Debate contribution: Dr Steve Aiken OBE MLA: Complaint

Debate contribution by Dr Steve Aiken OBE on .

MLA
Dr Steve Aiken OBE
Party at the time
Ulster Unionist Party
Date
7 May 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Committee Business
Heading
Dr Steve Aiken OBE MLA: Complaint
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4488025

Text

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

Members will be aware that there is no right of appeal or independent review of decisions made by the Committee or the commissioner, and I do not believe that further continuing to argue my position, several years after the events, would be in anyone's interests. I do, however, wish to make some other comments that may be pertinent. The first is an apology: an apology to my staff. Members may recall the period in 2021 when these events occurred and the investigations continued. The evidence in the COVID inquiry is highlighting the uncertainty and turmoil of those times. My constituency team was dealing with the effects of the COVID pandemic; the fallout from the recent Bobby Storey funeral; my stepping down from the leadership of the Ulster Unionist Party; an MLA, namely me, who had cracked two ribs and was not resting as he was told to; family illnesses; and, of most concern, the ongoing security threat to my team and family caused by loyalist paramilitaries. Regrettably, far too many MLAs have had that call to their house by the PSNI at 23:00, the visit the next day of a protection officer who points out all the important needs for enhanced personal and physical security, and the follow-up call from the Northern Ireland Office to say that it will not provide any of it. In 2021, all those events and more were swirling around at the time of the commissioner's investigation, and I freely admit that her investigation was not my number-one priority. It is perhaps an understatement to say that my family and the great team who work with me were under considerable strain during that period. I placed the factors mentioned above in mitigation to the Committee for my actions. The Committee, as is its right, did not believe them to be germane to its deliberations. Then came an additional factor. Members will be aware that I was reported to the PSNI. The PSNI conducted its enquiries diligently, utilising a detective inspector and sergeant. Unlike in other inquiries that I could mention, it had a full set of records to examine. Those records included many months of my emails, call logs, work diaries and interviews with my staff and many others such as Simon Hoare MP, the then Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, all to verify details in my diary. My staff observed that we were under a direct threat from loyalist paramilitaries, and that we had had three to four hours of direct police time to reassure us. They also pointed out that many more hours were spent on the investigation of what was, in essence, a case of non-delivery of a recorded letter to me. Those interviews and questioning, coupled with the markedly different approach to dealing with the threat to us, proved traumatic for some members of my staff, who had to seek medical support. Members will be aware that, at the end of 2021, a full report was sent by the PSNI to the PPS, which responded quickly, in January 2022, that there was no case to answer. I place no criticism on the PSNI, which is doing its job in difficult and trying circumstances, but one may legitimately ask whether this was an appropriate use of its time and resources. I raised that issue with the Committee on receipt of the PPS's letter and asked that an apology be forwarded to my staff for the trauma and upset that had been caused by that investigation. That apology, as has already been reported, was not forthcoming. Therefore, I now put on record my personal apology to my great constituency team and thank it for all its support through that trying time. I further say to all MLAs how lucky we are to have the unstinting support of our underpaid, under-resourced and hard-working staff. To my team, I cannot thank you enough. I also wish to make a comment about more recent events. After an investigation that occurred 30 months ago, with the last communication from the Committee to me coming in March 2022, I was contacted last Tuesday and given 45 minutes' notice that this motion was to come before the Business Committee. During that very short time, I had to inform my Chief Whip, my party leader and our press team and reach out to my family about what would obviously be something of media interest. I had to quickly reach out to those who had suffered previous trauma, as it would obviously be upsetting. There was little or no time to talk to them or adequately explain what was going on. Beyond a short call with the Clerk, there has been no communication. There has still been no communication. As a previous chief executive, Chief Whip and commanding officer, I have sat on many industrial tribunals, held many disciplinary meetings and been involved in many HR-related issues. Giving 45 minutes' notice of action on something that happened 30 months ago, with potentially far-reaching reputational consequences and obvious media interest, would not be accepted in any other forum, and it should not be here either. We may, as MLAs, be seen as being unpopular and less valued, but we should still be entitled to the same basic rights and respect that are given to other workers, including on notification.

In the short time that I had to view the documentation last Tuesday, I was caught by a reflection of a particularly sad event: the passing of a much-esteemed colleague, Christopher Stalford MLA. Christopher was the Deputy Chairperson of the Standards and Privileges Committee and had not been replaced when the investigation was occurring. As those who knew him will confirm, he was, above all, a determined advocate for good practice, the rights of MLAs and, in particular, the Assembly, and he was a sage voice on the Committee. I believe that he would have corrected the erroneous view in the report against me, and reported in the media, that it was in some way strange for a unionist MLA's office to be shut for the 12 July fortnight. However, I rather hope that he is looking down on us and having a quiet laugh as I am sure that, rather than recommending my suspension for two sitting days for my egregious behaviour, he would have pointed out that being exiled to St Helena with Paul Frew for a week was probably punishment enough. I look forward to returning to the Assembly on 28 May. If Paul and I can escape from St Helena, we will escape Napoleon's fate as well.

1,200 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not qualifying

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.

  • Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.19 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
  • None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.77).
  • Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
  • The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying threshold.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.07No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.07No
Cultural grievance politics0.05No
Dog-whistle messaging0.16No
Controversy escalation0.19No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.11No
Overall judgement0.19At or below not-qualifying threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.77
Reports or questions it0.04
Criticises or condemns it0.16
Adopts it0.03
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.61
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.30
No identity-related subject0.05
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.02
Another identity-related subject0.02

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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification