Report by the Assembly Commissioner for Standards on a complaint against Steve Aiken MLA by Maolíosa McHugh MLA
This report relates to my investigation following a complaint received on 4th May 2021 from Mr Maolíosa McHugh MLA against Dr Steve Aiken OBE MLA. Mr McHugh’s complaint was that Dr Aiken disclosed at a Finance Committee meeting on 4th November 2020 that he had submitted a complaint to the Commissioner for Standards and provided details of that complaint in breach of Rule 17 of the MLA Code of Conduct which states that ‘You shall not disclose details in relation to such an investigation except when authorised by law or by the investigatory authority’ and section 33 of the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.
I commenced my investigation on 2nd June 2021. From 7th June 2021, I invited Dr Aiken to interview twice; these communications failed to elicit a response from him. I then issued a Notice to Attend on 28th June and another Notice to Attend on 7th July; he did not attend interview as outlined in the Notices on either occasion.
Failure to attend under Notice is a criminal offence under section 31 of the 2011 Act, and on 22nd July 2021 I notified the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and submitted my formal report to them on 26th July 2021. I suspended my investigation until the PSNI concluded their investigation and submitted their file to the Public Prosecution Service on 2nd December 2021.
I resumed my investigation on 2nd December 2021. As Dr Aiken had failed to attend interview twice, I contacted him to provide him the opportunity to submit a written statement as evidence in relation to Mr McHugh’s complaint. In his statement received on 13th December 2021, Dr Aiken refuted the allegations made by Mr McHugh and maintained that he was declaring an interest as he is required to do under section 43(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and paragraph 69 of Standing Orders, and as such did not breach Rule 17 of the Code.
After considering all of the evidence in relation to Mr McHugh’s complaint, I found Dr Aiken’s disclosure at 4th November 2020 Finance Committee that he had submitted a complaint to the Commissioner for Standards was not in breach of Rule 17 of the MLA Code of Conduct. However, I found Dr Aiken’s disclosure was in contravention of section 33 of the 2011 Act and breached Rule 12 of the MLA Code of Conduct.
In the course of my investigation, Rule 16 of the Code of Conduct which states “You shall co-operate at all times with any investigation by or under the authority of either the Northern Ireland Assembly Commissioner for Standards or the Assembly” was breached as a result of Dr Aiken’s failure to cooperate at all times with my investigation. His behaviour was inconsistent with the Seven Principles of Public Life, namely the Respect and Leadership principles.
1. Timeline of Investigation
4 May 21: Commissioner receives complaint from Mr McHugh MLA
7 June 21: Invitation to interview letter sent to Dr Aiken OBE MLA
18 June 21: Second invitation to interview letter sent to Dr Aiken
28 June 21: Notice to Attend sent to Dr Aiken by email
7 July 21: Notice to Attend sent to Dr Aiken by recorded delivery
22 July 21: Commissioner refers to Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and suspends investigation
26 July 21: Commissioner provides formal report to PSNI
2 December 21: PSNI concludes their investigation and sends file to Public Prosecution Service (PPS)
2 December 21: Commissioner resumes investigation
2 December 21: Commissioner writes to Dr Aiken informing him investigation has resumed and provides him further opportunity to submit a written statement of evidence
13 December 21: Commissioner receives written statement from Dr Aiken
15 December 21: Commissioner interviews Mr Jim McManus
10 January 22: PPS decision received by Commissioner
13 January 22: Commissioner receives letter from Dr Aiken seeking apology and answers to questions
17 January 22: Commissioner replies to Dr Aiken 13 January correspondence
I received a complaint from Mr Maolíosa McHugh MLA on 4 May 2021, alleging that Dr Aiken, Chair of the Finance Committee, breached Rule 17 of the MLA Code of Conduct and Section 33 the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 when at the start of the Finance Committee on 4 November 2020 under agenda item ‘Declaration of Interests’ he revealed that he had submitted a complaint to the Commissioner for Standards alleging that a member of the Finance Committee did not declare that he or his office had been in receipt of a Covid-19 business grant when the Land and Property Services (LPS) and the Department of Finance attended the Finance Committee on a number of occasions in September and October.
In the course of my investigation, I carried out the following:
- Reviewed the complaint and evidence provided by Mr McHugh1
- Reviewed video footage of the 4th November 2020 Finance Committee Meeting2
- Reviewed agenda3 and minutes4 of 4th November 2020 meeting
- Invited Dr Aiken to interview twice5
- Sent two ‘Notices to Attend’ to Dr Aiken; one by email and one by recorded delivery6
- Referred Dr Aiken to the Police Service of Northern Ireland (“PSNI”) for non- attendance under Notice
- Suspended my investigation while the PSNI carried out their investigation
- Reviewed Dr Aiken’s witness statement7
- Interviewed Mr Jim McManus, Clerk to the Finance Committee on 4th November 20208
- Reviewed report 2010/11 in relation to section 339
A copy of the complaint and all other documents I have relied on in reaching my decision are at Annex A.
4. Allegations contained in Mr McHugh’s complaint
Mr McHugh alleges that:
1. Dr Aiken breached the MLA Code of Conduct Rule 17 which states, “You shall not disclose details in relation to such an investigation except when authorised by law or by the investigatory authority.10”
2. Dr Aiken by his comments has acted in contravention of Section 33 the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 (“the 2011 Act”)11.
5. Findings of Fact
I found the following facts established to the required standard of proof:
1. Dr Aiken disclosed during the 4th November Finance Committee meeting that he had submitted a complaint to the Commissioner for Standards relating to a member of the Committee (understood to be Mr McHugh) and provided detail of the substance of the complaint.
2. The video footage of the 4th November 2020 Finance Committee is a true and unedited audio and video recording of events.
3. Dr Aiken did not respond to Commissioner correspondence on 7th June 2021 requesting him to contact the Commissioner’s Office to arrange interview.
4. Dr Aiken did not respond to Commissioner correspondence on 18th June 2021 requesting him to contact the Commissioner’s Office to arrange interview.
5. Dr Aiken was issued a Notice to Attend on 28th June 2021 requiring him to attend interview on 5th July. He did not attend.
6. Dr Aiken was issued a Notice to Attend on 7th July 2021 requiring him to attend interview on 21st July. He did not attend.
7. The tracking service operated by Royal Mail provided formal proof of delivery at 12.41 on the 9th July 2021 signed by [NAME REDACTED].
8. Dr Aiken’s failure to attend under Notice on 21st July 2021 was referred to the Police Service of Northern Ireland on 22nd July 2021 and my formal report was submitted to them on 26th July 2021.
9. The investigation into the complaint was suspended pending the conclusion of the police investigation on 2nd December.
10. Dr Aiken submitted a witness statement on 13th December 2021. He refutes the allegations made by Mr McHugh and asserts he was making a declaration of interest, that he was duty bound to make, when he disclosed details of the complaint he had submitted to the Commissioner for Standards on 4th November at the Finance Committee.
11. The minutes of the 4th November 2020 Finance Committee have no record of Dr Aiken having declared an interest.
12. The Public Prosecution Service made a decision not to prosecute this case on 10th January 2022.
13. In accordance with paragraph 7.14 of the General Procedures Direction, Dr Aiken was afforded an opportunity to challenge any of the above findings before I finalised my report. He did avail of that opportunity resulting in a change to number 7 above12
1. Video evidence of the 4th November 2020 Finance Committee meeting provides Dr Aiken’s disclosure13:
“Members I wish you to be made aware that I today raised a complaint with the Commissioner of Standards about one of the members of our committee who was in receipt of a small business grant loan or his office was in receipt of a small business grant loan and made no declaration of that interest even though we had LPS in front of us three times and the Department of Finance two times” (Dr Aiken, 4th November 2020 Finance Committee)
2. After Dr Aiken disclosed this information, a discussion continued for approximately twenty-five minutes. This discussion is not reported in the minutes. A partial transcription of this discussion made for the purposes of this report is available in the appendix14.
3. Dr Aiken’s disclosure relating to his submission of a complaint to the Commissioner for Standards during the 4th November 2020 Finance Committee meeting was made during the agenda item ‘Declaration of Interests’. However, when another member of the Finance Committee, Mr Philip McGuigan MLA, questioned Dr Aiken at the time as to whether he was declaring an interest, Dr Aiken said he was not15.
Philip McGuigan MLA [PM]
Steve Aiken MLA [SA]
PM: I’m just not sure what item of the agenda this is under. You’re entitled to do whatever you
SM: Correct. It is an issue to do with declaration of interests. And I think it is appropriate that all members of this committee make it abundantly clear that when we are
PM: Are you declaring an interest? SA: No.
PM: Fair enough.
SA: I do not have to. I as the Chairman..
PM: If you are not declaring an interest then, you can’t declare an interest for someone else.
SA: This is not a question of declaring an interest. This is an interest for all members of the committee and the standards we expect of this committee that if we are dealing with an issue that is substantive and the issues have to be raised particularly in front of officials we’re expecting the maximum of openness and transparency from officials I would expect the same from members of this committee.
4. The Minutes of Proceedings of 4 November 2020 show no record of Dr Aiken having declared an interest16.
5. In his witness statement received on 13th December 2021, Dr Aiken asserts that he was declaring an interest when he made the disclosure and further states that it was his duty to do so under Northern Ireland Assembly Standing Orders, 69 para 5 (b)17 and the MLA Code of Conduct and Chapter 2 (Declaration of Interests)18, which he contends take precedence over Rule 17 of the Code of Conduct: “You shall not disclose details in relation to such an investigation except when authorised by law or by the investigatory authority”.
6. To further verify Dr Aiken’s witness statement assertion that he was declaring an interest, I interviewed Jim McManus who was the Clerk of the Finance Committee on 4th November 2020. Mr McManus stated:
“My understanding was that he was suggesting to Mr McHugh that he may want to declare an interest, or should have declared an interest. That was my understanding at the time……..
“And having looked at the minutes of the meeting, there was no record of Dr Aiken, chairperson, declaring an interest. So, obviously, my understanding at the time would have been that he was not declaring an interest.”19
7. Mr McManus confirmed at interview that it was not at all common that members of the committee or the chair would declare having submitted a complaint to the Commissioner for Standards. He said, “It's not something I've heard of before”.
7. Reasoned Decision
Dr Aiken’s Disclosure and Rule 17
1. Dr Aiken submitted his complaint against Mr McHugh to my office on the 4th November, the same day he made the disclosure at the Finance Committee.
2. A complaint is not entirely synonymous with an investigation by the Commissioner and Rule 17 does not expressly prohibit reference to the fact of a complaint. If at the time of Dr Aiken’s disclosure I had already considered that the complaint was admissible, it is my view that the disclosure would have involved the revelation of “details in relation to such an investigation” and would have been in breach of Rule 17. However, I had made no assessment of the complaint at the time Dr Aiken made the disclosure. Therefore, I do not find that Dr Aiken breached Rule 17 of the Code of Conduct.
Section 33 of the 2011 Act
3. Section 33 imposes restrictions on the disclosure of information. A general prohibition is contained in Section 33(1) which states:
“Subject to subsection (2), the Commissioner or any person who has (at any time and in any capacity) assisted the Commissioner in the discharge of functions under this Act, shall not disclose any information contained in any complaint or referral, or any information which is furnished to or obtained by the Commissioner or such person in the course of, or for the purposes of, an investigation under this Part.”
4. I obtained independent external legal advice from Senior Counsel relating to Section 33 of the 2011 Act as it relates to this case and the Code of Conduct. The parenthetical provision in section 33 “at any time and in any capacity” is intended to confirm that the term “any person” should be afforded the broadest possible construction. Otherwise, if the bar on disclosure were confined to the Commissioner and those providing administrative or investigative support this would yield an anomalous result whereby the complainant and the person complained of could openly disclose information in circumstances where the Commissioner could not.
5. Rule 12 of the Code of Conduct specifically provides that: “You shall disclose confidential or protectively marked information only when you are authorised to do so.”
6. The prohibition on disclosure of confidential information in Rule 12 must be read alongside the statutory prohibition on disclosure in section 33 of the 2011 Act. Information relating to the discharge of the Commissioner’s functions is subject to a statutory duty of confidentiality although there is no specific sanction contained in the 2011 Act for a breach. However, the disclosure of information relating to a complaint is prohibited by section 33 which, in turn, engages Rule 12 of the MLA Code of Conduct.
7. Mr McHugh’s complaint does not refer to Rule 12. However, Section 17 of the 2011 Act does not require that the complainant specify a particular Rule of the Code when making the complaint. The investigation is conducted by reference to the Code of Conduct as a whole rather than being expressly limited in relation to a specific Rule(s) identified by the complainant.
8. It is my view that the protection of information provided to the Commissioner in the discharge of her investigative functions in section 33 of the 2011 Act captures both the fact of the complaint and the information generated by and for the investigation.
9. For the above reasons, I have found Dr Aiken to have contravened Section 33 of the 2011 Act and to have breached Rule 12 of the Code of Conduct.
Declaration of Interest and Conflict of Interest Defence
10. Dr Aiken contends in his statement that he made the disclosure because he was declaring an interest and revealing a conflict of interest to the Finance Committee. The section 33(2) of the 2011 Act identifies a number of specific circumstances in which information can be disclosed. This is an exhaustive list which does not refer to disclosure made for the purpose of revealing a conflict of interest by an MLA.
11. In considering this issue I have examined section 43(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which makes provision for the registration of members’ interests. Section 43(2)(b) makes provision for standing orders to require that a member declare a financial interest or any other interest or interest of any other kind specified in standing orders in any matter “before taking part in any proceedings of the Assembly relating to that matter.” [emphasis added]. I have also considered the text of paragraph 69 of Standing Orders which gives effect to section 43(2). Paragraph 69(5) provides that a member who has any financial interest or relevant interest in any matter “must declare that interest before taking part in any proceedings of the Assembly relating to that matter.”
12. A “relevant interest” is defined in Standing Orders as “an interest to which Chapter 2 of the Guide to the Rules applies.” Chapter 2.3 makes clear that for an interest to be relevant it needs to relate to the matter under consideration where it states: “You are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any interests which might reasonably be thought by others to influence your approach to the matter under consideration”. The matter being considered by the Finance Committee was not the complaint made by Dr Aiken against Mr McHugh; consideration of complaints is not the job of the Finance Committee but rather the Standards and Privileges Committee. I do not consider that the fact that a member of a committee has made a complaint about another member of the Committee to my office was a matter under consideration. Accordingly, I do not consider that the interest raised here is a “relevant interest” for the purposes of Standing Orders.
13. I have, however, considered that even if on a generous interpretation the interest relied upon by Dr Aiken were to be considered a relevant interest, it would still not engage section 43 of the Northern Ireland Act and the relevant Standing Orders because the interest in question must relate to “the matter” that is under consideration by the Committee. Having viewed the proceedings I do not consider that the interest relied upon related to a matter under consideration by the Committee.
14. I am not persuaded by the merits of the argument that there was an actual or perceived “conflict of interest” arising from the fact of the complaint about Mr McHugh MLA that warranted disclosure to the Committee. However, I do not consider that I need to reach a fixed and final view on the merits of the “conflict of interest” defence because even if the defence was well- founded, it would not provide an answer to the contravention of section 33.
Breach of Code of Conduct Rule 16
15. In the course of my investigation, it is my view that Rule 16 of the Code of Conduct was breached. Rule 16 states that “You shall co-operate at all times with any investigation by or under the authority of either the Northern Ireland Assembly Commissioner for Standards or the Assembly”.
16. I wrote to Dr Aiken on 7th June 2021 inviting him to contact my office to arrange an interview20. I had to send a further reminder to him on 18th June 202121. As those communications failed to elicit a response from Dr Aiken, on 28th June 2021 I sent a formal Notice to Attend for interview. The Notice was sent to Dr Aiken by electronic mail and formally invited him to attend for interview on 5th July 202122. This Notice was received by Dr Aiken and acknowledged by return electronic mail23. Dr Aiken did not attend for the scheduled interview on 5th July 2021. My office made contact with Dr Aiken on 5th July 2021 shortly after the interview was scheduled to commence and he stated that he had erroneously entered the date for interview as 6th July 2021 in his diary24. He was offered the option of attending for interview on 7th July 2021 but declined25.
17. On 7th July 2021 I sent a further Notice to Attend to Dr Aiken’s constituency office in Ballyclare. Dr Aiken requested the Notice be sent to that address and advised that his office was ‘closed from 10 July’26. This Notice was sent by way of recorded delivery and invited Dr Aiken to attend on 21st July 2021. The Notice, covering letter and email correspondence all referred to the potential criminal offence under section 31 of the 2011 Act in the event of a failure to attend27.
18. On 21st July 2021 Dr Aiken failed to attend for interview at the time indicated in the Notice. My office made inquiry with the tracking service operated by Royal Mail who provided formal proof of delivery at 12.41 on the 9th July 202128.
19. I referred the matter to the PSNI on 22nd July 2021 and submitted my formal report to them on 26th July 2021. I suspended my investigation into these complaints pending the conclusion of the police investigation. On 2nd December 2021 I was advised that PSNI had submitted a file to the Public Prosecution Service (“PPS”) and I resumed my investigation.
20. The PPS wrote to me on 10th January 2022 outlining their decision not to prosecute based on the fact that the first of the two tests for proceeding to prosecution, the evidential test, was not met29. Whether the second of the two tests, the public interest test, would have been met is unknown as the PPS do not, other than in exceptional circumstances, consider the second limb unless the first has been met. In accordance with the Code for Prosecutors paras 4.10 and 4.1130, broadly, the presumption is that the public interest requires prosecution where there has been a contravention of the criminal law and this is the starting point for the PPS when considering the public interest in any case.
21. On 13th January 2022, I received a letter from Dr Aiken stating that the PPS had notified him of their decision not to prosecute. He further requested an apology from me for having referred this matter to the PSNI and requested that both my apology and answers to questions he posed be received by him within fourteen days. He copied his letter to the Clerk and Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges31. I replied to his letter on 17th January 2022.32
22. The 2011 Act33 provides in Section 31 that in particular circumstances a person who—
(a) refuses or fails to attend before the Commissioner as required by the notice,
(b) refuses or fails, when attending before the Commissioner as required by the notice, to answer any question concerning any matter specified in the notice,
(c) intentionally alters, suppresses, conceals or destroys any document required to be produced by the notice, or
(d) refuses or fails to produce any such document is guilty of an offence.
23. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Commissioner and the PSNI34 states:
“Where the Commissioner considers that there has been a contravention of section 31, he or she will, as soon as reasonably practicable, report it to the officer appointed in accordance with Clause 3.8 above.”
24. The evidence available to me at the time of referral to the PSNI was that a) Dr Aiken did not attend 21st July interview under Notice, b) the Notice to Attend was delivered by Royal Mail to his office at 12.41 on 9th July 2021 and c) failure to attend under Notice was a criminal offence requiring me to report to the PSNI under s31 of the 2011 Act and the MOU with the PSNI.
25. On 26th July 2021, Dr Aiken contacted me by email35 and explained that he had not received the Notice until that day, the 26th July 2021. He informed me it was signed for and delivered by Royal Mail to his landlord, [NAME REDACTED], at the commercial premises next door to his office. At that point, the matter had already been referred to the PSNI and I considered that the question of the delivery of the Notice should be addressed by PSNI as part of their ongoing investigation.
26. The PPS confirmed in its correspondence to me36 that there was an informal arrangement in place between Dr Aiken’s office and the Royal Mail that meant when the constituency office was closed as it often was, mail would be accepted by the commercial premises next door, which is where the Notice to Attend was delivered and signed for on 9th July 2021. At no time was I notified of this arrangement.
27. Having received the outcome letter from the PPS and subsequently spoken with the senior prosecutor at the PPS, it is clear the decision not to prosecute was based on the evidential test not being met. It would appear that, as there was strong evidence that Royal Mail delivered the recorded item to an address other than the address on the envelope, the evidence was insufficient to prove to the criminal standard of proof that Dr Aiken was “a person to whom a notice has been given” within the meaning of the 2011 Act which prescribes the manner in which such notice must be given. In coming to this conclusion, the PPS took into account section 24 of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 195437. There was also evidence which suggested that the notice did not come to the attention of Dr Aiken prior to the date when his attendance would have been required and this would have provided a basis for a “reasonable excuse” defence as is provided for within the 2011 Act. The circumstances referred to above meant the evidential test was not met, hence the PPS decision not to prosecute.
28. The PPS decision not to prosecute was not an indication that they believed it was a matter that should never have been referred to the PSNI –-- which Dr Aiken appears to suggest in his 13th January 2022 correspondence to me. The PPS decision not to prosecute was predicated on the available evidence concerning the service of the statutory Notice to Attend, in terms of the address at which it was left and that it had not come to Dr Aiken’s attention. This anomaly now raises significant issues for the Committee to address.
29. For the purposes of this complaint, it is clear from the evidence that Dr Aiken was: a) aware a Notice to Attend was being sent to his constituency office by recorded delivery on 7th July 202138, b) presumably aware of the long-standing arrangement he had with Royal Mail to deliver his mail to commercial premises next door when the constituency office was closed and c) aware that his constituency office had been closed on 9th July 2021. Yet under these circumstances, Dr Aiken does not appear to have contacted [NAME REDACTED] (his landlord) to enquire if he had received a recorded mail delivery on his behalf. Nor did he contact the Commissioner’s Office to confirm the date and time of interview contained in the Notice. Instead, nineteen days after Dr Aiken was informed that he would be receiving a Notice to Attend, he made contact with me to say he had only received the Notice from [NAME REDACTED].
30. I consider that it ought not to be necessary to serve an MLA with a formal Notice to Attend for an interview.
31. It is my view that Dr Aiken’s failure to cooperate resulted in the needless waste of significant public funds and resources.
32. Dr Aiken’s behaviour is inconsistent the Seven Principles of Public Life: Respect and Leadership.
33. It is my conclusion after considering all of the facts and evidence, that Dr Aiken did not co- operate at all times with my investigation as required under the Code of Conduct and therefore breached Rule 16 of the MLA Code of Conduct.
8. Report Conclusions
1. I am satisfied on the basis of my analysis of the facts and evidence that Dr Aiken did not breach Rule 17 of the MLA Code of Conduct when he disclosed that he had submitted a complaint to the Standards Commissioner at the Finance Committee Meeting of the 4 November 2020.
2. In relation to Mr McHugh’s allegation relating to Section 33 of the 2011 Act, I am satisfied on the basis of my analysis of the facts, evidence, and the legislation that Dr Aiken contravened Section 33 of the 2011 Act and breached Rule 12 of the MLA Code of Conduct.
3. I am satisfied on the basis of the facts and evidence that in failing to cooperate with my investigation at all times Dr Aiken breached Rule 16 of the MLA Code of Conduct and failed to behave in a way that is consistent with the Seven Principles of Public Life: Respect and Leadership.
1. Rules 16 and 17 are unsatisfactorily drafted and do not fully reflect the protections for the confidentiality of the Commissioner’s functions contained in the 2011 Act. The Committee may wish to consider revising both Rule 16 and Rule 17 during the Stage 2 Review of the MLA Code of Conduct.
2. The provisions of section 29(2) and (3) of the 2011 Act require notices to be sent by recorded delivery. In this case, when the 7 July 2021 Notice was signed for and delivered to an alternative address and was not considered ‘served’, preventing the likely prospect of conviction and therefore, failing the PPS’ evidential test. It is clear that the serving of the Notice can be nullified where the recorded delivery is signed for and delivered to another address, as in this case. It follows that the requirement to use recorded delivery as the only method of serving a Notice to Attend in accordance with the 2011 Act and under section 24(1) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 is not sound. As written, the 2011 Act prohibits even the use of personal service of a Notice which is widely accepted as the most effective and compelling form of service. The Committee may wish to consider whether and how the legislation can be redrafted to reduce the risk of this occurring again in future investigations.
3. My investigation has highlighted that the procedural rules in the 2021 Direction that state a complaint must meet the preconditions at paragraph 3.3 before it can be considered admissible, is a constraint on the discretion of the Commissioner and does not find a basis in the terms of section 17 of the 2011 Act. This could be addressed by including a general “notwithstanding” provision in the Direction that allowed the Commissioner to exercise a discretion permitting a complaint to be admitted even if the procedural rules were not fully complied with.
1 Documents 1, 3 and 4 (see Annex A)
3 Document 5 (see Annex A)
5 Documents 6 and 7 (see Annex A)
6 Documents 8 and 9 (see Annex A)
7 Document 10 (see Annex A)
8 Document 11 (see Annex A)
10 Document 2 (see Annex A)
12 Document 22 (see Annex A)
14 Document 12 (see Annex A)
17 69(5)(b) A member who has a relevant interest in any matter, must declare that interest before taking part in any proceedings of the assembly relating to that matter
19 Document 11 (see Annex A)
20 Document 6 (see Annex A)
21 Document 7 (see Annex A)
22 Document 8 (see Annex A)
23 Document 13 (see Annex A)
24 Document 14 (see Annex A)
26 Document 15 (see Annex A)
27 Documents 9 and 15 (see Annex A)
28 Document 17 (see Annex A)
29 Document 19 (see Annex A)
31 Document 20 (see Annex A)
32 Document 21 (see Annex A)
35 Document 16 (see Annex A)
36 Document 19 (see Annex A)
38 Document 16 (see Annex A)
Documents to follow pending appropriate redactions.