Session 2007/2008

First Report

Committee on Procedures

Report on
Committee Systems
and Structures

TOGETHER WITH THE MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS, MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RELATING TO THE REPORT

Ordered by Committee on Procedures to be printed 14 May 2008
Report: 29/07/08R (Committee on Procedures)

This document is available in a range of alternative formats.
For more information please contact the
Northern Ireland Assembly, Printed Paper Office,
Parliament Buildings, Stormont, Belfast, BT4 3XX
Tel: 028 9052 1078

Committee on Procedures
Membership and Powers

The Committee on Procedures is a Standing Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly established in accordance with paragraph 10 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement and under Assembly Standing Order 49. The Committee has 11 Members including a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson and a quorum of 5.

The Committee has the power to:

consider and review on an ongoing basis the Standing Orders and procedures of the Assembly;
initiate inquiries and publish reports;
update the Standing Orders of the Assembly for punctuation and grammar; and
annually republish Standing Orders.

The Committee first met on 16 May 2007.

The Membership of the Committee since its establishment on 9 May 2007 has been as follows:

Lord Morrow (Chairman)
Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairman)
Mr Francie Brolly
Lord Browne
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Raymond McCartney
Mr David McClarty
Mr Adrian McQuillan
Mr Sean Neeson
Mr Declan OLoan
Mr Ken Robinson

Executive Summary

1. This report sets out the Committee on Procedures consideration of the systems and structures of the committees of the Northern Ireland Assembly. There are two types of Assembly committees; 11 statutory committees which are set up to advise and assist each Northern Ireland Minister in the formulation of policy with respect to matters within his or her responsibilities as a Minister. Statutory committees have powers as described in Strand One of the Belfast Agreement, i.e., a scrutiny, policy development and consultation role with respect to the department with which each is associated, together with a role in the scrutiny of primary and secondary legislation and a role in the initiation of legislation. The Assembly also has six standing committees which are permanent committees and were established by the Assembly to assist it in its work

2. The key issues considered by the Committee concerning Assembly committees were membership; the use of substitutes; the use of rapporteurs; days and times of committee meetings; quorum; voting and joint committees.

Membership of Assembly committees.

3. The Committee considered the possibility of reducing membership of committees from 11 to 9. However the overall consensus of those consulted was that current membership was adequate. The Committee on Procedures therefore decided not to recommend a change to committee membership.

Use of substitutes

4. The Committee weighed the potential benefits and weaknesses of the use of substitutes and considered the weaknesses, primarily compromising the efficiency of committees, to be greater. The Committee on Procedures agreed not to recommend the use of substitutes in Assembly committees.

Use of rapporteurs

5. The use of rapportures in other legislatures gave the Committee on Procedures cause to consider using them in the Assembly committees. There was some consensus in support of the use of rapporteurs amongst Members and the SDLP. However, the Committee voiced concerns regarding the time and resource commitments required and shared the concerns of some Members that the political impartiality required to conduct this role effectively might be an unrealistic demand on Members. The Committee on Procedures agreed not to recommend the introduction of rapporteurs for Assembly committees.

Days and Times of Committee meetings

6. The Committee agreed to leave current arrangements unchanged and to revisit the issue if the number of meetings held on plenary days increased. The Committee considered advantages of alternative meeting times and agreed that flexibility was the key requirement. The Committee on Procedures will encourage committees to experiment with timings that would suit their own schedule and work environment.

Quorum

7. The Committee considered reducing quorum given the findings of smaller quorums in other legislatures. The Committee agreed that there were benefits to a smaller quorum of four under limited circumstances.

Voting.

8. The Committee will be recommending no changes to the voting system.

Joint committees.

9. The Committee believed that the possibility of joint committees would enhance the scrutiny of a matter which fell more or less equally to two or more committees. This belief was supported by the views of those consulted and the example of joint committees in other Parliaments. Therefore the Committee on Procedures recommends that the Assembly endorses the creation of joint committees.

Summary of Recommendations

Recommendation 1

The Committee on Procedures recommends that quorum remains at five but can be reduced to four under limited circumstances.

Recommendation 2

The Committee on Procedures recommends that the Assembly endorses the creation of joint committees.

Introduction

On 30th May 2007 the Committee on Procedures agreed to undertake an inquiry into Committee Systems and Structures. The inquiry was to consider all the procedures relating to the committees such as size, quorum, substitutes, frequency of meetings, day and timing of meetings, etc. This is an area that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee had also expressed an interest in reviewing. As a result the Chairpersons of both Committees met and agreed that the Committee on Procedures would take the lead and consult closely with the Assembly and Executive Review Committee during the course of the inquiry.
The following terms of reference were agreed at a Committee meeting on 13th June 2007 -

To examine the membership of committees with particular reference to the number of members sitting on committees and the number of members serving on multiple committees.
To assess the use of substitutes in committees.
To examine the arrangements for quorums in committees.
To consider the possibility of the use of rapporteurs in committees.
To give consideration to the days and times on which committees should meet, the frequency of meetings and facilities for meetings.
To consider the procedures for voting in committees.
To assess the possibility of introducing Standing Orders to allow for joint committees.
To report to the Assembly making recommendations on the findings of the Committee on Procedures into committee systems and structures.

The Committee agreed that the methodology for the inquiry should include -

a survey of the opinions of Members and some committee staff,
comparative research on how committee procedures and operational matters are dealt with in the other UK Legislatures and in the Houses of the Oireachtas,
oral evidence from a small number of well informed witnesses and written evidence from a number of other interested parties, and
fact finding visits to the Scottish Parliament, the House of Commons and the Houses of the Oireachtas.

At its meeting on 27th June 2007 the Committee on Procedures agreed that the Assembly Executive and Review Committee should be invited to make a written submission.
Correspondence received from the Business Committee, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, the Executive and The Clerk to the Assembly regarding Committee Systems and Structures were noted at the meeting of 3rd October 2007 and contributed to the inquiry in the subsequent meetings.
The Committee considered comparative research provided by the Assembly Research and Library Services on 17th October 2007.
Mr Gerry Millar from Belfast City Council attended the meeting on 14th November 2007 to share experience of issues of committee in Local Government in general and Belfast City Council in particular.
Professor Rick Wilford from the School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy at Queens University Belfast submitted written and oral evidence to the Committee on 12th December 2007 and suggested changes to improve the performance of Committees.
The Final Report of the Survey of Members on Committee Systems and Structures was presented to the Committee by the Assembly Research and Library Services on 9th January 2008. These results, along with information gathered from research and the visits to the Scottish Parliament (19th September 2007) and the House of Commons (24th October 2007), were given in-depth consideration at the meeting of 23rd January 2008. The Committee deliberated and formulated its preliminary position on the issues identified in the terms of reference which it used to consult further with the party whips and Chairpersons Liaison Group.
The Committee noted the response from the Chairpersons Liaison Group, received 27th February 2008, and the responses from party whips at the meeting of the 16th April 2008. The Committee considered all contributions to the inquiry while agreeing final recommendations and agreed that a report should be drafted.
At its meeting on 14th May 2008 the Committee on Procedures agreed its report on Committee Systems and Structures and agreed that it should be printed.

Consideration of Key Issues

Key issue one The membership of Assembly committees

The Committee initiated an examination of membership of committees with particular reference to the number of members sitting on committees and the number of members serving on multiple committees.
The Standing Orders of the Northern Ireland Assembly allow for 11 statutory committees and 6 standing committees with the following membership

Table 1 Northern Ireland Assembly Committee Membership

Statutory Committees	No of Members
Agriculture and Rural Development Committee	11
Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister	11
Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee	11
Education Committee	11
Employment and Learning Committee	11
Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee	11
Environment Committee	11
Finance and Personnel Committee	11
Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee	11
Regional Development Committee	11
Social Development Committee	11
Sub Total	121
Standing Committees
Assembly and Executive Review Committee	11
Committee on Procedures	11
Business Committee	11 [1]
Public Accounts Committee	11
Committee on Standards and Privileges	11
Audit Committee	5
Sub Total	60
Total	181

The Committee also noted that there are a number of other groupings in the Assembly such as All Party Working Groups and the Assembly Commission. The Assembly Commission is appointed by resolution of the Assembly and has its legislative base in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Appointments to the Commission are governed by Standing Order 74 the Speaker is the Chairperson and it has 5 other members. The Commission and other groupings in the Assembly are not subject to the Standing Orders on membership and procedures that govern the statutory and non-statutory committees, therefore the Committee decided that they would not be taken into account in its inquiry.
In total, as of April 2008, there are 121 statutory and 60 standing committee places giving a total of 181 committee places to be populated by MLAs.
In line with paragraph 8 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement, Standing Order 46(3) requires the Speaker to ensure:

...that all Members who do not hold Ministerial or junior Ministerial Office are offered at least one Statutory Committee place.

There are currently 14 MLAs who hold Ministerial or junior Ministerial office leaving 94 MLAs to populate 121 statutory committee places and 60 standing committee places. As of April 2008, 3 MLAs do not wish to sit on committees whether statutory or standing. The Speaker, while holding a seat as Chairperson of the Business Committee, also does not sit on a statutory committee. In addition, ad hoc committees, of which there have been 2 between May 2007 and April 2008, created additional places to be populated.
The Committee noted that in order to fill every statutory and standing committee place, each MLA must sit on an average of 2 committees. However, in reality, the distribution of MLAs over the available committee places is not even; Standing Orders state that seats on standing and statutory committees will be allocated on a proportional basis according to principles set out in Standing Order 47. In practice this means that the parties hold a number of seats on committees which broadly represents the party strengths in the Assembly.
Research carried out by the Assembly Research and Library Services for the Committee in October 2007 indicated that 70 MLAs were sitting on 3 or more committees. Updated research in April 2008 showed a reduction in this figure.

Table 2 - Number of Members sitting on Multiple Committees

Number of Committees	Number of MLAs
4	3
3	15
2	52
1	20
0	3
Total	93

The research also indicated that most other legislatures in the United Kingdom do not place this level of demand on elected members. The House of Commons has twice as many MPs as committee places, the Scottish Parliament has 129 committee places and a total of 121 MSPs and the Welsh Assembly has 60 Members of which 46 sit on 95 committee places. Information received during a visit by the Committee to the Houses of the Oireachtas indicated that there are 166 deputies of which 126 sit on 178 committee places. However, for the parties in government to maintain their majority across all committees their Members must sit on multiple committees.
The Committee took oral and written evidence from Professor Rick Wilford from the School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy at Queens University Belfast and explored with him the impact of Members attending multiple committees. At the oral evidence session on 12th December Professor Wilford stated:

I am sure that members will appreciate that the large remit of Statutory Committees is difficult in itself, and if one is serving on more than one Statutory Committee, one may be stretched in many ways. There are ways in which the labour may be divided more effectively and efficiently. Multiple Committee membership is not a good idea in principle, and it rarely happens in the Scottish Parliament.

The Committee on Procedures looked at the possibility of reducing the membership of committees. As noted in paragraph 17, there are 94 MLAs who must be offered a place on a statutory committee. There are 11 statutory committees and if the 94 eligible MLAs were divided over these committees, each would have a membership size of 8.5 which rounds up to 9. The Committee noted that, to comply with Standing Orders and the Belfast Agreement, the minimum that committee membership could be reduced to would be 9. If standing and ad hoc committees were also reduced to a membership of 9 there would be 151 committee places to be populated by 94 MLAs (the exceptions to a membership of 9 would be the Business Committee and the Audit Committee which can have a membership of up to 13 and 5 respectively).
The Committee on Procedures commissioned a survey in which every MLA was invited to take part. This enabled the Committee to consider the views and opinions of the MLAs on the possibility of reducing committee membership. The Committee also consulted closely with the Chairpersons Liaison Group and the party whips. The survey indicated -

46% of respondents felt that the current membership was adequate, 49% felt it was excessive,
70% of MLAs sitting on three or more committees felt a membership of 11 was excessive, and
chairpersons felt current membership was adequate.

The Committee on Procedures during the oral evidence with Professor Rick Wilford on 12th December 2007, noted a suggestion (stated below) that the right to entitlement on a statutory committee be removed, committee membership is a reward not an entitlement and that membership could be rotated between MLAs every two years. Professor Wilford stated:

Why does the Northern Ireland Assembly need 11-member committees when the Scottish Parliament can manage with eight-member committees? The answer is that the Scottish Parliament is not required to offer every MSP a seat on a committee

And later in the same evidence session:

More radically, there could simply be a rotation system, whereby, over the life of an Assembly, half the eligible members could sit on Committees for two years and the other half take over for the following two years.

The Committee deliberated on this latter option but did not feel that there was sufficient merit to explore it further because of practical issues. The Committee believed that the establishment and bedding down period of committees, when MLAs become familiar with their remits and develop working relationships would be unnecessarily repeated if entire memberships were changed on a 2 year basis. This, in the opinion of the Committee would not be an effective use of time.
The Committee also took oral evidence on 14th November 2007 from a Belfast City Council official and noted that the Council had recently gone through a change management process which reduced the number of committees and the number of Council Members sitting on committees. It was interesting to note that an outcome from this process was more focused committees and an improvement in Councillor satisfaction.
In addition, the Committee noted that the Belfast Agreement at paragraph 8 states:

... that the opportunity of Committee places is available to all members.

The Committee initiated an investigation to ensure the proportionality principles as laid down in Standing Orders were not affected by a possible reduction of membership to 9. Using the formula established by the Business Committee to calculate proportionality, the Committee established that overall party membership of statutory and standing committees would be as detailed in tables 3 5. As membership of the Business Committee is not established using the formula, the figures in tables 3 5 do not include the Business Committee. The figures take account of the fact that membership of the Audit Committee would remain at five.

Table 3:- Party Membership on all Statutory Committees

Statutory Committees	Current Allocation at 11	Allocation at 9	Reduction
DUP	41	33	8 (19%)
SF	30	25	5 (17%)
UUP	20	16	4 (20%)
SDLP	18	15	3 (17%)
Alliance	8	6	2 (25%)
Others	4	4	0 (0%)
Total	121	99

Table 4:- Party Membership on all Standing Committees

Standing Committees	Current Allocation at 11	Allocation at 9	Reduction
DUP	17	14	3 (17%)
SF	12	10	2 (17%)
UUP	8	7	1 (13%)
SDLP	7	6	1 (14%)
Alliance	3	3	0 (0%)
Others	2	2	0 (0%)
Total	49	42 [2]

Table 5:- Party Membership on a single committee

Party	Committee membership at 11	Committee membership at 9
DUP	3.66	2.99
SF	2.75	2.25
UUP	1.83	1.49
SDLP	1.62	1.33
Alliance	0.71	0.58
Total	10.57 [3]	8.64 [4]

The Committee consulted closely with the party whips of the Alliance, DUP, SF, SDLP and UUP, with the Chairperson Liaison Group and the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. The result of feedback from this consultation made it clear that the parties felt that membership of 11 was perfectly adequate and that there was no requirement to reduce membership to 9.
The Committee will not therefore be recommending any change to committee membership.

Key issue two the use of substitutes in Assembly committees

A substitute would be an MLA who temporarily replaces another MLA on a committee (for one or more meetings). The Committee explored the possibility of allowing for one substitute per member or one per party for each Assembly committee. The Committee noted that the Business Committee operate a substitute system but recognised that the remit of that Committee made the use of substitutes a sensible option. It was also noted that while Assembly ad hoc committees can allow substitutes they often appear not to encourage them due to the intense, complex and detailed nature of their work.
The Committee was interested to note that the House of Commons, Welsh Parliament, Scottish Parliament and the Houses of the Oireachtas allow substitutes but often under slightly different circumstances. The Committee undertook visits to the House of Commons, Scottish Parliament and the Houses of the Oireachtas to explore the issue further. The Committee took oral evidence from Mr Gerry Millar, Belfast City Council and Professor Rick Wilford and also invited the opinions of the MLAs through a survey and consulted with the party whips and Chairpersons Liaison Group.
While the Scottish Parliament allows substitutes, the committee discovered during its visit that they are rarely used. Substitutes were introduced (2001) when there were more and larger committees. Once committee size and quorum had been reduced in Scotland, the practice of using substitutes became less common. The Committee was interested to note that the Scottish Parliament operated strict criteria that a substitute had to meet before attending a committee meeting.
During the visit to the Houses of the Oireachtas, Members of the Committee were interested to note that the parties, if they had a Member with specific expertise e.g. finance, often send that Member as a substitute to a committee when it was discussing that specific issue e.g. a Member with financial expertise may be sent as a substitute to a departmental committee when it was discussing the finances of that department.
Members of the Committee also drew on their own and the experience of colleagues working in committees during the Transitional Assembly when substitutes were allowed in committees. Some of the Members recalled that the use of substitutes was often at the last minute leaving the substitute member no time to read into the subject matter or prepare for the meeting. As a result such meetings often had varied membership and on a number of occasions had to revisit issues or discussions to accommodate the change in membership. The Committee did not feel that this represented an efficient use of time and expressed concerns that allowing substitutes in the current Assembly could lead to similar difficulties.
The Committee referred to the survey that indicated that 44% of all respondents felt that substitutes should be allowed while 41% were against. A majority of the Chairpersons who responded (56%) indicated that they were not in favour while 66% of Members sitting on 3 or more committees did favour substitutes.
Some of the points raised during the survey included -

that substitutes would be of more use to smaller parties as larger parties with larger representation on a committee could nearly always ensure party representation,
that substitutes could lead to a loss of continuity and breakdown in the composition and effectiveness of the committee,
that substitutes would often be appointed at the last minute meaning they had no time to read meeting papers or become familiar with the issues under discussion,
that substitutes may not have the knowledge to make meaningful contributions,
that the learning from relevant issues or discussion would be lost by the non attending Member,
that there may be less onus on Members to make an effort to attend if they are aware that a substitute can fill the gap, and
that if substitutes were allowed it should be one for each Party to minimise the loss of knowledge and experience and that strict criteria would be needed for the use of substitutes.

The Committee consulted with the party whips and noted a variety of opinions in the responses (some of which were written and some were verbal). While the SDLP saw some merit in the use of substitutes in a limited way, the other parties indicated that they were not supportive of the introduction of substitutes. The DUP further stated ad hoc committees should be allowed substitutes as this has proved to be useful and necessary in the past. The SDLP indicated that if substitutes were allowed it should be one per party per committee. The Alliance Party written submission highlighted the potential for substitutes to diminish both individual expertise and personal relationships between Members across party lines.
Members of the Committee also pointed out that while the theory of substitutes had some inviting aspects, in practice, it would probably prove difficult to operate. Members did not feel that the parties would find it easy to persuade MLAs who are already very busy and fully committed to take on an additional role as a possible substitute.
The Committee have indicated that they are content to take a holding position on this issue and to revisit it at a future stage if required. If the issue is revisited, the Committee feel that there should only be one substitute per party per committee and that the criteria for use of a substitute should be tight and rigidly enforced by the party.

Key issue three use of rapporteurs in Assembly committees

Rapporteurs or reporters are usually initiated to reduce the workload of committees and are charged with a specific task such as investigating an issue, responsibility for research, talking to potential witnesses or drafting a committee report.
They are used in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Houses of the Oireachtas. Rapporteurs are also used in the European Parliament and United Nations for example, to ferret out information ....or talk to potential oral witnesses.... their role is (to) gather information and report back to the committee"[5]
In the survey of Members, a majority of respondents thought that rapporteurs may be useful but had reservations about successful implementation in practice.
The Committee on Procedures considered that the introduction of rapporteurs could be a method to more fully engage MLAs and provide them with a more meaningful approach other than sitting on a committee. However the Committee did have major reservations about the time commitment that would be required by Members to carry out the work allocated and the additional and new resources (funding and staff) that would have to be allocated to enable the rapporteurs.
The Committee also noted that many of those who responded to the survey did raise the issue of the difficulties that MLAs may experience in presenting or reporting back to a Committee in an impartial manner on an issue that their party may hold strong views on. Members of the Committee also considered that, given the current workload of most MLAs, it may be difficult to get MLAs to actually agree to taking on this role.
The Committee consulted with the party whips and Chairpersons Liaison Group and noted that with the exception of the SDLP, there was no support for rapporteurs. The SDLP written response indicated that the party could see benefits in using rapporteurs in committees and gave an example that rapporteurs could be used to produce a report on an issue which was considered to be significant but was not thought to merit a full committee inquiry, or to do a preliminary report on an issue which would then guide the committee on how it might take forward a full inquiry. The SDLP response also suggested that rapporteurs could be useful where there are cross cutting issues and that given the time constraints on Members, new resources would have to be provided.
The Committee on Procedures is therefore indicating that it is not in favour of the use of rapporteurs and will not be recommending their introduction for Assembly committees.

Key issue four days and times of Committee meetings

The days on which Assembly Committees should meet

Assembly Standing Order 44(3) allows that:

All Committees of the Assembly shall have leave to sit during a sitting of the Assembly and notwithstanding any adjournment of the Assembly.

The current distribution of committee meetings in the Assembly is as follows

Table 6 The Days and Times of Assembly Committee Meetings

Day	Morning Committee meeting	Afternoon Committee meeting
Monday
Tuesday	Assembly & Executive Review Committee (w or f as required)	Agriculture and Rural Development (w) Business Committee* (w)
Wednesday	Finance & Personnel (w) Regional Development (w) Employment & Learning (w)	Committee for OFMDFM (w) Standards & Privileges (f) Procedures (f)
Thursday	Environment (w) Enterprise, Trade & Investment (w) Culture, Arts & Leisure (w)	Public Accounts (w) Health, Social Services & Public Safety (w) Social Development (w)
Friday	Education (w)

(w) weekly meeting and (f) fortnightly meeting, * Business Committee normally meet while the plenary is suspended between 12.30pm and 2.00pm. The Audit Committee meets quarterly and the day of its meeting varies.

As table six shows, the majority of committees meet on a Wednesday and Thursday, three committees meet on a Tuesday and one on a Friday. The majority of committees do not therefore normally meet during a plenary sitting.
Committee meetings mostly take place on a Wednesday and Thursday and the Committee noted that some Members initially found that they were due in two meetings at the same time particularly those Members sitting on three or more committees. However, the Committee believed that this is an issue of party management and that over time, since the establishment of the committees in this current mandate, this problem has diminished.
During its visit to the Scottish Parliament the Committee did note and was impressed with the organisation of parliamentary time which allowed three days in Parliament and two days for constituency work. There was a clear demarcation between committee time and plenary time and Scottish committees did not meet at the same time as plenary meetings (although short meetings during plenary breaks such as lunchtime where allowed). The situation is different in Westminster, the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Welsh Assembly where committees are allowed to sit during plenary sessions. However, the Committee recognised that in other Parliaments and Assemblies, due to excessive distances, Members are often unable to commute and are resident in the capital on all sitting days. It thus makes sense to hold committee meetings on plenary days. Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly are able to commute to Parliament Buildings and this enables the separation of plenary and committee days.
The Committee on Procedures noted that the survey indicated 46% of respondents did not favour committee meetings on a plenary day while 33% were in favour of such meetings. However none of the written comments in the survey indicated any major concerns with the current meetings already held on a Tuesday or on a Friday (which is traditionally seen as a constituency day).
The Committee observed that statutory committees in particular find it very useful to be able to hold a one-off meeting for a specific reason during a plenary sitting. This ability affords committees the opportunity to deal with urgent matters, finalise committee reports or meet with relevant visitors and guests to the Assembly.
While some of the parties indicated that they would prefer that committees do not meet during sittings of the Assembly, the Committee recognised that it is ultimately up to the Chairperson and the Members of a Committee to meet and decide what day best suits them for holding meetings.
However, the Committee on Procedures also observed that Members who attend meetings on a Tuesday do sometimes have a clash of duties between attending plenary and committee sessions. While the current situation appears to be working well, the Committee believed that it would not be viable if other committees decided to change meeting days to a Monday or Tuesday.
The Committee on Procedures is not proposing that the current situation regarding the days on which Assembly committees meet should change. However, it would revisit this position if a number of committees did decide to meet on a Monday or Tuesday. Multiple committees meeting on plenary days could create the position of Members finding they are expected to be in two places at once.

Timing of Committee meetings

Assembly committees which meet in the morning normally start at 10.00am or 10.30am and continue until between 12.30pm and 1.00pm. Afternoon meetings normally start at 2.00pm and continue until between 4.30pm and 6.00pm. The length of committee meetings varies depending on business to be discussed.
The Committee on Procedures gave detailed consideration to what times committees could meet. Alternatives included all meetings being on a fortnightly basis, meetings in the early evening (5pm 7pm) or early morning meetings (8.30am 10.30am).
The opinions of those who responded to the survey did not indicate any particular position on times of meetings instead the overwhelming response seemed to indicate a desire for flexibility. Various suggestions arising out of the survey were explored in some detail including the possibilities that statutory committees could move to longer meetings held every fortnight. This may allow the committee to be more strategic and focused, enabling it to deal with an issue in an in-depth and coherent manner. However disadvantages were identified such as longer meetings clashing with other scheduled committee meetings and the possibility of working at quorum strength or losing quorum for the latter part of a meeting.
In exploring the advantages and disadvantages of early morning meetings the Committee noted the potential difficulties for both Members and staff who have family responsibilities or who have to drive long distances to get to Parliament Buildings. Meetings happening in the early evening did however appear to be a more viable option. When consulted on this issue, party whips and the Chairperson Liaison Group responded with a general acceptance that early morning meetings were not suitable but that early evening may offer welcomed flexibility for committees.
The Committee will not therefore be recommending any changes to the times at which Assembly committees can meet. The Committee agreed to ask and encourage committees to experiment with timings which would suit their own schedule and work requirements.

Key Issue five quorum

The quorum for statutory and standing committees is five and is stipulated in Standing Order 47(7). There is one exception the Audit Committee, with a membership of five has a quorum of two. A quorum is deemed to be present where Members are linked by video conferencing. Standing Order 44(6) states that if during a sitting of a committee, a quorum is not present, the Clerk of the Committee informs the Chairperson who will suspend the meeting until a quorum is present or to another day.
During its visit to other legislatures, the Committee was interested to discover quorum size in general was smaller than in the Northern Ireland Assembly even when committee size was bigger. However the Committee noted that there had, in this mandate, been no particular issues arising out of committees achieving and maintaining quorums and there appeared to be no strong opinion on the matter arising out of the survey conducted by the Committee.
During its visit to the Houses of the Oireachtas the Committee explored a procedure that allowed for specific designated Members to form the membership of a committee and for all Members to attend committee meetings. The quorum for meetings is four of which only one has to be a designated Member of the committee the other three Members required to make a quorum can be other non-designated Members. A committee can also continue to meet without a quorum until a Member points out that there is no quorum. Only committee members can attend private sessions of a Committee.
Members of the Committee on Procedures also noted that the quorum of Scottish committees is three. If a quorum is lost, the Scottish committee can finish the business under discussion but cannot vote on it and they cannot commence another item of business.
The Committee noted oral evidence from Belfast City Council that its committees can continue to meet without a quorum. Mr Millar from Belfast City Council stated:

If a committee does not have a quorum, members can listen to the debate but they cannot make a decision on it.

The Committee also noted oral evidence from Mr Millar indicating that a reduction in the number of committees and committee places had in turn reduced the problem of cancelled meetings due to lack of quorum.
The Committee considered some of the practical implications of allowing for a reduced quorum and indicated that it would be content for a meeting of a committee to begin with a reduced quorum of four where such a meeting was held only to take evidence or hear from witnesses. However, in such circumstances, the committee in question should not take any other item of business on the agenda including agreeing minutes. Nor such the committee in question make any decisions or take a vote on any matter raised during the taking of evidence or hearing of witnesses.
The Committee also considered and agreed that a committee meeting, once started, could continue if the number of attending Members fell to four but only to take evidence, hear from witnesses or to continue a discussion that had already commenced in the committee. However, the committee in question should not make any decisions or take a vote on any matter raised during its discussions, taking of evidence or hearing of witnesses.
The Committee recommend that the quorum remains at five but can be reduced to four under limited circumstances.

Key issue six voting in committees

As a result of its inquiry the Committee are satisfied that there are no difficulties with the current voting arrangements; they are similar to those in other legislatures and the survey indicated no desire on behalf of Members for any change. The Committee are therefore content to leave voting arrangements as they currently stand.

Key issue seven joint committees

During its inquiry the Committee explored the possibility of joint committees whereby two or more Assembly committees would meet jointly to discuss and decide on issues of mutual concern.
The Committee considered Standing Order 59 which deals with the overlap of committee business. Standing Order 59 provides a procedure for legislation or other matters which appear to fall within the remit of more than one committee.
This procedure would enable the Chairpersons of the affected committees to consult and agree which committee would take the lead. The lead committee is obliged to seek the views and establish the interests of the other committee(s) before arriving at any conclusions and can invite the other committee(s) to submit a report to it on the stated issue.
In its consideration of Standing Order 59 the Committee noted that the procedure was well established, understood and regularly used by Assembly committees and required no major amendments. However, the Committee believed that the possibility of joint committees could enhance the scrutiny of a matter which fell more or less equally to two or more committees.
The Committee, during its visit to the Scottish Parliament noted that the Scottish Standing Orders provides that where a matter falls within the remit of two or more committees, one committee may take the lead. This procedure is similar to Standing Order 59 of the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, the Committee were interested to further note that joint committees were also provided for in the Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament as quoted below

Rule 6.14 Joint consideration by committees

1. Where a matter falls within the remit of more than one committee, the committees concerned may, with the agreement of the Parliamentary Bureau, consider that matter jointly. The Parliamentary Bureau shall consult the Conveners Group before giving such agreement.

2. Where a matter is to be considered jointly under paragraph 1, any meeting to consider that matter shall be held jointly by the committees concerned. Such a meeting may be convened by the convener of any of those committees. At such a meeting the convener of any of those committees may take the chair.

3. Any report on the joint consideration of a matter shall be produced jointly by those committees.

4. Any of those committees may establish a sub-committee under Rule 12.5 to consider the matter jointly with a sub-committee of another of those committees.

The Committee also examined procedures for joint committees in Westminster. It noted that while the term joint committee, in a Westminster sense, referred to committees that existed between the House of Commons and House of Lords, select committees of the House of Commons or their sub-committees can meet concurrently with any committee or sub-committee of either House for the purpose of consideration of a matter, taking evidence or drafting a report.
The Committee were pleasantly surprised by the level of support for joint committees from the survey, from the evidence provided to it and the responses from the party whips and the Chairpersons Liaison Group. There would appear to be a belief that joint committees may lead to joined up scrutiny of large scale major issues which fall across the remit of two or more committees. Examples, given in the survey and by Members of the Committee, where joint committee work could be usefully undertaken include joined up scrutiny of the Programme for Government and Budget by the Committee for Office of First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Committee for Finance and Personnel and the possibility of a joint committee for the scrutiny of the possible National Park.
The Committee decided in favour of allowing joint committees but recognised that possible procedures will need to be carefully examined and considered. A number of possibilities were identified ranging from

a. allowing the entirety of two or more committees to meet concurrently to take evidence, to discuss and agree a position, to make recommendations or to agree a report, etc,

b. a set number of Members from each relevant committee would meet in a new joint committee with a designated time frame, remit and terms of reference. This new committee would then be tasked to complete its remit, in the agreed timescale, and agree a position, recommendation, report, etc, or

c. allowing each committee to create a sub-committee which would then meet concurrently to take evidence, to discuss and agree a position, to make recommendations or to agree a report, etc. all of which would go back to the original parent committees for agreement.

Each of these possibilities will need to be explored in-depth and careful consideration given to the role of the Business Committee, chairing, membership and proportionality, remit and procedures.
The Committee on Procedures recommend that the Assembly endorses the creation of joint committees. Subject to the acceptance of this recommendation, the Committee will examine possible procedures and bring back to the Assembly a set of Standing Orders which will allow for joint committees.

[1] Standing Orders allow for a membership of up to 13 Members

[2] This figure sits at 42 but there are actually only 41 places available. It would be up to the Business Committee to decide how to allocate the actual places available.

[3] This figure sits at 10.57. As each statutory committee has 11 places, the Business Committee must decide how to fit the figure into committee membership of 11.

[4] This figure sits at 8.64. If each standing committee is to have 9 places, the Business Committee must workout how to fit the figure into committee membership of 11 (exception being Audit Committee).

[5] Prof Rick Wilford.

Appendix 1

Minutes of Proceedings

Wednesday 30 May 2007
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Lord Morrow (Chairperson)
Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairperson)
Lord Browne
Mr Raymond McCartney
Mr David McClarty
Mr Adrian McQuillan
Mr Sean Neeson
Mr Declan OLoan
Mr Ken Robinson

In attendance: Alan Patterson (Principal Clerk)
Stella McArdle (Clerk)
Elaine Farrell (Assistant Clerk)
Linda Hare (Clerical Supervisor)

The meeting opened in public session at 2.00 p.m.

Mr Declan O'Loan arrived at 2.01 p.m.

Potential Inquiries

Members noted a paper tabled on areas for potential inquiries and agreed to undertake inquiries into Committee Systems and Structures and Electronic Voting immediately, followed by Assembly Questions and Private Legislation. The Clerk agreed to produce the terms of reference for the first two inquiries for the next meeting.

Wednesday 13 June 2007
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Francie Brolly
Lord Browne
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Raymond McCartney
Mr David McClarty
Mr Adrian McQuillan
Mr Declan OLoan
Mr Ken Robinson

In attendance: Stella McArdle (Clerk)
Elaine Farrell (Assistant Clerk)
Linda Hare (Clerical Supervisor)

The meeting opened in public session at 2.01 p.m.

Terms of Reference for Inquiries

Members agreed the terms of reference for the Inquiry into Committee Systems and Structures. Members agreed the list of potential witnesses to provide written evidence and suggested that party whips should also be consulted. Members also agreed that Assembly Research and Library Services conduct a survey of Members to gauge their opinions. Members raised a query on how Whips are informed of Members attendance at Committee meetings

Action: Clerk

Wednesday 27 June 2007
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Lord Morrow (Chairperson)
Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Francie Brolly
Lord Browne
Mr Raymond McCartney
Mr David McClarty
Mr Adrian McQuillan
Mr Sean Neeson
Mr Declan OLoan
Mr Ken Robinson

In attendance: Stella McArdle (Clerk)
Elaine Farrell (Assistant Clerk)
Laura Wilson (Clerical Officer)

The meeting opened in public session at 2.01 p.m.

Members noted correspondence from the Clerk to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee regarding the inquiry into Committee Systems and Structures.

Agreed: Members agreed the Assembly Executive and Review Committee should submit a written submission, followed by a briefing at a future meeting of the Committee on Procedures.

Wednesday 3 October 2007
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Lord Morrow (Chairperson)
Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Francie Brolly
Lord Browne
Mr Raymond McCartney
Mr Adrian McQuillan
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Declan OLoan
Mr Ken Robinson

In attendance: Stella McArdle (Clerk)
Elaine Farrell (Assistant Clerk)
Linda Hare (Clerical Supervisor)

Apologies: Mr David McClarty

The meeting opened in public session at 2.05 p.m.

Correspondence

Members noted four items of correspondence in response to the Inquiry into Committee Systems and Structures from the Business Committee, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, the Executive and The Clerk to the Assembly.

Agreed: Members agreed to look at the correspondence on Committee Systems and Structures in greater detail at a later stage.

Wednesday 17 October 2007
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Lord Morrow (Chairperson)
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr David McClarty
Mr Sean Neeson
Mr Declan OLoan
Mr Ken Robinson

In attendance: Ms Stella McArdle (Clerk)
Mrs Elaine Farrell (Assistant Clerk)
Ms Linda Hare (Clerical Supervisor)

Apologies: Lord Browne
Mr Adrian McQuillan

The meeting opened in public session at 2.04 p.m.

Committee Systems and Structures

The Committee were briefed by Mr Vincent Gribbin, Research Officer on Committee Systems and Structures.

Agreed: The Committee agreed the content of a structured interview which would be issued to a number of stakeholder groups.

Wednesday 14 November 2007
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Lord Morrow (Chairperson)
Mr Francie Brolly
Lord Browne
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Raymond McCartney
Mr David McClarty
Mr Sean Neeson
Mr Ken Robinson

In attendance: Ms Stella McArdle (Clerk)
Mrs Elaine Farrell (Assistant Clerk)
Ms Linda Hare (Clerical Supervisor)

Apologies: Mr Adrian McQuillan
Mr Declan OLoan

The meeting opened in public session at 2.05 p.m.

Committee Systems and Structures

The Committee were briefed by Mr Gerry Millar, Belfast City Council and SOLACE. A question and answer session ensued.

2.10 p.m. Mr Willie Clarke arrived.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Millar for his informative briefing.

Wednesday 12 December 2007
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Adrian McQuillan
Mr Sean Neeson
Mr Declan O'Loan
Mr Ken Robinson

In attendance: Ms Stella McArdle (Clerk)
Mrs Elaine Farrell (Assistant Clerk)
Ms Linda Hare (Clerical Supervisor)

Apologies: Lord Morrow (Chairperson)
Lord Browne

The meeting opened in public session at 2.00 p.m.

Deputy Chairperson in the Chair.

Committee Systems and Structures

The Committee were briefed by Professor Rick Wilford, Queens University, Belfast on Committee Systems and Structures.

2.22 p.m. Mr Ken Robinson arrived.

A question and answer session ensued.

The Deputy Chairperson thanked Professor Wilford for his informative briefing.

The Committee were given a progress report by Ms Stephanie Galbraith, Assembly Research and Library Services on Committee Systems and Structures.

The Deputy Chairperson thanked Ms Galbraith for her presentation.

Agreed: Members agreed that the cut off date for compilation of results from the survey should be 14 December 2007.

Wednesday 9 January 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Lord Morrow (Chairperson)
Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairperson)
Lord Browne
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Raymond McCartney
Mr David McClarty
Mr Sean Neeson
Mr Declan OLoan
Mr Ken Robinson

In attendance: Ms Stella McArdle (Clerk)
Mrs Elaine Farrell (Assistant Clerk)
Mr Joe Westland (Clerical Supervisor)

Apologies: Mr Francie Brolly

The meeting opened in public session at 2.01 p.m.

Committee Systems and Structures

The Committee was briefed by Ms Stephanie Galbraith, Assembly Research and Library Services on the results from the Members survey on Committee Systems and Structures.

Agreed: The Clerk agreed to prepare a paper on consideration of issues arising from the Inquiry into Committee Systems and Structures for the next meeting.

Wednesday 23 January 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Lord Morrow (Chairperson)
Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Francie Brolly
Lord Browne
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Adrian McQuillan
Mr Sean Neeson
Mr Declan OLoan
Mr Ken Robinson

In attendance: Ms Stella McArdle (Clerk)
Mrs Elaine Farrell (Assistant Clerk)
Ms Linda Hare (Clerical Supervisor)

Apologies: Raymond McCartney

The meeting opened in closed session at 2.02 p.m.

Committee Systems and Structures Consideration of Issues

The Committee give detailed consideration to a number of issues arising out of its Inquiry into Committee Systems and Structures and agreed that it would consult with the Chairpersons Liaison Group, the Assembly and Executive Review Group and the Party Whips before finalising recommendations.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to consult with the Chairpersons Liaison Group, the Assembly and Executive Review Group and the Party Whips before finalising recommendations.

Any Other Business

The Committee agreed that the survey of Members on Committee Systems and Structures should not be released until the report is published.

Agreed: The survey of Members on Committee Systems and Structures should not be released until the report is published.

Wednesday 2 April 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Lord Morrow (Chairperson)
Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Francie Brolly
Lord Wallace Browne
Mr Declan OLoan
Mr Adrian McQuillan

In Attendance: Ms Stella McArdle (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Eithne Knappitsch (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Ms Wendy Young (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Ms Linda Hare (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Gwyneth Deconink (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mr Ken Robinson
Mr David McClarty
Mr Sean Neeson

The meeting opened at 2.09pm in public session.

1. Committee Systems and Structures

Members noted a number of responses from party whips in relation to the Inquiry into Committee Systems and Structures are still outstanding.

Agreed: Members agreed that the Clerk should make contact with the Party Whips and ask them to provide a response before the next meeting on the 16th April 2008.

Agreed: Members agreed that if no response has been received by the Committee on Procedures by the 16th April 2008 then it could be assumed that the Party has no interest in this issue.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to take legal advice on the points raised by the Alliance Party in their submission to the Inquiry into Committee Systems and Structures.

Wednesday 16 April 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Lord Morrow (Chairperson)
Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Francie Brolly
Lord Wallace Browne
Mr David McClarty
Mr Adrian McQuillan
Mr Declan OLoan
Mr Ken Robinson

In Attendance: Ms Stella McArdle (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Wendy Young (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Ms Linda Hare (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Gwyneth Deconink (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mr Sean Neeson
Mr Willie Clarke

The meeting opened at 2.03pm in public session.

1. Committee Systems and Structures

3.17pm Mr Adrian McQuillan left the meeting.
3.18pm Mr Adrian McQuillan rejoined the meeting.

The Committee noted advice from legal services tabled at the meeting.

The Committee noted a response from SDLP tabled at the meeting.

The Committee noted the verbal response of UUP.

The Committee noted the previous responses to Committee Systems and Structures.

3.29pm Mr Declan OLoan left the meeting.

Agreed: The Committee discussed and agreed its position on the following issues:

Committee membership
Substitutes
Rapporteurs
Days and times for committee meetings
Voting
Quorum
Joint committees

Agreed: It was agreed that the Clerk will draft a report on Committee Systems and Structures for the approval of the Committee at subsequent meetings.

Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Lord Morrow (Chairperson)
Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairperson)
Lord Wallace Browne
Mr Raymond McCartney
Mr Adrian McQuillan
Mr Sean Neeson
Mr Declan OLoan
Mr Ken Robinson

In Attendance: Ms Stella McArdle (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Wendy Young (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Ms Linda Hare (Clerical Supervisor)

Apologies: Mr David McClarty

The meeting opened at 2.04pm in public session.

Draft report on Committee Systems and Structures.

The Committee undertook a paragraph-by-paragraph consideration of the draft report on Committee Systems and Structures.

The pages on Membership and Powers, Table of Contents and Summary of Recommendations were agreed.

Introduction

Paragraphs 1 and 2 read and agreed.
Paragraphs 3 and 4 read and agreed subject to minor amendments.
Paragraphs 5 11 read and agreed.

2.26pm Mr Storey left the meeting.

Consideration of Key Issues.

Paragraphs 1 - 6 read and agreed.
Paragraph 7 read and agreed and a suggestion to update data in Table 2 agreed.
Paragraphs 8 and 9 read and agreed.
Paragraph 10 read and agreed subject to rewording.
Paragraph 11 read and agreed.
Paragraph 12 read and agreed subject to minor amendments.
Paragraph 13 read and agreed subject to minor amendments.
Paragraphs 14 - 15 read and agreed.
Paragraph 16 read and agreed subject to minor amendments.
Paragraphs 17 - 22 read and agreed.
Paragraph 23 read and agreed subject to minor amendments.
Paragraph 24 read and agreed.
Paragraph 25 read and agreed subject to minor amendments.
Paragraph 26 read and agreed.
Paragraph 27 read and agreed.
Paragraphs 28 - 36 read and agreed.
Paragraph 37 and 38 read and agreed subject to minor amendments.
Paragraphs 39 65 read and agreed.
Paragraph 66 read and agreed subject to minor amendments.
Paragraphs 67 69 read and agreed.
Appendices read and agreed.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that it is content that the draftsperson be asked to draw up a Standing Order to allow for reduced quorum where no decisions or vote is being taken as recommended in the report.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 2.56pm.

Wednesday, 14 May 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Lord Morrow (Chairperson)
Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairperson)
Lord Wallace Browne
Mr David McClarty
Mr Adrian McQuillan
Mr Declan OLoan

In Attendance: Ms Stella McArdle (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Wendy Young (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Ms Linda Hare (Clerical Supervisor)

Apologies: Mr Ken Robinson
Mr Sean Neeson

The meeting opened at 2.03pm in public session.

Report on Committee Systems and Structures

The Committee undertook a paragraph by paragraph consideration of the draft Executive Summary of the report and the amendments made to the main body of the report on Committee Systems and Structures since the last meeting.

Paragraphs 1 - 9 read and agreed.
Paragraph 14 read and agreed.
Table 2 read and agreed.
Paragraph 22 read and agreed.
Paragraph 35 read and agreed.
Suggested paragraphs to be inserted at paragraph 69 read and agreed.
Paragraph 70 read and agreed.

Agreed: The Committee ordered the report to be printed.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that it is content that the Chairperson table a motion in the Business Office for debate in the Assembly.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Chairperson approve the minutes of todays meeting tomorrow so as to ensure the relevant minutes be included in the report.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 3.02 pm.

Appendix 2

Minutes of Evidence

14 November 2007

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Lord Morrow (Chairperson)
Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Francie Brolly
Lord Browne
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Raymond McCartney
Mr David McClarty
Mr Sean Neeson
Mr Ken Robinson

Witnesses:

Mr Gerry Millar

Belfast City Council

The Chairperson (Lord Morrow): I welcome Mr Millar of Belfast City Council to the meeting. I understand that you will make a presentation, to which we look forward. Members may want to ask questions, which I am sure you will be happy to answer.
Mr Gerry Millar (Belfast City Council): I will talk for only five or 10 minutes, which, I believe, is the procedure. I do not have a presentation as such. However, I will provide some background information on my involvement in committee issues and I will be happy to answer questions.
My name is Gerry Millar and I am a director in Belfast City Council. One of my responsibilities is to drive a change management programme through the council. Belfast City Council took the view that it was the council least likely to be changed by the review of public administration (RPA), and about three years ago, we decided to improve the council by using the RPA as a driver. We asked the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) to review our organisation by comparing it with councils in England and to tell us what was good and what was bad about how we did things, which the IDeA duly did. It was left to Belfast City Council to decide what to do. As a result, I was appointed as a change driver on the project.
There were four broad areas in which we needed to improve: customer focus, performance management, the allocation of resources and strategy, and governance.
However, for this committee, the key area of improvement is governance - how we get things done. I will, therefore, describe our experiences to date.
Belfast City Councils scarcest resource is councillors time; members waste a great deal of such time in meetings trying to micromanage council business. There was a need to clarify the roles of councillors and council officers in order to move business on. Contextually, the council has 51 councillors in six groups, and there is no overall control. There had been more than 18 committees and subcommittees and various working groups. Those committees had departments attached, which left a great deal of scope for game-playing between parties and for senior officers to play games with members to suit their individual agendas.
By 2005, we had more than 180 meetings a year. The committees had generated 1,500 reports, 42% of which were noting reports or for decisions on minor issues. We felt that that was not the business of elected members; that was what council officers were paid for. There was a bureaucratic obsession with meetings, meetings and more meetings. That was partly driven by the attendance allowance: councillors were paid for going to meetings, so more meetings took place. Meetings were full of condescension and ritual - there was a great deal of Yes, Councillor, No, Councillor, and a feeling that we should let the meetings run while officials got things done.
Our first task was to clarify the role of councillors; that was the bottom line for committee business. It was agreed that their role was to set the priorities for the organisation and for the city; to agree the allocation of resources; and to scrutinise the work of council officers and hold them to account. Alongside that, it is up to council officers to get the work done. Several issues arose from the clarification exercise. There were issues of trust and the delegation of more responsibilities to council officers, but they had to be held to account. Therefore, we introduced a performance-information system, which reports regularly on what is happening.
The political mix of Belfast City Council means that party discipline is important. The number of committees has been reduced, so if a party has only two members on a committee, party groups must rely on those members as it is not a good idea to reopen a decision every time it comes to council for ratification.
The Department of the Environment (DOE) addressed the issue of payment, and we had some input into that. We also changed the format of meetings and reports. We try to put everything on two sides of an A4 sheet of paper; any further detail goes into an appendix that can be attached to a report. That means that a report and its recommendations can be more easily discovered.
We have also introduced a computerised modern.gov system. Rather than have me describe the system, it would be better if council staff demonstrated it to the Committee. Council members have electronic access to papers and decisions, allowing them, as it suits, to trawl through the system to track the development of a decision across the organisation.
Besides changing the number of committees, we also talked about area committees. We have not gone as far as that yet, but we have done some detailed work on it. The main driver has been political will and ambition, and trust all round; the ability of people to take big changes on board; capacity building for councillors and council officers; the committee system; and focusing on the citizen. We are examining drafting a code of conduct, but the review of public administration is also working on that.
That is the broad overview. There had been 18 committees and subcommittees. I will leave a paper with the Committee that contains our proposals for changes to the political management structures. We examined several options, such as elected mayors, cabinet systems and the county manager system that operates in the South, in which councillors and committees act as sounding boards.
Given our circumstances, we felt that a management committee approach was the most suitable. We now have a strategic policy and resources committee, which is where the buck stops for resources and corporate direction. Standing committees deal with town planning, parks, development and health; we added a licensing committee and an audit subcommittee, which meet once a month. The strategic committees membership consists of the leaders of the six parties and the chairmen of the other committees so that the council gets a more coherent approach across the organisation.
The document contains detail and options on what councils in Britain and the Republic use and is written in fairly straightforward language. Details of how our organisation is run - quorums, for example - are in the councils 2007 version of its standing orders. I will leave a copy for your information.
I am happy to answer questions.
The Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr Millar.
Are all committee decisions subject to ratification by the council?
Mr Millar: Yes, with the exception of the town planning committee, which, provided that a decision is unanimous, has delegated authority. We dealt with licensing issues through the health committee, but we added the licensing committee because there were many contentious entertainment and sex shop licensing issues, which were leading to the establishment of special committees.
The licensing committee has delegated authority on to issue, amend or reject licences, subject to overall council policy on the matter. The council takes a policy decision on the committees recommendation - for example, Belfast City Councils policy on the location of sex shops or the granting of entertainment licences. The licensing committee can then make a delegated decision on individual applications. Previously, if a member did not like the committees decision, they could appeal to the council because it had to ratify the decision. The delegated authority in the licensing committee prevents an applicant having two bites at the cherry.
The licensing committee has other important aspects. Party discipline and party representation are very important. Committee members should be able to know that their colleagues will deal with issues that will have an impact locally. We also inform all councillors when a particular licensing application is being dealt with in case the premises are in their area. Every councillor is entitled to take part in every committee meeting, although only the members of a specific committee may vote.
The Chairperson: Do you have problems with quorums?
Mr Millar: Not to date. However, under the previous system, with its 180 meetings, several meetings and briefings were cancelled because of problems with quorums.
We introduced the new system in June, and it has yet to settle. However, since several of our councillors are involved in the Assembly and since attendance money has been withdrawn and councillors now receive a basic salary, there have been some issues with attendance, but we have always been able to get a quorum.
The strategic policy and resources committee, which is the key committee for setting directions and resources, has been particularly well attended over the past four months.
Mr Neeson: Did you notice a difference in the pattern of attendance at meetings after the change in payment arrangements? Does the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) have a view on the dual mandate or, in some cases, the triple mandate?
Mr Millar: There has been some change since attendance money was withdrawn - certainly in Belfast and that has been reflected in some other councils, although it has not yet resulted in inquorate meetings. However, the key to boosting attendance is to put interesting and important matters before members. It comes back to the question of role clarification.
SOLACEs position on the dual mandate is that the sooner it is dispensed with the better, because it creates confusion.
Mr W Clarke: Thank you for your presentation. I apologise for my late arrival; I was at another meeting.
Has the review created a more corporate body? Are council officers and councillors equal partners in every project? Has morale improved among councillors and staff? I am a councillor, and I know that there are tedious times when people rub one another up the wrong way.
Mr Millar: That is easily answered. I have some evidence that there has been a big change for the better. We have just finished a survey of residents, councillors and staff; all three groups were surveyed at the same time to give a set baseline. Satisfaction with their roles and in their sense of belonging to Belfast City Council has improved among staff and councillors, as has the understanding of what the council does and the roles that individuals have to play. In general, the changes have been positive.
The changes did not happen overnight. I wrote the political management structures about a year ago, but it took almost a year to get everyone to sign up to them and to put all the structures in place. That process also helped to build trust. The changes go hand in hand with our approach to managing the council, because we need to set out a clear, common vision and agenda for Belfast.
We carried out an analysis using the survey, and we have taken the Programme for Government apart to examine its implications for Belfast. About two months ago, we took strategic policy and resource from the councillors and asked them what their big issues were, and we gave them the evidence that they needed. All the services in the council must set out their business plan and purposes according to a standard template. The only information that was missing was the party-political positions. We challenged the members strongly to set out their manifestos for Belfast.
Senior officers and councillors are having awaydays, and they will go away for another two days at the end of the month to concentrate on creating a doable three-year programme for the city that will align with the Assemblys objectives. The review has pulled the organisation closer together.
Mr McClarty: Gerry, you said that any member is entitled to attend committee meetings, but that he or she has no voting rights.
Mr Millar: Yes.
Mr McClarty: Do you allow substitute committee members voting rights?
Mr Millar: No. Standing orders, which have been endorsed by the council, contain detailed information on committees and substitutes. Any member can attend and take part in a meeting, but only appointed members can vote.
Lord Browne: Not that I am biased by being a member of Belfast City Council, but it has been to the fore in making changes and introducing initiatives that have led to much more efficiency. There were far too many committees in the client-contract days; now there are only six standing committees. Is there now a danger, however, that working groups will be set up? What other initiatives are there? Are there any financial initiatives to use money along with the private sector? Is that a way forward for other councils?
Mr Millar: Getting everybody to agree to the changes was not easy, but eventually the parties told us that they would accept them, and that had to do with party discipline. Chairmen of subcommittees could always pursue their own specialisms or interests. Now that subcommittees have been absorbed into a bigger structure, some members might not be totally committed to the new arrangement. Nevertheless, that is what we are doing.
There always were working groups in Belfast City Council, in addition to formal committees, although they tended to be ad hoc and not particularly well organised. We have introduced new rules on working groups: we are happy to have them, but they must have strict terms of reference and a fixed end date. Some officers and, perhaps, members have tried to resurrect the subcommittees under a working group format. We have stopped that, however, and the matter is being revisited. We have to impose discipline: a working group must be for a specific issue and for a specified period. For example, because I also look after property issues for Belfast I am involved in refurbishing the City Hall, which is a large project; therefore I have a City Hall working group. However, the group exists only for the duration of the contract and the decant exercise. Working groups and getting everyone to sign up to them is an issue.
The second point that Lord Browne raised was the city investment strategy. Belfast City Councils view is that it will take some time before the review of public administration is fully implemented, in whatever form that may be. At present, there are huge opportunities, particularly in Belfast, and the council has a big role to play. We have the mandate of the electorate; we can provide the necessary evidence and bring in the specialists that every city should have to identify where we need to go. We also feel that we should come up with our own ideas about investing in the city and creating a fund with our assets.
Those changes allow us to bring about efficiency savings and to take a corporate look at the citys assets. Those assets are not, for example, the parks and leisure departments assets - they are the councils assets. We are considering how we might better use them to create a fund that we can invest in major projects. Deciding what those should be is another way of pulling the council together; that is because we ask members what they think and, of course, we are also getting ideas. Once we have identified a project - and a fund with which to undertake it it becomes more real; it encourages members ambition, drive and political will, and that is what we are looking for.
Mr K Robinson: Mr Millar has already answered my question. I was intrigued by the term, town planning committee. I wondered whether it was the sort of planning committee that we all know and love from our respective councils or is it a special committee that shapes the city, the division of the city and its resources? I take it that your town planning committee is simply a planning committee that responds to what the Department of the Environment wants?
Mr Millar: That is correct. Other matters are dealt with by the strategic policy and resources committee.
Mr K Robinson: Those are matters that all of us in our council roles would love to engage with.
Mr Millar: Seven or eight years ago, I developed a policy for Belfast that led to the establishment of a development committee that was responsible for various functions. However, it was still regarded as a committee, and the parks and leisure department did not see it as their committee, etc. The development committee still exists, but it deals with regeneration. We felt that in order to get a corporate approach we needed a committee to which party leaders and all the chairmen of committees could sign up. That has created the type of committee that you are looking for - committees that deal with what we might call the vision stuff.
Mr K Robinson: I take it that you have a golden egg - perhaps several - in the citys treasury. How do you engage the councils corporate body with the private sector, since you are probably more exposed to the private interest?
Mr Millar: To date, probably the best experience that we have had in dealing with the private sector directly was the Belfast Gasworks project, which is still ongoing. Belfast City Council took away the risk as regards contamination of the site. It was the councils role to put in the infrastructure, along with the master plan.
The private sector was then invited to bid for plots on the site on the basis that we would give the applicant the plot to develop over a three-year period, after which, if undeveloped, we would take it back from them. That was done on the basis of their financial return to the council, which wanted to hold on to the land. The financial return is 10% or 11% whatever they offered, depending on the competition - of their rack rent. As they increase rents, we get more money.
The council will organise functions to which key private-sector developers will be invited. Occasionally, developers have approached us and asked to work with us. Those tend to involve one-off, individual projects, and what happens next depends on the procurement rules.
There seems to be a belief that we have a golden egg and that we can fund projects out of our own resources; however, we do not have to do it ourselves. Belfast City Hall is being refurbished, and regenerating the square around the City Hall, which is filled with buses, would help the regeneration of Belfast. Translink is happy for changes to be made. However, the Department for Social Development and the Department for Regional Development would have to be involved, and we will want to ask the proprietors of the buildings around the square to contribute, because the value of their property will increase if the area around the City Hall was transformed into a major civic space. I am not saying that that will happen, but we want to get the key parties around the table to ascertain what we can concoct.
The Chairperson: Is voting by straight majority?
Mr Millar: Yes. Voting in committees is by straight majority, which is then ratified by the council.
The Chairperson: What resources do committees have at their disposal? Do they have control over staffing and budgets?
Mr Millar: We have a committee and members services section under a head of service who engages people to carry out work for the committee clerks and to do research for members. That was part of the old regime, and it will probably have to change. We are considering those changes.
Every political party in Belfast City Council is allocated a room; those rooms were in the City Hall, but are now in a new building. The parties do not have individuals to carry out research and development for them, but that is being considered. It is hard to do that, as any staff appointed may become politicised, whereas we would like them to remain independent; they may have to be moved around the political parties from time to time. There is a general pool that tries to help parties with their research and development needs.
We also have a policy team in the centre of the organisation that provides members with information. For example, the surveys that I have gone through will be given to each party leader as a pack this afternoon. They will therefore have hard information to deal with.
I do not know the budget for committee services off the top of my head, but it is substantial. However, owing to the reduction in the number of meetings we are trying to give the parties time and space to get together and think through what they want to do. That also leaves members time for more constituency work.
From an officer point of view, we need to reconfigure our support services to match the changes in the political system. However, we are not yet at that point. Area committees were discussed, but we did not get that far. However, the role of our support services will have to be addressed. That issue could be dealt with under the RPA, particularly if councils are amalgamated.
The Chairperson: What happens when a committee decision is ratified by the whole council, but a councillor, or several councillors from various parties, decides that they do not like it? Can they bring the decision back to the council and ask for it to be reconsidered? Does that have to happen within a specific timescale?
Mr Millar: There is such an arrangement. If a member is not 100% happy with a committee decision, the council will ask the chairperson to ask the committee to reconsider it. If the chairperson refuses to do that, the council will vote and it will be carried through. However, if members wanted to return to the issue later, they would have to wait six months.
The Chairperson: Is that the case even when there is consensus in the chamber?
Mr Millar: Yes. Once a decision has been taken by council, it stands. A couple of decisions have to go through twice: when standing orders are changed they must go through the council on two occasions, one strictly after the other.
The Chairperson: How often do you revise your standing orders?
Mr Millar: We last amended them in 2007; before that they were revised in 2005.
The Chairperson: Are they amended every two years?
Mr Millar: I do not want to give that impression, although our standing orders should be reviewed regularly, as issues arise. The councils standing orders cover everything from contracts and committee responsibilities to voting, the make-up of committees and the d'Hondt system.
The Chairperson: Can a chairman refuse to revisit an issue, even if most committee members want him to?
Mr Millar: A committee decision must be ratified in council; however, councillor X can ask for a decision to be revisited. If the chairman refuses to do so, the councillor can ask for a vote of the council, not the committee; the council decides on whether to revisit an issue. The outcome will depend on the make-up of the parties.
The Chairperson: Do you ever have problems with cross-cutting issues that impinge on two committees and which neither, or both, wants to own?
Mr Millar: That has happened.
May I return to the question of corporateness and pulling the organisation together? Until recently, there was not one corporate city council, but several little organisations; each committee and directorate could, more or less, do its own thing. That caused problems when two or three committees were making a decision mistakes were made.
We described the policy and resources committee as a buck-stopping committee: someone had to take a decision. If a community centre was required in a park and the council was selling the land, the decision would be bounced from one committee or subcommittee to another, and the project never actually moved.
I had a meeting with Lord Browne this morning about the announcement of the lottery. At one stage, the council supported three lottery positions; we got around that by saying that they were all for Belfast and that we were supporting Belfast. That came about because different committees were going in different directions with no overall organisation to pull them together.
Such things do arise, but we are trying to eliminate them.
The Chairperson: They have to be dealt with.
Mr Millar: Yes.
Mr Brolly: Each committee has 20 members. That is a lot, is it not? Some councils do not have 20 members.
How are the committees constituted?
Mr Millar: We use the d'Hondt system first, second, third, fourth choice, and so on. Committees have 20 members, and the quorum is five. There are 51 members on the council, and that is how they are selected.
The Chairperson: Was it the councils decision to use the d'Hondt system or is it in your standing orders?
Mr Millar: d'Hondt is built into our standing orders and is how we allocate committee places and external positions. The d'Hondt system is used for about 40 positions.
The Chairperson: Are the members of a newly elected council bound by that system?
Mr Millar: Yes. The largest party gets first choice; the second largest party gets second choice, and so on.
Mr W Clarke: Is the d'Hondt system used for the rotation of committee chairpersons?
Mr Millar: Yes. The chairmanship of committees lasts for a maximum of two years. A councillor can be a committee chairperson for one or two years, depending on the agreement that has been reached. However, they cannot accept that role for a further two years, even if it were agreed under the d'Hondt system, because a representative from the same party cannot take that position for a further two years. The position must be rotated among parties.
Lord Browne: The only positions that are not selected using the d'Hondt system are that of Lord Mayor and deputy Lord Mayor.
Mr Millar: They are the positions of civic dignitaries.
The Chairperson: Can a committee make a decision without a quorum?
Mr Millar: If a committee does not have a quorum, members can listen to the debate but they cannot make a decision on it. If an urgent decision was required, we would have to get it directly ratified at council. There are delegated powers in standing orders for urgent decisions. Those are normally acted upon during the July break when our committees do not meet. However, if a committee did not have a quorum, a decision could be postponed until the next meeting.
Mr K Robinson: If there was a problem with meat safety, for example, you could call an urgent meeting to make a decision. Who would call that meeting?
Mr Millar: It would depend on where the request came from, but the chairperson would have to agree to it. Normally, a chairperson can call for a special meeting. If I was the officer and I became aware of such a matter, I would contact the chairperson and tell him that an urgent meeting was required. However, over and above that, we can act on a real emergency and then refer to the committee.
Standing order 28 provides for questions decided twice in the same financial year:

The question which in any financial year has twice been decided by the Council in the same way shall not in the same financial year again be submitted for the Councils consideration, and this Order shall not be evaded by the substitution of any motion differently worded, but in principle the same.

It is the six months rule, as Lord Browne said.
The Chairperson: You said that substitutes on committees are not permitted.
Mr Millar: A councillor is not permitted to take another councillors place on a committee or to vote for someone else; however, any councillor may attend a committee meeting and participate in a debate, but they cannot vote on it.
Mr K Robinson: They are permitted to attend with the permission of the chairperson.
Mr Millar: That is correct.
Mr McCartney: Are such councillors included in the quorum?
Mr Millar: No, they are not. The quorum must be made up of committee members.
The Chairperson: Thank you for your time, Mr Millar.

12 December 2007

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Adrian McQuillan
Mr Sean Neeson
Mr Declan OLoan
Mr Ken Robinson

Witness:

Professor Rick Wilford

School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy, Queens University Belfast

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Storey): We are glad to have with us Professor Rick Wilford from Queens University Belfast. Members should have a copy of his written submission; I also ask members to take note of the secretariat paper.
Professor Wilford, you are welcome to the Committee. We appreciate the work that you have done and your interesting paper. I will ask you to speak about that, after which members will ask questions.
Professor Rick Wilford (School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy, Queens University Belfast): Thank you for inviting me. I was not sure exactly what you wanted, so the paper that I have submitted is a summary review of the work in which I and a number of other colleagues have been engaged regarding the first mandate of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the operation of the Committee system in particular.
I have been involved in the Northern Ireland devolution monitoring project since 1999. In addition, my paper includes discussions that I have had with former Committee Chairpersons, and gauging their experiences of what worked, and what did not work. I have tried to collate, compile and compress quite a lot of information in the paper, and I am content for you to ask me questions based on my submission.
The Deputy Chairperson: I shall start by asking a question that is relevant to an issue in your paper and is also relevant to all Members and to this Committee in particular. To be a member of more than one Committee not only creates huge pressure on MLAs time but has a negative impact in the sense that it does not allow one to concentrate on, and become expert in, the work carried out by a Committee.
From what you have seen of the previous Administration, what has been the experience to date of the shortfall that is caused by a doubling, trebling or quadrupling of membership? I sit on three Committees, of which I am Deputy Chairperson of two, which puts a considerable pressure on a working week at the Assembly.
Professor Wilford: Indeed it does, Mr Storey. In that respect, I am probably pushing at an open door. I am sure that members will appreciate that the large remit of Statutory Committees is difficult in itself, and if one is serving on more than one Statutory Committee, one may be stretched in many ways. There are ways in which the labour may be divided more effectively and efficiently. Multiple Committee membership is not a good idea in principle, and it rarely happens in the Scottish Parliament. You are constrained by Standing Orders that stipulate that every MLA must be offered at least one seat on a Committee, and each Statutory Committee must have 11 members, and they must be filled.
In my experience of talking to former Committee members, and former Committee Chairpersons in particular, they felt that if they sat on a Committee other than the one that they chaired, they were there to make up the numbers and to fill the party quota. They focused most of their attention on the workload of the Committee that they chaired, and everything else took a poor second or third place. In principle, multiple membership is not a good idea, and lessons could be learned from the Scottish Parliament, where it is a rare occurrence.
Mr Neeson: I agree entirely with you. I sit on three Committees, including the Assembly Commission, and I am the Chairperson of an Ad Hoc Committee; therefore, as well as sitting days, I am in Stormont on Wednesdays and Thursdays, and that puts certain constraints on what I can do in my constituency. There appears to be certainty about this Assembly, and the one thing that we are trying to achieve through work on the Assembly Commission is greater outreach in order to involve the community in the workings of the Assembly, and create a sense of ownership. Do you have any suggestions as to how that can be done?
Professor Wilford: I have a number of suggestions. I had a glancing relationship with the Assembly Commission when George Reid was working on a capability review of the Assembly. I met him, and I know that outreach to the community was very much on his agenda. I have a few suggestions as to how that could be achieved.
I was struck by how sedentary the Committees were from 1999 to 2002. The bulk of Committee meetings were held in Parliament Buildings, and, by comparison, very few were held off site. There are different ways of holding meetings off site. It is difficult, logistically, for Committee members to up sticks and go off to hold an evidence session elsewhere in the Province.
That leads me to another area on which I have strong feelings. It is odd that Statutory Committees, in particular, are reluctant to establish subcommittees. Committees could usefully deploy the subcommittee system, which you are permitted to organise and set up. Subcommittees could go off on field trips on behalf of the parent Committee. There would be no need for Committee members to be apprehensive, because subcommittees cannot make any decisions; they would merely refer back to the parent Committee. A willingness to be more peripatetic is one suggestion towards achieving greater outreach to the community.
The style of Committee activity is orthodox. Committees hold evidence-gathering sessions, summon witnesses to Parliament Buildings and - provided there is a quorum - proceed with their meetings. I understand that many people like to come to Parliament Buildings to give evidence for the sheer experience, but there is room for experimentation. In fact, the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment experimented with conferencing in Omagh and Coleraine during its tourism inquiry. That enabled the Committee to bring in more people than it could during an evidence session at Parliament Buildings. That is another means by which you could begin to practise outreach.
Subcommittees, rapporteurs and conferencing are devices that could be deployed to stimulate greater public interest in the operation of the legislative institution. The Assembly is an important body. I know that the Assembly Commission is keen to promote outreach, and the Committees have a role to play in creating that outreach. Committees could contribute to embedding the Parliament within the psyche of the population.
Mr Neeson: I was the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment during the first mandate, and that Committee did get out and about. I feel strongly that there are too many Departments, and there are areas of interest that involve various Committees. Do you subscribe to the idea of joint meetings of Committees?
Professor Wilford: There were some such meetings in the first mandate, but not many. Standing Orders encourage Committees to communicate with other Committees that have an interest in a particular policy area or piece of legislation. Committees are encouraged to copy papers to other Committees with which they share mutual interests and keep them up to speed with how an inquiry, or scrutiny of legislation, is progressing. Why not have joint subcommittees rather than joint Committees? During the first mandate, the reluctance among parties to make use of the provision for subcommittees was, I suspect, related to the issue of trust.
I hope that you are right when you say that the political institutions are bedding down and that they are stable and robust. Perhaps, this time in the second, and current, functioning mandate there will be a greater readiness and preparedness to engage in subcommittee work. It would not be desirable for two entire Statutory Committees to meet together. Perhaps two members from the parent Committees would be more appropriate when conducting an inquiry. My preference would be for joint subcommittees, whereby the quorum could be reduced. A subcommittee of that size should be, logistically, rather more manageable, particularly if it were willing to go out and about to gather evidence in whatever form was preferred.
Mr McQuillan: How does the Scottish Parliament get around the one-committee model?
Professor Wilford: Do you mean how does it travel around?
Mr McQuillan: No. How would we get around Standing Orders if each member sits on only one Committee?
Professor Wilford: There is no requirement in the Scottish Parliament for MSPs to sit on committees. That is different from this Assembly. However, committees in Scotland can have up to 15 members. What is interesting about the Scottish committees is that, on average, they are only eight-strong. As you know, the Scottish Parliament has more powers than the Northern Ireland Assembly - in theory, anyway. However, we are dealing with like bodies. Why does the Northern Ireland Assembly need 11-member Committees when the Scottish Parliament can manage with eight-member committees? The answer is that the Scottish Parliament is not required to offer every MSP a seat on a committee.
Mr OLoan: There seems to be a logjam at the Northern Ireland Assembly that is caused by rules, regulations and the number of Departments; it will take some time to resolve those matters. You have said that the Scottish parliamentary model is the most comparable to that of the Northern Ireland Assembly. When the Committee visited the Scottish Parliament, members were impressed by many aspects, such as the functions of the plenary Parliament and the committee system. The committees seemed to be tighter - with fewer members - and were more focused and effective in their output. Would that be your general assessment?
Professor Wilford: I have read the secretariats report on the effectiveness of Committees during the first mandate of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I take that with a bit of a pinch of salt, because it is a series of quantitative measures. One can certainly say, for example, that amendments to Bills that were put down by Committees were much more successful than amendments that were tabled by individual Members. That is an example of a way in which success can be measured.
I am more concerned with the quality of reports and the work that Committees do. I have an anxiety that Statutory Committees are asked to do too much, because their remits are so expansive. I think that they find that the pressure of managing their workloads is quite difficult. I have some sympathy about the way in which it is managed. That is why I suggest that administrative devices could be used in order to spread the workload by, for example, having subcommittees or rapporteurs.
A rapporteur is a Committee member who will talk to potential witnesses, or other MLAs, and report back to the Committee. He or she does not have a particular mandate to make decisions but is there simply as a fact-gatherer or information-gatherer. There are administrative ways and means by which the load can be lightened, or labour can be divided up more equitably, more effectively and, perhaps, more efficiently.
When I was doing some work in the 1980s on the territorial Committees in the House of Commons - and subsequently on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee - I found that committees, when they start to work, tend to go for rather lengthy inquiries. I can understand the psychology of that, because new members want to bed themselves in. They want to get to know one another and develop some kind of esprit within the committee itself. However, that is not an efficient use of a committees time. My view is that a committee would be better served - and, perhaps, returning to Mr Neesons point - and would contribute to making a greater public impact by choosing topics for inquiry quite selectively, which would be short, time-limited and could be delegated to a subcommittee.
I am a great fan of parliamentary committees. In a sense, they are the efficient open secret of Parliaments, and they do not do themselves justice collectively about the work that they do and the effects that they can exert on legislation, policy or draft Budget proposals. Perhaps members are not doing themselves justice because they feel so constrained and encumbered by the workload and by the rather stilted way in which they have chosen, or been forced, to operate.
Mr OLoan: Some of the Committees outputs are very good and very important. Substantial reports are produced, but we cannot expect the public to relate to them. We must think hard about outreach and how we get messages out, and perhaps we should think about a different form of publication for reports.
Professor Wilford: I agree with that. There should be timely press releases. I do not want to overburden Committee Clerks or staff, but perhaps there is a case for Committees making a more concerted public-relations effort.
The Deputy Chairperson: An interesting comment was made this morning when the Committee was finalising its report for the Department of Finance and Personnel on the draft Budget. The Committee Clerk said that the executive summary would be put at the front, with the main recommendations in bold type, because it helps the media to pick up on key points. The focus was - rightly - on getting the message out via the media. However, Declans point was about reaching the wider public. Many Committees produce an immense volume of work, and the question is how that is transmitted to the public in a way in which people can relate to and which will allow them to see exactly what this place is achieving.
Professor Wilford: That point came up in relation to George Reids capability review. I have made the point to the Assembly Commission and others that the Assemblys website really must be overhauled. It is pretty outdated -
The Deputy Chairperson: It is not as bad as Ballymoney Borough Councils website. I can say that because I am on the council.
Professor Wilford: I believe that it was the First Minister who captured the attention of journalists in Northern Ireland by describing them as rather lazy. Journalists tend to go straight to executive summaries and recommendations. However, Committees have the power to make their own discrete impact. That relies, among other things, on a Committees ability to maintain a consensus on whatever inquiry or report it is producing. It does not help to have a minority report published alongside a majority report. That would be good copy for the journalists, because they can point to a divided Committee.
Equally, if a Minister is confronted by a divided Committee, it is a boon, because he or she can simply say that, as the Committee cannot agree on the issue, he or she will take whatever decisions he or she wishes. There is a premium on consensus, and that might constrain the Committee in what it might like to include in a report.
Consensus or unanimity on a Committee is a great resource, particularly when trying to influence policy or legislation. If the Committee can agree on its recommendations, it is a powerful weapon in the armoury of the entire Assembly.
Mr W Clarke: You are very welcome. I agree with your proposals for joint subcommittees. I can think of a couple of pieces of work that could be handled in that way. One is the proposal for a national park, which comes under the remit of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee for the Environment. It is important that both Committees have equal input into that matter. I am a member of the Committee for Regional Development, which is considering traffic management and the review of traffic speeds. That is also a big job of work for the Committee for the Environment. Both Committees should work together on that issue, and they could save money in the long run.
I want to tease out the point about substitutes and how they might be used. From the Committees experiences in Scotland, there is more likelihood of better attendance with lower quorums. However, it might be useful to have a substitute system for Committees with a high quorum, especially for members who sit on several Committees. I was a member of five Committees, but now I sit on only four. In fact, I was lucky that todays meeting of the Committee on Standards and Privileges ran short; otherwise I would have been unable to attend this Committee meeting. Therefore, it would be useful to have a dedicated substitute.
Professor Wilford: It would be useful. You are clearly a man of many talents, Mr Clarke, to be capable of sitting on four Committees. Joined-up scrutiny is smart scrutiny, because one can pool expertise and make the process of putting together a report much more efficient. I agree with you there.
A substitute system simply does what is says on the tin. If members are unable to attend a meeting for whatever reason, a named substitute from their party could attend in their place. In theory, that would reduce the total number of Committee members. If there was no longer an obligation to offer every MLA a Committee place as of right, that could be tempered by offering them a Committee place or a place as a substitute. In that way, the labour could be divvied up within the party grouping, so that if members were unable to attend, they would simply have someone come in their stead. It would not be Bugginss turn; the substitute would have to be committed and up to speed on the subject of the inquiry. There is a risk that some colleagues might regard substitution as simply making up the numbers, which would not be the case. The substitute should be someone who has an interest in the particular remit of a Committee, has some experience and could be drafted in when necessary.
More radically, there could simply be a rotation system, whereby, over the life of an Assembly, half the eligible members could sit on Committees for two years and the other half take over for the following two years. That is a more radical proposal than the substitute one, and there could be some resistance to it.
Mr Neeson made a point about the number of Departments. I have my own views about that, which I will not articulate today. However, if there is a move to there being fewer members on each Committee, members will have to contemplate carefully the effect that that might have on the smaller parties in the Assembly. Again, it is a matter of trust. Perhaps you should be guided by expertise, experience or interest rather than working on a strict numeric proportional basis, where the risk of appearing to simply make up numbers is enhanced.
Mr Brolly: Rapporteurs would be much better from the point of view of saving members time. If someone sits on a subcommittee, he or she must remain part of the full Committee; therefore, he or she will spend a greater amount of time on it. What you have said relates to how members could better use their time, minimise wasted time or time that could be saved for something else. Where expertise and party representation is concerned, if there were a subcommittee, there should be representation from each party, whereas if we chose a member of this Committee as our rapporteur, it would be a universal choice. Therefore, such an issue would not arise.
Professor Wilford: That is true, but we must bear in mind that the rules relating to subcommittees are that the membership should reflect the balance as far as is practicable, which is a looser formulation than for membership of Statutory Committees. There is a stronger steer towards each Committee having proportional membership. Therefore, there is no requirement to feel overly constrained about the party composition of subcommittees.
Mr Brolly: How many members should there be on a subcommittee? If there were four, that would mean a member for each of the four main parties.
Professor Wilford: Would that necessarily be so? As I said earlier, during the first mandate, a lack of inter-party trust bedevilled Committees. However, I hope that we are over that particular hump.
Committee make-up does not need to be as formulaic as you suggest. You might opt for three or four members, but let us stick with four. The Standing Order states: as far as is practicable. If there is trust and mutual confidence, and Committee members are reassured that a subcommittee cannot make a decision, there is no reason that the subcommittee cannot take evidence, pursue a particular inquiry and report back to the full Committee. In such circumstances, there is no reason to overly constrain subcommittees - we should not be too anal about such matters. The rules allow flexibility in the membership of subcommittees. I would prefer it if a subcommittee were composed of members with a special interest in a particular aspect of an inquiry rather than being there simply to reflect the Assemblys party balance.
Rapporteurs are used extensively in the regional network of the European Parliament and in the UN, and their role is, in effect, that of a reporter. They are individuals who are tasked by a committee to, perhaps, ferret out information on a particular subject or talk to potential oral-session witnesses, and then report back to the committee. Their role is similar to that of a platoon leader - gathering information and reporting back to the committee. That would be an efficient method for the Assembly; however, a rapporteur would not be a substitute for a subcommittee, which would be tasked to do something else, such as, for instance, taking initial soundings for the Committee Stage of a Bill or for some aspect of a particular inquiry.
The purpose of the ideas that I have suggested is to allow members to explore administrative techniques that might be used in order to divide up labour and unburden Committees. Rapporteurs, subcommittees and Committees can undertake separate but related tasks.
Mr Brolly: A large part of a Committees time, particularly in the Statutory Committees, is spent listening to witnesses presentations. A rapid-fire meeting might get rid of that drain on time. Everything need not happen here; a mobile rapporteur could meet an education and library board, Sport NI or whoever, and report back. That would save a considerable amount of time.
Professor Wilford: It would save time. A subcommittee would not be a substitute for an oral session held by a Committee. It would supplement the Committees work and report back to it. In a meeting in which the Committee was attempting to crowd in X number of witnesses, because some work had been delegated to a subcommittee, it might be necessary only to see X minus Y witnesses.
The Deputy Chairperson: I accept Francies point about saving time and why such mechanisms might be used. However, is there not a risk of giving the impression of becoming distant from many of the organisations that want to get to the heart of the Administration? From a public-relations perspective, such organisations want to go before the Committee that has been tasked with going through the legislative detail and all that that entails. There is a risk that that distance could be created. Although, in principle, the idea is appealing from a time-saving point of view, it has its downside.
Professor Wilford: Subcommittees would have fewer members, but their status would not be reduced.
The Deputy Chairperson: That would apply more so in the case of the rapporteurs.
Professor Wilford: When a Committee embarks

Session 2007/2008

First Report

Committee on Procedures

Report on Committee Systems and Structures

TOGETHER WITH THE MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS, MINUTES OF EVIDENCE AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RELATING TO THE REPORT

Committee on Procedures Membership and Powers

Table of Contents

Report

Appendix 1:

Appendix 2:

Appendix 3:

Appendix 4:

Appendix 5:

Appendix 6:

Executive Summary

Membership of Assembly committees.

Use of substitutes

Use of rapporteurs

Days and Times of Committee meetings

Quorum

Voting.

Joint committees.

Summary of Recommendations

Recommendation 1

Recommendation 2

Introduction

Consideration of Key Issues

Key issue one The membership of Assembly committees

Table 1 Northern Ireland Assembly Committee Membership

Table 2 - Number of Members sitting on Multiple Committees

Table 3:- Party Membership on all Statutory Committees

Table 4:- Party Membership on all Standing Committees

Table 5:- Party Membership on a single committee

Key issue two the use of substitutes in Assembly committees

Key issue three use of rapporteurs in Assembly committees

Key issue four days and times of Committee meetings

The days on which Assembly Committees should meet

Table 6 The Days and Times of Assembly Committee Meetings

Timing of Committee meetings

Key Issue five quorum

Key issue six voting in committees

Key issue seven joint committees

Rule 6.14 Joint consideration by committees

Appendix 1

Minutes of Proceedings

Wednesday 30 May 2007 Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Potential Inquiries

Wednesday 13 June 2007 Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Terms of Reference for Inquiries

Wednesday 27 June 2007 Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Wednesday 3 October 2007 Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Correspondence

Wednesday 17 October 2007 Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Committee Systems and Structures

Wednesday 14 November 2007 Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Committee Systems and Structures

Wednesday 12 December 2007 Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Committee Systems and Structures

Wednesday 9 January 2008 Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Committee Systems and Structures

Wednesday 23 January 2008 Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Committee Systems and Structures Consideration of Issues

Any Other Business

Wednesday 2 April 2008 Room 152, Parliament Buildings

1. Committee Systems and Structures

Wednesday 16 April 2008 Room 152, Parliament Buildings

1. Committee Systems and Structures

Wednesday, 30 April 2008 Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Draft report on Committee Systems and Structures.

Introduction

Consideration of Key Issues.

Wednesday, 14 May 2008 Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Report on Committee Systems and Structures

Appendix 2

Minutes of Evidence

14 November 2007

12 December 2007

Report on
Committee Systems
and Structures

TOGETHER WITH THE MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS, MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RELATING TO THE REPORT

Committee on Procedures
Membership and Powers

Wednesday 30 May 2007
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Wednesday 13 June 2007
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Wednesday 27 June 2007
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Wednesday 3 October 2007
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Wednesday 17 October 2007
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Wednesday 14 November 2007
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Wednesday 12 December 2007
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Wednesday 9 January 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Wednesday 23 January 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Wednesday 2 April 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Wednesday 16 April 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Wednesday, 14 May 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings