Debate contribution: Dr Steve Aiken OBE MLA: Complaint

Debate contribution by Ms Carál Ní Chuilín on 7 May 2024.

MLA

Ms Carál Ní Chuilín

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

7 May 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Committee Business

Heading

Dr Steve Aiken OBE MLA: Complaint

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4488011

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on the motion from the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The purpose of the motion is clear: to seek Assembly approval of the Committee's decision to impose on Dr Steve Aiken the sanction of exclusion from the proceedings of the Assembly for a period of two sitting days. If the motion is approved, Dr Aiken will be unable to participate in plenary proceedings on 13 and 14 May. He will also be unable to table any business or attend any Committee meetings if they happen to be scheduled to take place on those days. Before outlining the previous Committee's conclusions on the complaint against Dr Aiken, I will explain the timeline of the case. On 4 May 2021, the independent Assembly Commissioner for Standards received a complaint from Mr Maolíosa McHugh MLA, alleging that, during a meeting of the Finance Committee, Dr Aiken had breached the Assembly code of conduct by disclosing both the fact and the contents of a complaint that Dr Aiken had made against Mr McHugh. The commissioner's investigation of the complaint concluded in February 2022, when she sent her report to the previous Standards and Privileges Committee for consideration. In undertaking its adjudication, the previous Committee received a briefing from the commissioner; a submission from Dr Aiken in response to the commissioner's report in which he criticised the investigatory process; a robust and factual rebuttal from the commissioner of the criticisms made in Dr Aiken's submission; and detailed legal advice on the case. Following deliberation, the previous Committee published its conclusions in a report on 25 March 2022, which, incidentally, was the last day of the previous mandate. Although the previous Committee's report has been in the public domain for over two years now, I will briefly remind Members of some of the key findings of the case. At a meeting of the Finance Committee on 4 November 2020, Dr Aiken, as Chair of that Committee, disclosed publicly that he had submitted a complaint to the commissioner relating to a member of the Committee, Mr McHugh. The disclosure included both the fact and the detail of his complaint against Mr McHugh, which was the allegation that Mr McHugh had failed to declare an interest while the Committee was receiving evidence on mispayments by Land and Property Services (LPS) of the COVID-19 business support grants. The public discussion of Dr Aiken's complaint in the Finance Committee, which Dr Aiken initiated, facilitated and participated in, lasted 27 minutes. It was also reported in the media on 5 November 2020 that, following investigation and adjudication, Dr Aiken's complaint had not been upheld and that Mr McHugh was found not to have breached the code. On the back of Dr Aiken's disclosure, Mr McHugh submitted a complaint against Dr Aiken, and it is that complaint that forms the basis of today's debate. Following investigation and adjudication, Dr Aiken was found to have breached two rules of conduct, namely rule 12 and rule 16. By way of reminder, rule 12 states that a Member:

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

Rule 16 states that a Member:

"shall co-operate at all times with any investigation"

by the Assembly commissioner. On rule 12, the previous Committee highlighted the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of live complaints in order to safeguard the fairness and integrity of the process and to avoid any unnecessary reputational damage to any of the parties involved.

I am sorry, but I have a lot to get through. I am sorry about that. On rule 16, the previous Committee pointed to the importance of all Members recognising and respecting the vital role that the independent commissioner plays in the Assembly's ethical standards regime. The Committee concluded that Dr Aiken's failure to cooperate at all times with the commissioner's investigation was misconduct that undermines the office of the commissioner and, consequently, the Committee and the wider Assembly. Moreover, the previous Committee concluded that that was an egregious breach of the code, given that, as a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges at the time, Dr Aiken should have been leading by example in that regard. It was also found that Dr Aiken's conduct was inconsistent with both the respect principle and the leadership principle of the seven principles of public life. As the previous Committee was able to publish its report only at the very end of the last mandate, it called on the next Committee to recommend a sanction in this mandate. The current Committee has proceeded with the case as quickly as possible. In reality, it has brought the motion within eight operational weeks of the report being published, leaving aside the time when the Assembly was not fully functioning. The Committee carefully considered the particular circumstances of the case against the range and scale of sanctions available. It is a serious matter. The code of conduct sets out the standards required of Members. It is clear that, in this case, Dr Aiken's conduct was, indeed, an egregious breach of the rules, and therefore the Committee believes that the recommended sanction of excluding Dr Aiken from Assembly proceedings for a period of two sitting days is appropriate and proportionate. I commend the motion.

889 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:21 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification