work which the Committee may be expected to undertake;

(d) a Member should make a declaration of interest at an early stage in any inquiry to which that interest particularly relates. If the interest is especially relevant to one witness or a group of witnesses appearing before the Committee, the interest should be declared again at the appropriate session of evidence;

(e) a Member is required to declare an interest when asking any questions which relate directly, or which might reasonably be thought by others to relate directly, to the financial or other interest he or she holds. Such a declaration must be made irrespective of any declaration having been made at an earlier meeting of the Committee. One such declaration is sufficient for any questions asked of the same witness during one evidence session;

(f) although the main purpose of declaration of interest is to inform colleagues, it is right that witnesses and the public, if the Committee is meeting in public, should also be informed. When a Committee meets in public, declaration of interest should be in public session. When a Committee meets in private and regularly takes oral evidence, declaration should be made when witnesses are present;

(g) in making any declaration a Member should clearly identify the nature of the financial interest. The form in which a declaration of interest is made, and its extent, must be primarily for the individual Member. A casual reference is not sufficient. A Member should make a declaration in clear terms and should ensure that such a declaration is entered in the Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee;

(h) it is perfectly acceptable for a Member, when declaring an interest which is registered in the Register of Members’ Interests to refer to his or her entry in the Register;

(i) it is important to declare any interest at the beginning or during each Committee meeting. It is not intended to create a situation where the proceedings of Committees are frequently interrupted by declarations. The interests that a Member is required to register may not be at all relevant to his or her work on the Committee and consequently may never need to be declared during its proceedings.

74. Where the subject matter of an inquiry of a Committee is of direct concern to an outside body in which a Member has a financial interest, the Member must consider whether on grounds of conflict of interest it is proper to take part in the inquiry. The Member must also consider whether the relationship of his or her interest to the subject of the inquiry is so close that it is not possible to participate effectively in the inquiry without crossing the borderline into advocacy.

Other occasions when declaration of interest should be considered

75. The requirement to declare a relevant interest at the appropriate time covers almost every aspect of a Member’s Assembly duties extending to correspondence and meetings with Ministers and public officials. Frankness with colleagues is also important. It should be a matter of honour that a financial interest is declared not only, as at present, in debate in the Assembly and its Committees but also whenever a Member is attempting to influence his or her fellow Members, whether in unofficial committees and gatherings or at any kind of sponsored occasion, with or without entertainment, or simply in correspondence or conversation. Above all it should be disclosed when a Member is dealing with Ministers or civil servants, and this obligation becomes of paramount importance when another government is involved either directly or indirectly.

Divisions

76. A Member should seek to ensure that prior to a vote taking place any relevant interest is registered. However, there may be occasions, whether or not a relevant interest has been registered, when the Member has such a direct interest in a particular topic or issue that it would be inappropriate for the Member to vote on such a topic or issue. On such occasions Members should exercise judgement on whether or not they should take part in a division or vote. Members are free at any time to seek the advice and guidance of the Clerk of Standards on the registering and declaring of interests.

The changes to the section on the declaration of interests are largely minor but the Committee would welcome any comments or suggested amendments to this section.

The Rule Banning Lobbying for Reward or Consideration (‘The Rule’)

Paid advocacy is not permitted.

77. If a financial interest or material benefit is required to be registered in the Register of Members’ Interests, or declared in debate, it falls within the scope of the rule. The following guidelines will assist Members in applying the rule.

Initiating an Assembly proceeding

78. When a Member has received, is receiving or expects to receive a financial or material benefit from a body (or individual) outside the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Member may not initiate any Assembly proceeding which relates specifically and directly to the affairs and interests of that body (or individual); any registrable client of such a body (or individual); any group, sector, category or organisation whose affairs and interests are substantially the same as those of the outside body (or individual).

[Note: “Initiating an Assembly proceeding" includes:

79. The Committee on Standards and Privileges would regard it as a very serious breach of the rule if a Member fails to register or declare an interest which was relevant to the proceeding he/she initiated.

Participating in Proceedings of the Assembly

80. When making a speech or participating in any other Assembly proceeding, lobbying is prohibited which seeks to confer benefit exclusively upon a body (or individual) outside the Northern Ireland Assembly, from which the Member has received, is receiving, or expects to receive a financial or material benefit, or upon any registrable client of such a body (or individual). Otherwise a Member may speak freely on matters which specifically and directly relate to the affairs and interests of a body (or individual) from which he or she receives a financial or material benefit, provided the benefit is properly registered and declared.

[Note “Participation in a debate etc" includes:

Constituency issues

81. Irrespective of any relevant interest which the Member is required to register or declare, he or she may pursue any constituency interest in any proceeding of the Assembly, except that:

(a) where the Member has a financial relationship with a company in the Member’s constituency the guidelines above relating to “initiating" and “participation" shall apply;

(b) where the Member is an adviser to a trade association, or to a professional (or other representative) body, the Member should avoid using a constituency interest as the means by which to raise a matter which relates primarily to the wider industrial, professional or other interest and which the Member would otherwise be unable to pursue.

82. Paragraphs 78-81 above reflect the considerations of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Committee’s opinion was that “any Member who is a paid Assembly adviser, or who receives any form of remuneration from any outside body, should not initiate proceedings…if they relate specifically and directly to the affairs and interests of that body". It is also recommended that a Committee on Standards and Privileges, should, when considering any complaint, “have regard to both the nature and directness of the interest giving rise to any remuneration, and how far the relevant Assembly activity could be regarded as conferring, or seeking to confer, a particular benefit on the interest in question".

83. No limitations on Members’ freedom of action interferes with Members’ ability to inform themselves on matters of public concern or with the performance of their paramount duty to represent the interests of their constituents and those of the public generally. Consequently, while the rule on lobbying for reward or consideration restricts a Member’s ability to initiate proceedings, there are fewer restrictions placed upon participation in debate. “There can be few cases where any damage to the public interest can result from a Member who has declared an interest speaking in the Assembly, even in a Second Reading debate on a relevant Bill or in a Committee of the whole Assembly".

84. The Assembly expects the Committee on Standards and Privileges to consider any individual speech against the criterion of whether it might bring particular benefit to the organisation or individual from which the Member received financial or material benefit. This expectation is best met if the scope for participation in debate is governed by the term “exclusive benefit" and this is the definition used in the guidelines.

Parameters to the operation of the rule banning lobbying for reward or consideration

85. The following parameters to the operation of the rule exist:

(a) Registrable interests: The rule applies with equal effect to any registrable or declarable financial or material benefit irrespective of the source of that benefit (i.e. no distinction is drawn between financial or material benefits received from a company, a representative organisation, a charity, a foreign government or any other source). Similarly, no distinction should be drawn in the application of the rule to different categories of registrable or declarable benefit (except for the provision below relating to Private Members’ Bills, to overseas visits, and to membership of other elected bodies). Non-financial interests registered by Members do not fall within the scope of the Resolution agreed by the Assembly on 14 December 1999 and the rule on lobbying for reward or consideration does not apply to them.

Q35: Non-financial interests registered by Members do not fall within the scope of the Resolution agreed by the Assembly on 14 December 1999 and the rule on lobbying for reward or consideration does not currently apply to them. The Committee believed it important to propose an amendment to this which would allow non-financial interests such as ‘material benefit’ to a Member to come under the parameters of this Code including this rule. Is this a reasonable approach?

(b) Past, present, and future benefits: Unlike the Register, which lists current benefits, or benefits received in the immediate past, the Resolution of 14 December 1999 also refers, as does the rule on declaration, to past and expected future benefits. It is difficult to contemplate circumstances where any benefit received some time in the past, particularly an interest which is not in the current printed Register, could be sufficiently relevant to be taken into account under the rule (see (d) below). Expected future interests, on the other hand, may be more significant. For example, Members expecting to derive direct financial benefit from particular legislation should, as well as declaring the interest in debate as appropriate, not seek to move Amendments relevant to the expected future interest. The same consideration applies to other proceedings.

(c) Continuing benefits: Continuing benefits, i.e. directorships, other employment, and sponsorship, can be divested to release a Member with immediate effect from the restrictions imposed by the rule banning lobbying for reward or consideration, provided that the benefit is disposed of and there is no expectation of renewal.

(d) “One-off" benefits: From the publication of the first edition of the Register, which will include the date of registration, the rule will apply to “one-off" registrable benefits, both visits and gifts, from the day upon which the interest was acquired until one year after it is registered.

(e) Family benefits: The rule includes relevant payments or benefits in kind to a Member’s family, including a civil partner or cohabitant, but any payment to a member of the family of any Member which arises out of the family member’s own occupation is not regarded as a benefit for the purposes of the rule.

(f) Private Members’ Bills: Members who seek to introduce and proceed with a Private Members’ Bill are not prevented from doing so by reason of the fact that they receive free or subsidised assistance from an organisation connected with the purpose of the Bill provided the Member had no pre-existing financial relationship with the organisation which is registered, or is required to be registered.

(g) Overseas Visits: Although, except as set out in paragraph 45, overseas visits must be registered and declared, such visits shall not be taken into account when applying the rule.

(h) Membership of other elected bodies: Membership of the House of Commons and local authorities in the UK shall not be taken into account when applying the rule.

(i) Ministers: The restrictions imposed by the rule do not apply to Ministers when acting in the Assembly as Ministers.

86. The financial interests of Members are extremely varied, as the Register demonstrates. Each Member will need to apply the rule banning lobbying for reward or consideration and the guidelines to his or her particular circumstances. When in doubt, Members will be able to seek advice of the Clerk, or the Committee on Standards and Privileges. However, some illustrative examples of the application of the guidelines may be of value:

(a) A Member who is director of a company may not seek particular preference for that company (e.g. tax relief, subsidies, restriction of competition) in any proceeding of the Assembly.

(b) In the case of trade associations, staff associations, professional bodies, charities (or any similar representative organisation):

(i). Membership alone of any representative organisation does not entail any restrictions under the rule.

(ii). A Member who is, for example, a remunerated adviser:

(c) When a Member has a problem involving a company within his or her constituency the Member may take any Assembly action to resolve that problem, even though he or she may hold a remunerated position with a body representing the relevant sector of the industry regionally or nationally, or with another company outside the constituency in the same industrial sector. Similarly a Member who has a remunerated interest with a representative association is not restricted in any way in taking up the case of a constituent who is a member of that association, or is employed by a member of that association. The only circumstances when the Member’s actions are restricted are when the Member has a registrable interest with the company concerned when the guidelines provide that the Member forfeits the special position he or she has as a constituency Member.

(d) Members are reminded that when accepting foreign visits they should be mindful of the reputation of the Assembly. However, the knowledge obtained by Members on such visits can often be of value to the Assembly as a whole. While it is desirable that Members should be able to use that knowledge in debate in the Assembly there is a point at which promoting the interests, of e.g. a foreign Government from which hospitality has been received, crosses the line between informed comment and lobbying for reward or consideration. Members may not, for example, either initiate or advocate in debate increased United Kingdom financial assistance to a Government from which they have recently received hospitality. Nor may the Member advocate any other measure in the NI Assembly which seeks to bring exclusive benefit to the host Government. Subject to this constraint Members could, having declared their interest, raise matters relating to their experiences in the country either in a speech or by initiating any other proceeding. Similarly they could raise matters relating to the problems of the country generally, or make use of any local insight they have obtained into regional problems (e.g. the situation in the Middle East or in South East Asia, economic or social problems or an external threat) or information they have obtained on local developments or initiatives).

(e) A Member whose visit was funded by a non-governmental organisation (NGO) or other agency would not be inhibited in initiating proceedings relating to its work unless the Member sought to raise matters which relate specifically and directly to the affairs and interests of the NGO or agency itself, rather than the problems it was dealing with. In debate the Member could go even wider – only a matter which was for the exclusive benefit of the NGO or agency e.g. a request for a grant-in-aid to the particular organisation – could not be pursued.

(f) Under the rule banning lobbying for reward or consideration, a Member who is receiving free office accommodation provided by a local authority should not advocate measures for the exclusive benefit of the local authority itself (as distinct from the interests of those whom the local authority represents). In practice, since Members also have a paramount duty to represent their constituents there will be few occasions when the application of the rule will place a limit on a Member’s Assembly actions. In any event, accommodation provided solely for the purpose of holding constituency surgeries is exempt from registration and therefore from the application of the rule banning lobbying for reward or consideration.

Responsibility of the Member

87. In common with the rules of the Assembly relating to registration and declaration of interests the main responsibility for observation of the rule banning lobbying for reward or consideration lies with the individual Member. The Select Committee on Standards in Public Life stated in its Second Report that “it is important to make clear that it will not be the function of the Chair to enforce the ban on paid advocacy during speeches, either by interrupting a Member thought to be contravening it, or by declining to call him. Complaints will be a matter for the Commissioner to investigate in the first instance". The Speaker should decline to receive points of order relating to registration or lobbying for reward or consideration.

Delegations

88. The Resolution agreed by the Assembly on 14 December 1999 restricts the extent to which any Member with a paid interest may participate in, or accompany, a delegation to Ministers or public officials relating to that interest. A Member should not initiate, or participate in, or attend any such delegation where the problem to be addressed affects only the body with which the Member has a relevant interest, except when that problem relates primarily to a constituency matter.

The Committee proposed including the receipt of ‘material benefit’ in this section, in addition to financial interest, to enhance the requirement for transparency and to ensure consistency throughout the document. The Committee would welcome any suggestions to further address transparency in relation to lobbying and suggestions on any additional information required to ensure the guidance for Members is clear.

Volume 4: The Complaints Procedure

The Committee proposed substantial changes to the complaints procedure to provide detail on every possible aspect of dealing with a complaint. However, the Committee welcomes comment or suggestions to further enhance the understanding and openness of the procedure.

Volume 4
Complaints Procedure[4]

Receipt of complaint

1. Complaints against Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly should be made to the Committee on Standards and Privileges via the Clerk to the Committee. The Committee Secretariat logs the complaint and forwards:

Consideration of Admissibility

2. The IC will consider the complaint and supporting information to determine whether it is admissible under The Code.

Admissibility criteria

3. The Committee on Standards and Privileges will not consider issues that relate to:

4. In addition, the Committee will not accept an unsubstantiated allegation as constituting an acceptable complaint and will expect the complainant to assemble supporting evidence. A report founded upon no more than a newspaper story, television or radio report will not normally be regarded as a substantiated allegation.

Inadmissible Complaint

5. If the IC determines that a complaint is not admissible he will write to the Clerk of Standards detailing his reasons for reaching this conclusion. The Clerk will then bring these before the Committee.

6. The Committee will consider the complaint and the IC’s advice on not proceeding with an investigation and determine whether it is in agreement with the IC’s conclusions.

7. If the Committee is in agreement the Clerk will write to the IC and inform him of its decision. The Clerk will also write to the Member and the complainant outlining the Committee’s reasons for supporting the IC’s decision not to proceed with an investigation, and enclosing a copy of the IC’s letter.

8. If the Committee does not agree with the IC’s initial assessment of admissibility then it will instruct the IC to proceed with an investigation in accordance with established procedures.

Admissible Complaint

9. If the IC considers the complaint admissible but trivial or vexatious or related to a complaint that has been substantially considered on a previous occasion, he may advise that no further action should be taken and report this to the Committee.

10. Should the Committee agree with this assessment the Clerk will write to all parties involved informing them of the Committee’s decision not to proceed with further investigation.

11. Should the Committee disagree with the IC’s assessment it will write to him detailing why it disagrees and instruct him to proceed with an investigation.

12. Otherwise, having determined a complaint admissible, the IC will:

Formal Investigation Stage

13. The IC will investigate an admissible complaint with the objective of:

14. The Committee on Standards and Privileges deprecates the making of statements to the press by complainants while an inquiry is in progress. Publication or disclosure of evidence or correspondence to anyone other than the Interim Commissioner or Committee without the Committee’s agreement would be a contempt of the House. A Member who engages is such activity is therefore liable to sanctions.

15. The IC will conduct a full and thorough investigation into the alleged breach of The Code. This may involve interviewing the complainant, the Member complained of, and other witnesses as the IC may judge necessary to establish the full facts of the case.

16. When the investigation is complete the IC will make a full report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges detailing his findings. The report will include the original complaint, details of the investigation including evidence considered in interview, and conclusions as to whether the Member breached any aspect of The Code falling within Standing Order 52(4) a-c.

17. The report will not include recommendations as to the sanctions that should be imposed on a Member found to have breached The Code.

18. At any point in his investigation should the IC have concerns that a criminal offence may have taken place he will immediately notify the Clerk to the Committee. Upon notification, a meeting of the Committee will be convened to hear the IC’s reasons for submitting the case to the PPS.

19. This meeting will be for information only as it will be expected that the IC’s recommendation to refer such matters to the PPS will be agreed by the Committee.

20. The IC will reconsider the case following the outcome of any subsequent investigation.

21. In the absence of a rectification procedure should the Interim Commissioner, in the course of an investigation into a complaint, discover that a breach of the Code has taken place as outlined in section 43 of the NI Act 1998 then he will notify the Clerk to the Committee. Upon notification, a meeting of the Committee will be convened to hear the IC’s reasons for submitting the case to the PPS.

22. This meeting will be for information only as it will be expected that the IC’s recommendation to refer such matters to the PPS will be agreed by the Committee.

23. Communications between a Member of the Assembly and the Clerk of Standards and between a member of the public and the Clerk of Standards are not covered by Assembly privilege under section 50 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 nor are they privileged at law. However, should the IC decide to investigate a complaint, that investigation is privileged. Once the IC reports his findings to the Committee, the proceedings of the Committee in relation to the report are privileged. The privilege attaching to an investigation by the Commissioner and the related proceedings of the Committee do not extend to include allegations made in the original complaint.

Committee Consideration of IC’s Formal Report

24. The Committee will meet in closed session to consider the IC’s report.

There are three possible outcomes following Committee consideration. The Committee may agree with the IC to:

OR

The Committee may disagree with the IC to:

OR

The Committee may ask the IC to investigate further.

25. As part of its deliberations on the findings of the IC’s report the Committee may decide to invite the Member and/or complainant to submit additional written evidence or appear before the Committee and give additional oral evidence.

26. In the event that the IC has determined that a complaint should be upheld the Committee may offer the Member the opportunity to read the IC’s report in the presence of the Clerk of Standards and to make notes prior to appearing before the Committee or submitting additional written evidence to the Committee.

27. After consideration of the IC’s report and any additional submissions that the Committee may have sought from the complainant and/or Member complained of, the Committee:

28. Where the Committee agrees with the IC to uphold a complaint the Committee may decide:

Sanctions

29. The sanctions that the Committee might recommend include:

(a) issuing an apology to the House

(b) that the Member is “censured" by the House

(c) suspension from proceedings of the Assembly for a specified period

(d) have his/her rights and privileges as a Member withdrawn for that period

(e) suspension from proceedings of the Assembly without pay for a specified period

30. The decision of the House will be final and there will be no right of appeal.

31. Where the Committee does not agree with the IC in relation to upholding a complaint it shall indicate the reasons for this in its report.

32. Where the Committee does not agree with the IC that a complaint should be dismissed the Committee shall detail the reasons for its decision in its report and consider the range of options open to it as per paragraph 27.

33. The Committee may agree with only some of the IC’s findings i.e. parts of a complaint may be upheld. Again, the Committee will detail the reasons for this in its report and consider the range of options open to it as per paragraph 27.

Q36: Should the ‘complaints procedure’ form part of the Code or be a distinct procedural guidance document?

Q37: The Committee has proposed the inclusion of admissibility criteria to provide greater clarity for potential complainants. Are these criteria sufficiently clear? Are they reasonable?

Rectification Procedure

The Committee agreed the following rectification procedure to deal with the failure to register interests where the interests are minor or the failure to register is inadvertent.

The Rectification Procedure states that: In the case where Member admits that he/she ha failed to register or declare interests where, normally, the interest involved is minor or the failure to register or declare was inadvertent, the Interim Commissioner for Standards may recommend to the Committee on Standards and Privileges that the Member be allowed to rectify the matter.

In the case of non-registration, of one or more interests, rectification requires a belated entry in the current Register of Members’ Interests. In the case of non-declaration of any interest during a debate or other proceedings of the Assembly in plenary, Members are required to report this and apologise to the Assembly.

34. There are two possible scenarios how this may come to the attention of the IC:

35. Any Member wishing to make use of this rectification procedure should, in the first instance, write to the Clerk of Standards outlining the relevant details and circumstances. The Clerk will forward this to the IC for his consideration. Where the Interim Commissioner for Standards finds that a Member has committed a minor breach of the Code he may recommend to the Committee that the Member be allowed to rectify the error.

36. Where a minor breach of the Code is brought to the attention of the Interim Commissioner for Standards by a complainant and the Interim Commissioner has recommended the use of the Rectification Procedure, he will report this to the Committee. The Clerk will subsequently inform the complainant of the outcome.

37. There are two caveats to the application of the Rectification Procedure, firstly that the Member acknowledges that they are in breach of the Code, and secondly they are willing to apologise for it.

38. A late entry in the Register will be printed in bold italics and asterisked to a footnote. The footnote will read: entry added or amended on (insert date), under the Rectification Procedure.

Appendix 4 footnotes

[1] Committee on Standards in Public Life, Fifth Report, Cm 4057-I, paragraph 4.69.

[2] paragraph 4.72.

[3] The total value of the shares issued by the company and made available to the public for purchase i.e. number of issued shares multiplied by nominal value of shares.

[4] The Committee discussed whether there was a mechanism for dealing with complaints in the event of the Assembly being suspended. While this is investigated the Committee decided that the consultation should not be delayed, but that it would return to this issue at a later date.

[5] Complainant will first be contacted to ensure name can be released to the Member.

[6] There is a presumption that the name of the complainant will be released to the Member complained of. Only in exceptional circumstances, and on a case by case basis, will the Committee withhold the name of a complainant from the Member.