Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): I welcome Pat McCartan, the chairperson of the Independent Financial Review Panel (IFRP), and Dr Henrietta Campbell and Alan McQuillan, who are members of the independent panel. Before I call you to speak, Pat, I point out that the Committee wrote to the panel on two issues. One was to seek an update on what steps the panel was taking following the allegations made in the 'Spotlight' programmes broadcast in November. The other was in relation to the panel's interest in the Register of Members' Interests, which the Committee is looking at as part of its review of the code of conduct.

I remind you that, in line with the Committee's usual practice of avoiding public discussion about the conduct of individual Members, you should not address any specific allegations in relation to any particular Member or Members. Equally, that applies to members of the Committee. If that happens, I will step in and stop the discussion at that point.

I will hand over to you, Pat, to make your statement, and then all of you can leave yourselves open for questions.

Mr Patrick McCartan (Independent Financial Review Panel): Thank you very much for your kind invitation. We are delighted to come to put some views in front of you on issues that are of mutual interest. We are very glad to attend the Committee today. You know my two members. Together, we make up the Independent Financial Review Panel for the Northern Ireland Assembly. We are glad to attend the Committee to assist in its deliberations and to foster mutual understanding between us.

I will begin by briefly describing our role. We were established by the Assembly through the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. That Act has two parts. The first part was sponsored by the Assembly Commission and deals with the panel, and the second part was sponsored by this Committee and deals with the Commissioner for Standards.

The Act, together with the Northern Ireland Act 1998, sets clear roles for each element in one complex governance regime. We are only one such element. The Assembly, the Committee, the commissioner and the Assembly Commission are other elements. Each of those has its role, and each role we fully respect. Our main role is to make determinations as to the salaries, allowances and pensions payable to Members of the Assembly. Prior to our establishment, that role was taken on by the Assembly.

The Assembly requires us to exercise that function with a view to achieving the objectives of ensuring probity, accountability and value for money with respect to the expenditure of public funds; securing for Members of the Assembly a level of remuneration, which fairly reflects the complexity and importance of the job, and does not, on financial grounds, deter people from seeking election to the Assembly; and for securing for Members adequate resources to enable them to do their jobs. We make determinations that are intended to achieve those objectives. That is by no means an easy task. It requires fairly careful balancing of those three statutory objectives. It is important to emphasise that the Assembly created the panel as an independent body not subject to the direction by the Assembly or the Commission.

We seek to engage fully and cooperatively with the other parts of the governance regime. For example, it is for the Commission to administer our determinations. We have no role whatsoever in that, nor do we have any role in investigating any individual breach of the rules, but if we become aware of such a breach, it is incumbent on us to decide whether our determination should be changed so as to prevent it happening again. We are expressly required by section 2(3) of the Act to keep under review the extent to which our determinations appear to be achieving the three statutory objectives. In some cases, the Committee may report on such a breach if it also comprises a breach of the code.

The Committee has invited us to address two matters. The first is to provide an update on actions that we are taking arising from the media broadcasts late last year. Some of the issues raised are similar to matters that we have already addressed. In our exceptional determination of December 2012, we dealt with staff pooling arrangements and contracts for services. Some of the issues raised are similar to matters that we were already considering or have consulted on, for example, sizes and cost of constituency offices. We are minded to address such matters in our determination for the fifth Assembly.

In relation, however, to direct or indirect benefit from office cost expenditure (OCE) payments going to persons associated with Members, we have, in recent months, considered the matter in some detail. We have not quite finalised our position on that, but the panel is minded to make another exceptional determination in the near future. Our thinking is that the new rule would require that, before any such payments can be claimed from OCE, prior disclosure must be made as to the identity of the person and the nature of the association. By that, we mean a transparency disclosure, which would have to be made before claiming office cost expenses. If it is not made, the office cost expense would not be payable.

In relation to the nature of the associations that must be disclosed, we are thinking of a fairly wide circle. It might include, for example, family members, elected representatives, political parties, their officers and employees, and employees of Departments or councils. If the payment is made to a company, partnership or trust, the association to be disclosed would include relevant directors, shareholders, trustees, beneficiaries, partners and so on. We expect to consult all Members and, indeed, your Committee on this matter shortly.

The second issue is that the Committee invited us to address its current inquiry into the code of conduct. First, I will say a word about our consultation on the employment of Assembly Members' staff. It addressed the issue of lobbyists being paid for with office cost expenses. It was not our intention in that consultation paper to suggest that our determination would cross the line into the proper field of the code of conduct or the Register of Members' Interests. Clearly, those are matters for the exclusive cognisance of the Committee and the Assembly.

As indicated, we fully respect the role of other parts of the governance regime. I apologise if the consultation paper gave an inaccurate impression. The panel has already moved to amend the consultation paper. What we are particularly interested in and where we have a role is in considering prior disclosure. A prior disclosure in respect of lobbyists and office cost expenses might be along the following lines: no lobbyist is employed and paid for out of this office cost expense claim or the lobbyists Mrs Smith and Mr Murphy are employed and paid for out of this expense claim. The reference to lobbyists in our consultation paper was intended to elicit people's views on whether such a system of prior disclosure would assist in achieving the statutory objective of ensuring probity, accountability and value for money.

In that regard, we think that such a system is close in policy terms to the effect of category 12 of the register, for which we are responsible. We would be grateful for the Committee's views. We also suggest that the Committee might like to consider whether category 12 of the Register of Members' Interests, which currently refers only to family members, could usefully be extended to lobbyists and the wider circle of associated persons that I referred to earlier.

Returning to your inquiry, the Committee has specifically raised with us the issue of reducing a salary by 90% for any period during which a Member is imprisoned for up to 12 months. As you are aware from our recent correspondence with the Committee, the panel has considered that and agreed to include in our determination provisions for the fifth Assembly.

The Committee has also specifically raised with us the issue of the Committee's power under Standing Orders to recommend sanctions, including the withdrawal of any rights to salary and allowances. The panel, of course, has no role in relation to disciplining any Member who might have breached the code, even if the breach is connected with salary or allowance. The panel is, nonetheless, very supportive, in the interests of probity and transparency, of rigorous and fair enforcement of the code. Therefore, if a reduction of salary or allowances is a sanction that the Committee wished to recommend in any case, the panel would not wish its determinations to be an obstacle. I am therefore happy to say that, although we have not yet concluded our thinking on salaries and allowances for the next Assembly — the fifth Assembly — we are minded to include in our determination provisions dealing with that matter. I expect that some liaison may be necessary with the Committee Clerk and the Finance Office in order to arrange the details of a suitable mechanism.

I understand that the Committee is also interested in our views on any other of the various matters raised in the issues paper provided to the Committee. We are content for the moment that, beyond the points that we have addressed today, we have nothing more useful to add. The panel has only limited resources and intends to make its main determination for the fifth Assembly in the near future. If, in so doing, any further issues arise, we would be happy to communicate them to the Committee.

Finally, we are in our own consultation mode. If the Committee has any views on the structure or content of the regime for salaries, allowances or pensions for the fifth Assembly, we would be very happy to hear of them and to discuss them today or in the future. For example, we note that your predecessor Committee recommended in a 2009 report that the Assembly Commission publish standard job descriptions and salary bands for all staff who are employed under the office cost allowance. The Committee may be pleased to note that our consultation proposes that Members' staff should have standardised job descriptions and salary bands. If the Committee has any other views, we would be very grateful to hear them.

That is all that I will say by way of an opening statement, Chairman, but I am interested to hear from you and from members how you think we may help.

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): Thank you very much, Pat, for that briefing to the Committee. Members are interested.

You mentioned lobbyists. Do you have a definition that you can share with the Committee? Is the panel clear that the Assembly has in place robust mechanisms for investigating alleged breaches of the rules in relation to expenses? I would like to hear whether you think the actual procedures are robust enough. It is a different issue if they are breached. That is a matter for us, but, on the issue of the rules that are in place presently, does the panel have any views on that?

Mr McCartan: On the first issue that you mentioned, I read a recent definition of what a lobbyist is; I think that it was in connection with the House of Commons. It is someone who seeks to influence the body politic or the politicians of an elected body. I think that definition is fairly clear. Our concern is about whether it would be appropriate to have such a person on the payroll for an MLA when that payroll is intended to work for the MLA or his or her constituency office as distinct from being used for the body politic or to influence politics.

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): What happens if it is being used for the good of constituents?

Mr McCartan: That may or may not be a lobbyist under the definition.

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): We find lobbyists up here every day of the week. Most of us have probably had encounters this week, last week and the week before, but, in terms of paying, that is helpful.

The other issue is about the rules that are in place. What is your view on them?

Mr McCartan: The current issue for us is to ensure that the administration of the current determination is robust. In that respect, we meet frequently with the Director General and staff. We are responsible for the ongoing responsibility to ensure compliance with our determination. A large part of our work is to ensure that there are robust systems in place and that they are working. If we hear of something that gives us cause for concern, we will raise that matter with the Director General and/or his finance staff and others.

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): In relation to the 'Spotlight' programme, some comment was made in relation to the Director General. I am not sure whether it was by you or Mr McQuillan. I think that the staff might have had some concerns about it.

Mr McCartan: Do you mean the staff of the Assembly?

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): The Director General's office.

Mr McCartan: The Director General and I have had a number of robust discussions about such issues. I have reported them fully to the panel. It is healthy that we have such a relationship. I am not aware of any other concern that you might have.

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): I specifically asked you in relation to the recent 'Spotlight' programme and the follow-up radio programmes that you and Mr McQuillan went on. I do not think that Dr Campbell did any public interviews. There certainly appeared to be criticism of the Director General and some of his staff. Has he raised that with you, and have you anything to say in response?

Mr McCartan: He has not raised that with us, as a panel, or with me individually. We are meeting him next week. We have met him several times since the 'Spotlight' programme that you refer to. The consequences of it were aired. I am not aware of him having raised such a concern. Indeed, all of us have expressed concern about staff who are often in the invidious position of trying to ensure that there is compliance with our determinations, and trying to deal with the number of claims and the way in which they receive claims. We have a great deal of sympathy for the situation that that places them in, particularly where there might be some sort of ambiguity around, for example, an associated person or some sort of prior disclosure not being made. That is the area that we are now addressing in our determination. The reason is to make it explicit, or as explicit as we possibly can, for the good of staff and Members.

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): Issues certainly have not been raised with this Committee. You talked about the position that staff have been put in. I assume that those issues have been clarified by Members, if necessary. Is that the case?

Mr McCartan: I assume that the relationships are OK and that they are working effectively. I am not aware of any problem in that regard. It has not been brought to our attention by the Director General.

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): So, there are no issues that you or other panel members can tell us about.

Mr McCartan: I do not think so.

Mr Boylan: Thank you very much for your presentation. You are very welcome. I have a couple of points of clarity in light of the programme. There seems to be a perception out there that maybe you have strayed into the role of the Committee in terms of the Register of Members' Interests. I would like some clarity on that to ensure that, whatever your role is going to be, it will not interfere with the Committee and that you will do it independently.

Mr McCartan: I am very grateful for you raising that because there is considerable scope for confusion over the role of the Committee and the role of the panel. We do not have an enforcement role, for example. The question is about whether there is confusion between the disclosure required for drawing down office cost expenses and your requirement for the full register of interests and maintaining that register of interests. Indeed, it is part of your current review to look at all that. We are very anxious not to stray into your area, but we are also very anxious that, when, for example, we look at ways of defining what is required in a prior disclosure, you might usefully take that on board and look at it in relation to your register of interests. There may be scope for a series of tight definitions of what an interest might be that should be, in our case, prior disclosed to drawing down moneys, and, in your case, might be something that a Member should register in any event in the public interest. When you see the consultative document that we will issue shortly on the area of prior disclosure, which has been prompted by the media blitz last November, you may well find it helpful in relation to reviewing your code of conduct.

Mr Boylan: That is fine, but, clearly, from a media point of view — you mentioned the media blitz — the perception was that we have to define what code is what and what responsibilities are what. There is a wee bit of a concern about that, but, clearly, you have answered the question. We need to ensure that that does not happen again. We certainly await your report in relation to that.

Mr McCartan: We have written to the Chairman —

Mr Boylan: I understand. I was only looking for clarity on that issue. Thank you.

On the other issue, you mentioned category 12 in relation to the Register of Members' Interests. The Chair spoke about lobbying earlier. Does that happen in any other legislature?

Mr McCartan: My understanding is that something in Westminster is very tight on it.

Dr Henrietta Campbell (Independent Financial Review Panel): Our understanding of Westminster is that they are very aware of the issue of lobbyists. It is quite important that we work together on what that might mean for the use of office expenditure. I do not see any conflict in us working together on this.

In general, when you talk about the register, I do not think that the panel sees any conflict between what we do and what you do. We are all in the business of openness and transparency. That is what you are about in the code and what we are about. It is about the use of public money. I do not see any conflict. The more that we talk to each other on these issues and understand what each other's roles are, there should not be an issue.

Mr Boylan: I respect that. We are in the middle of reviewing the code. We want to tighten it before we bring final code of conduct about. We do not want anything interfering in the [Inaudible.]

You are right: we will certainly work together in terms of bringing that forward.

Mr Douglas: Thank you for your presentation. In your consultation document, you refer to Members having to register connected parties. You mentioned that earlier. Do you now accept that Members already have to register in the Register of Members' Interests family members who benefit directly or indirectly in any way from office cost expenditure?

Mr McCartan: I do. I accept that it could be better defined. We are attempting to do that in relation to prior disclosure. You may well find some advantage in looking at what we do and whether or not parts of it could be brought into your code. In the mind of the general public, that might be a very good thing to do.

Mr Douglas: On 12 December on 'The Stephen Nolan Show', you talked about Members' expenses and family members being employed by MLAs. You said to Nolan that, if someone was going to employ only one family member but had two, "I might employ your other one and, by the way, you might employ one of mine". Do you regret saying that? To me, that was a very flippant remark and is actually untrue.

Mr McCartan: I am sorry that you found it a flippant remark. It actually reflects some practice, where there is or may be reciprocation between one Member and another.

Mr Douglas: Surely, you are saying now that you accept that Members do register. Yet, you talk about —

Mr McCartan: Thank you for reminding me of the context of the remark. The interviewer raised the issue of the register of interests. I certainly mentioned disclosure in my reply. I am interested in disclosure for the drawdown of expenses, which is properly our approach. I have read the transcript, and that is what was said.

Mr Douglas: I heard the interview.

Mr McCartan: And I have no doubt that you had the impression, as given by the interviewer, that it was about the issue that is properly appropriate to your Committee. My response was properly appropriate to prior disclosure for office cost expenses.

Mr Douglas: Have you no regrets about saying it?

Mr McCartan: I think that it was a fair remark in the context.

Mr Douglas: To be honest, it came across as though you were, as they say on the Newtownards Road, doing a bit of showboating and feeding into the media hype. I accept things about the Assembly and know what is out there in the public, but those sorts of comments, which I certainly believe to be flippant, feed into that frenzy.

Mr McCartan: The direction of the interview was not in my control. I think that I dealt with it fairly and without compromising the situation, reflecting something of current practice.

Mr Douglas: If you were asked the same question again, is that the answer that you would give?

Mr McCartan: No. I would make it very clear that there is a difference between the register of interests, which is properly the business of this Committee, and what our interest relates to, which is solely office costs expenses. That is the difference that I would make.

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): Just to clarify, Mr McCartan: you said that the question was about family members and that it could be better defined.

Mr McCartan: It might be a wider list.

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): You made that statement. Maybe you will give us some insight into what that wider list might be.

Mr McCartan: I am happy to do that. There are two ways in which we will do it. We will do it very shortly in the consultative document, which we will issue regarding our next determination —

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): I just want clarification. You said that it could be better defined. In other words, you do not think that it is properly defined as it stands at the moment on the register of interests. Is that right?

Mr McCartan: No, the register of interests is a matter for you. However, you might find it useful to look at some of the lists in the 2011 Act in relation to, for example, the disqualification from membership of this panel or the disqualification of being the Commissioner for Complaints. The list, in family terms, is quite extensive.

Our real concern is not just family, because we have made provision for the employment of one family member, as you know, and that is obviously under review for the next determination. Our concern is much more about connected parties or associated persons.

In the immediate future, we are concentrating on clarifying what is meant by that. Such associated persons would be identified through prior disclosure. I merely suggest to you that the schedules to the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 give you a fairly clear picture, to which we have added a number of categories, which we will consult on as soon as we have finalised our determination draft for consultation.

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): Family members, who do a very good job in all or most cases, I am sure, feel that they are being criticised for doing a job professionally. They could apply for and get a job in any determination that you make.

Mr McCartan: Absolutely.

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): What happens then?

Mr McCartan: We do not have a problem with family members; it is up to one per Member.

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): That is the case at the minute, but what about your next determination?

Mr McCartan: It is up for public consultation. It is up to the public, and it is up to you to let us know your views. We are very anxious to hear them.

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): You accept that we should not be derogatory toward people who are employed and are professional.

Mr McCartan: I entirely agree with that. I would be very concerned if anyone took anything from what we say as being derogatory to the families of Members.

Mr Agnew: Thank you for the presentation. We are talking about the employment of staff through the OCE. As part of your forthcoming open consultation, is there any intention that there be a requirement to employ staff through public and open competition?

Mr McCartan: That is certainly one of the issues in our current consultative document on support staff. The question is whether the merit principle should be used to determine future employment. That is in the consultative document, and we are very anxious to get people's views, particularly those of MLAs and MLAs' staff, on these issues. We are all familiar with competition for jobs funded from the public purse. We are concerned to ensure that the standard of terms and conditions, as well as pension provision and so on, for those jobs improves. It is about ensuring that you have professional staff and are encouraged in that direction, so that you are strongly supported in your work. That is what we are about. I referred to sample job descriptions, which may be found in our consultative document. We are very interested to hear from people about those issues. We have been approaching the merit principle and whether it should apply as a basis for future employment, but we are open to suggestions as to what should be done about jobs that are vacant. These are matters in which you as employers have a strong interest. There is tremendous help available free to everyone from the Labour Relations Agency and the Equality Commission with recruitment and other practices. In the future, I could envisage that, whatever the recruitment arrangements are, there will be strong advice and assistance for MLAs.

Mr Agnew: That is helpful. Once you have been elected as an MLA, all of a sudden you become an employer — in my case, for the first time. I have tried to do everything by the merit principle and open and fair competition within the limits of my knowledge and experience. You referred to existing staff and also potential salary bands and job descriptions. Would they apply to existing staff or just to new recruits?

Mr McCartan: I am looking over to Alan and Etta, because we have discussed those issues and are open to views. We are of a mind that there should be an assimilation exercise for those salary bands.

Mr Alan McQuillan (Independent Financial Review Panel): We have a consultation document out in what is a genuinely open consultation. The response so far, however, has not been encouraging. I think that we have had only had one response from an MLA and one response from an MLA's member of staff, in addition to one response from a third party. On such an important issue, affecting such a large group of staff and employers, we are not getting feedback.

In the consultation paper, our profile of the jobs that staff are doing and the salaries that they are paid shows absolutely no evidence of any structure. Let us take personal secretaries, researchers or support staff in Members' offices. They are paid right from the bottom of the pay scale, at minimum wage level, up to £13 or £14 an hour. There appears to be no correlation between the job that the person does and what they are paid. It is radically different. We have suggested that there should be three bands of staff and have tried to benchmark their salaries against the public and private sectors, based on their skills and responsibilities. We have put the proposed salary bands for those staff out to consultation. Potentially, there then needs to be an exercise. We will need feedback on what Members are going to do to assimilate staff into those bands.

The consultation document also highlights the significant underpayment, in our view, of a number of support staff, and I take on board the Chair's comments about the skills of staff. Considering their skill profile, they are not well paid for the jobs that they do. In this exercise, we have recommended that the minimum wage for staff should be set at the living wage, meaning that significant numbers would receive a pay rise.

These are several of the issues. The consultation paper highlights, however, a number of outliers in the existing pay scales. A significant number of staff, for example, are paid at very much above what we consider the appropriate level for the responsibilities of those posts. We have a couple of staff who are paid more per hour than the MLA who employs them. We find that difficult to understand, and we would welcome any feedback on that. This raises another question: how do you assimilate those staff into this mechanism, whatever it eventually is? Again, we are open to suggestions.

Mr Agnew: I certainly welcome the move towards sample job descriptions and pay bands. As someone who is still in my first term, that would have been helpful when I was first elected.

Mr McCartan: I think that Dr Campbell wanted a word as well.

Dr Campbell: We are interested in making sure that you have the help that you need to do your job and also, as Alan said, that staff who are working for you are treated fairly. We feel a responsibility for that. We have seen examples of really good recruitment practice by some MLAs. We have to promote that good practice in any way we can and let everyone know that some people are acting in a very equitable and fair way, in line with all the legislation. That way, we make sure that you see what good practice looks like.

Mr Agnew: I have one final point, Chair. In some of the correspondence we have had to date and in some of the questions today, the point has been made about clarifying our role. Of course we want your input into our consultation, but we think that it is important that the two roles are distinct. Equally, we need to respect your role. You are an independent body. Whilst we should ask you questions and have an input into your consultation, we are a peer body, but you are independent of MLAs and parties, and it is important that our Committee respects your role as much as we ask you to respect ours.

Mr McCartan: We were going to suggest some way to liaise between us so that we avoid any future confusion, and you can be apprised of the issues that we are considering. We meet the Director General and his staff regularly, and it is for the Director General to determine whether you could be represented at such meetings through your Committee Clerk so that you are fully apprised of what is going on, or you could find another liaison mechanism. We would be quite happy with that. You will be aware that, just as you do not want your role to be compromised in any way, we are anxious not to compromise the independence of the panel. We are also discussing resources for the panel with the Director General, because we have had three secretaries in the past six months, which I think accounts for some for the problems with correspondence. I am not attributing any blame, because there are specific reasons for that.

In fact, between now and next year, when our full determination comes into operation for the next Assembly, a considerable amount of drafting and research work will need to be done as well as responses to the consultative documents. We are, for example, preparing a consultative document on MLAs' salaries and allowances for Ministers, which should be with everyone, including you, shortly. You can imagine that that is fairly substantial work that requires substantial research and so on. Currently, three documents are out to consultation. Another short consultation is about to be issued, and we then have to address the question of pay. We also have all the incidental allowances that go to making up office cost expenses. Those are matters for consultation. We then have to make up our minds and write the determination and/or the rules for it.

There is a huge amount of work to do. Our determinations effectively have the power of legislation and are supported by that, so we must be very careful and, therefore, employ staff. We will discuss that issue with the Director General next week, because we are inadequately resourced and part-time. One or two days a week has been the norm up to now. We cannot go on like that. Where all this goes, of course, is ultimately a matter for legislation as to whether you go into the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) role. It is a matter for you if you wish to extend the independence, the independent secretariat and so on of how these matters in total are administered and governed. It is entirely a matter for the legislature.

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): I think that we are hitting on a budget matter.

Mr McCartan: Everything is hitting a budget these days,

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): I think that you need to talk to the Director General about that, because, if you were to talk to staff around here, you will find that they are running between Committees as well, given the cutbacks under austerity over this past number of months. I am afraid that we do not have any magic wand for the budget, Pat. You make your case, and, if we hear the case, we might be supportive.

Mr F McCann: I do not know whether that was a cry of poverty. I am sorry that I am late. I was at a meeting of the Committee for Employment and Learning that overran. On the whole question of registered family members, associated or connected party is also mentioned.

Mr McCartan: We are going to call it "associated persons".

Mr F McCann: What is the definition of that?

Mr McCartan: I read something on it earlier; it is fairly wide. Ultimately, it will be in your hands as to whether a person is an associated person. If they are a member of a political party that you are a member of, or if they are beneficiaries of the office cost expenses in any way, it is a matter for declaration. You would expect us to ask you to make a prior disclosure of such an interest. That is what it will require. It does not do anything other than require you to make such a statement as to what the connection is, if any. If there is a nil connection, you say that.

Mr F McCann: It is difficult for me to get my head round it. I can understand the family connection and the need for people to register that, but it is about how wide it goes. It could prohibit people seeking to take up that type of employment, because they will be mentioned in registers.

Mr McCartan: It is not employment so much as beneficiaries of claims for moneys for rents, for example. If the person who owns the body that is renting a premises to an MLA is an associated person — if there is a connection — the MLA should be required to declare that.

Ms Lo: I have a couple of questions for you. I want to go back to the salary band. In my eight years as an MLA, I have never recruited anybody without going through advertising. That is the way to go. We should set an example that it is fair employment for everyone. All my staff have been wonderful. All of them are in their positions on merit.

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): I think that all of us would say that, Anna.

Ms Lo: Yes, I am sure; I quite agree. A while ago, I discussed the consultation that you sent to us with my staff, and I will respond to you before the deadline. We were astounded that the salary that you set for constituency office staff is so low. It is almost an AO grade — about £18,000. A lot of MLAs work in Parliament Buildings four days a week. The constituency office is mainly staffed by people who are experts in giving advice and dealing with quite complex social issues; they are almost social workers. To set their salary at an AO grade — £18,000, from recollection — is very, very low. My staff are way above that level. I think that you need to think about that.

Mr McCartan: I think that we have thought about that, but that will be aided by any submission you might make. That would inform us as to what sort of assimilation exercise we might be involved in. At the outset, I think that the Chairman said that I should not refer to individual Members, so I will not do so, but I am aware of practices, which Etta said earlier are best practice, in MLAs' offices. We can certainly expect to build on those.

Ms Lo: I pitched the advice worker staff level with the National Joint Council (NJC). That is the level I set myself when I first recruited.

Mr McCartan: We would be very interested to receive that in a submission. Is it NJC in local government or in the health and social care system?

Ms Lo: No. I came from the voluntary sector, so I get it from the likes of the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA).

Mr McCartan: So it is local government.

Ms Lo: Yes.

Mr Alan McQuillan: In drawing up those bands, we got researchers to look at comparable bands in government in Northern Ireland, so we looked at the responsibility levels in the job descriptions and tried to map those across. That is where the salary bands came from. If you think that some of that modelling is wrong, it would be very helpful for us to understand what benchmarks you are using to set your salaries, because we can then look at that and find that there are other ways to do it.

Ms Lo: Advice workers in the voluntary sector are well above £18,000 to start. You would not get anybody who would go into a job as an advice worker at £18,000.

Mr McCartan: I chaired a health trust that employed 22,000 people, so I have a fair idea of staff in the statutory side and what is a fair and reasonable salary. I am very interested in your views, and we will pay them great attention. You should look at the annual survey of hours and earnings (ASHE), which shows average earnings and salaries in Northern Ireland. I make that point because you should think about whether you should be constrained by Northern Ireland averages in the private and public sectors or whether it should be some other link like the NJC or whatever, which is generally a nationally laid down set of scales. I say that because the current average earnings in Northern Ireland for a full-time worker are £24,020, which is exactly half the salary of an MLA. You can see that, even when we get to MLAs' salaries, which are set out in the consultative document, whether that is the right ratio. Should people in Northern Ireland be paying their MLAs twice the average earnings? I think that that might be easily justified on the basis of the sort of incentive that we need for people to give up careers and go into politics and so on.

If you look at others by category, you will see the Northern Ireland averages jumping out at you. It is most important — we have put it in our support staff document — that staff are not paid the minimum wage; the living wage is the backdrop. We will not allow it to drop below that.

Ms Lo: I agree with you. Some politicians think that a lot of young people would like to apply for jobs to work for MLAs as their starting point coming out of university. That is a bit of exploitation. There are plenty of people who would not want that sort of job as a start to their career. I do not think that it is right that we pay them so little, thinking that there are plenty of people who would want the job.

I am not sure, Pat, whether you are aware that, at one stage, I was at the receiving end of what you might call a racist slur.

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): Sorry, Anna, I am going to have to stop you there, because you are going into areas that are not what we are here to talk about. It is the Standards and Privileges Committee —

Ms Lo: No, I am coming to it.

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): I gave you quite a bit of leeway with the first issue.

Ms Lo: If I may come to it, it relates to our Committee and our review of the code of conduct. The Committee agreed that staff should also adhere to a code of conduct. In your determination, would you agree to that? I said that I received this racist slur, and I accepted the apology from the MLA. He did not do it; it was a member of staff —

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): Sorry, I am going to have to stop you there, Anna. Get to your question and ask the question that you want to ask.

Ms Lo: I just wanted to finish my sentence.

Mr McCartan: I understand the question that is being asked, Chairman. It is about whether there should be a code of ethics or a code of conduct for support staff.

Ms Lo: A code of conduct for our support staff.

Mr McCartan: That is an interesting point. I do not know why, but I thought that there was something there already, but if there is not, clearly we should —

Ms Lo: Would you consider putting it in your determination?

Mr McCartan: Clearly, we could consider such a matter, and we are happy if it is raised with us. Now that you have mentioned it, I think that we will have a look at it. We all have a vested interest in ensuring that proper codes of conduct apply throughout our working life.

Mr Douglas: Can I take you back to the connected persons? Is that what you said?

Mr McCartan: Yes, and I think that we are talking about associated persons now. Persons can include companies and organisations.

Mr Douglas: It is a different question. For our code of conduct and the issue of connections, have you looked at other jurisdictions? Have you looked at Wales, Scotland, Westminster and, indeed, the European Parliament? If you have, how does our code of conduct measure up?

Mr McCartan: I wish that I could give you the measure in a league table, but we have not gone into it in that detail. However, we are aware of Wales, Scotland and Westminster and, indeed, our friends in the Oireachtas and the issues with the code of conduct. Whilst we are not responsible for the code of conduct, we could, nonetheless, express some views or determination that might assist the code of conduct. That is why it is important for us to liaise in the future. With the best will in the world, I do not see you coming out with a brand new code of conduct much before the next determination, but I expect that that might be a watershed date. We would be only too glad to feed in or assist. We will not have a situation, I hope, in which our determination is somehow in contrast to or in conflict with your code of conduct.

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): Do any other members wish to speak?

Pat, Dr Campbell and Alan McQuillan, thank you all very much indeed. Pat, if you have an issue that you want to talk to us about and if it is within our bailiwick, we are happy for you to come along to the Committee at any time.

Mr McCartan: Thank you for that. We will respect that greatly. I will ensure that we keep in touch with your Committee on our matters as we progress. Similarly, we would be happy to hear from you informally or formally to address certain issues.

The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): Thank you very much in the meantime.