I want to pick up on the comments made by Helen Mary Jones and others in referring to the power balance, and how there is an imbalance, not only within the culture that exists in this area, but within some of the rules that we have also, and how we need to change some of those rules in order to convey a clear message that we are tackling that imbalance, and that we are introducing a better balance between the complainant and the person who is the subject of a complaint. That’s not to say that we are reducing the defence of and the fairness to an individual who is complained about, but we also need to empower that individual complainant.

I will give you a few examples in the few minutes' contribution I will make to this debate. If someone were to bring a complaint against me and that the standards commissioner and the standards committee came to a decision that that complaint was valid, then I would have the right of appeal. If the commissioner and the committee came to the conclusion that the complaint was invalid, then the complainant would have no right of appeal. Now, to me, that is an imbalance and it’s unfair. A complaint must be made within 12 months, and we know, of course, that people who have suffered aren’t necessarily ready to bring a complaint in 12 months. It takes far, far longer for them to do that. But after 12 months, that’s it. What can you do? So, we need to change that in order to empower individuals. I would go as far as to say that we don’t need any deadline at all, because we see now how some historic cases from decades ago, perhaps, are emerging. So, I do think that we need to consider that issue too.

There is also a situation in that if I were no longer an Assembly Member, then there would be no means of bringing a complaint against me. But what happens then if I was re-elected after a few years? Well, the timetable has lapsed and you can’t make a complaint. So, there are a number of fundamental issues that we need to address in order to achieve a better balance within that balance of power that I mentioned.

And the only other point that I would want to make is that I too regret and I’m very frustrated and shocked that the First Minister has responded as he has to the suggestion that the standards commissioner should have a role in looking at the ministerial code. I know that that would require legislative change and so on and so forth, I know that it would make it easier for people to understand the system, but most importantly, it would make it easier for those with a complaint to know where to go. Imagine a situation where someone, after great pain, has decided, ‘I will make a complaint.’ They go to the standards commissioner, and then they are given to understand, ‘Well, no, you can’t come to us, you have to go elsewhere with your complaint.’ What kind of message—? And I know that the standards commissioner would do that in a sensitive and responsible manner, but it’s another barrier for an individual to feel that they are able to make a complaint, and I do regret that that First Minister feels—. 

And of course, he would still make the final decision too. No-one is suggesting that any power should be removed from the First Minister, and it’s quite right that the First Minister should make that decision, of course. But, what it would mean is that that process of inquiring into a complaint would be taken out of the hands of Government and would be entirely independent—because there are complaints and doubts, and perhaps they are incorrect perceptions that that process isn't entirely independent—but it would give the public more confidence that it was an independent process. And just as the standards commissioner then brings a report to the standards committee in the context of the code of conduct for Members, that report would be submitted to the First Minister in the context of the ministerial code so that the First Minister could consider the evidence and come to his or her own conclusion and come to his or her own decision. So, any suggestion that power is being withdrawn from the First Minister in the context of the ministerial code is a complete misreading of the situation and sends exactly the same incorrect messages that we are trying to tackle and challenge in this debate this afternoon. So, I would echo the demand for any prospective First Minister to be willing to commit to relook at this issue. Because if we are serious about creating the culture that we want to see here, then it's these steps that are the minimum that we should be delivering.