Northern Ireland Assembly Code of Conduct response

Our reference: Cons - 950 August 2008

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

1.0 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.