Debate contribution: Dr Steve Aiken OBE MLA: Complaint

Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on 7 May 2024.

MLA: Mr Brian Kingston
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 7 May 2024
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Committee Business
Heading: Dr Steve Aiken OBE MLA: Complaint
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 4488031

Text

I speak as a new member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. Since being appointed to that Committee, I have found that all its members are aware that they have a solemn and impartial duty to perform. That is how all the meetings that I have been present at have been conducted. As we have heard, this report relates to two complaints that were made in the previous mandate. The recommendation before the House has been agreed by the members of the new Committee. The previous Committee's report on the matter is in the public domain and has been for over two years. Therefore, I do not need to repeat what the Committee Chair set out, but I do want to highlight some matters. The complaint by Mr McHugh was upheld by the commissioner. One of the most significant things detailed in the report is the lack of cooperation by Dr Aiken in the commissioner's investigation. That very much exacerbated the issue, represented a further breach of the MLA code of conduct and resulted in the Committee's recommendation. The report states, at paragraph 44:
"the Commissioner’s finding that Dr Aiken’s lack of co-operation with her investigation was inconsistent with the following two principles of conduct:"
those of respect and leadership. The Committee agreed with the commissioner's findings that Dr Aiken's conduct was inconsistent with both of those principles. That lack of cooperation is detailed in the report, and it includes the failure to respond to two letters inviting him to attend for interview and failure to attend for interview twice under formal notice to attend. Dr Aiken did provide a written submission, which was considered by the Committee, along with a detailed response from the commissioner. Paragraph 47 of the report states:
"the Committee noted that a recommendation of an apology to Assembly [sic] may not be a suitable option because there has been no indication from Dr Aiken’s responses to the complaint and investigation that he would be minded to apologise (on the contrary, Dr Aiken has sought an apology from the Commissioner) and there is a risk of such an apology to the Assembly not being made in a full and unequivocal manner."
I recognise the public service of all Members of the Assembly, the personal sacrifices that people make and how their role comes to dominate their lives, and, indeed, the lives of many of their families. It is regrettable that the matter has got to this stage. I note Dr Aiken's comments today and the fact that he has tried to bring a different tone to the matter. However, it is important that there are formal procedures in place to decide on complaints and to uphold the standards and the code of conduct of this —.
I am coming to a close. If the Member wishes to make his own speech, I am sure that the Speaker will bring him in. Regrettably, but in the view of the Committee, including me, rightly, the Committee has reached the recommendation of a sanction of a two-day exclusion from the proceedings of the Assembly for the Member.

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

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

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