Northern Ireland Assembly Flax Flower Logo

Session 2008/2009 First Report

COMMITTEE FOR THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST MINISTER
AND DEPUTY FIRST MINISTER

Report on the Public
Authority (Reform) Bill
(NIA 19/07)

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

Ordered by The Committee for the Office of the First Minister
and deputy First Minister to be printed 19 November 2008

Report: 4/08/09R (The Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister)

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

Membership and Powers

Powers

The Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister is a Statutory Committee established in accordance with paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Belfast Agreement, Section 29 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and under Assembly Standing Order 46. The Committee has a scrutiny, policy development and consultation role with respect to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and has a role in the initiation of legislation.

The Committee has the power to:

  • consider and advise on Departmental Budgets and Annual Plans in the context of the overall budget allocation;
  • approve relevant secondary legislation and take the Committee stage of primary legislation;
  • call for persons and papers;
  • initiate inquiries and make reports; and
  • consider and advise on matters brought to the Committee by the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

Membership

The Committee has eleven members, including a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, and a quorum of five members.

The membership of the Committee is as follows:

Mr Danny Kennedy (Chairperson)
Mrs Naomi Long (Deputy Chairperson)

Ms Martina Anderson
Mr Tom Elliott
Mrs Dolores Kelly
Mr Ian McCrea*
Mr Barry McElduff
Mr Francie Molloy
Mr Stephen Moutray
Mr Jim Shannon
Mr Jimmy Spratt

* Mr Ian McCrea replaced Mr Jim Wells with effect from 8 September 2008.

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations Used in the Report

Report

Introduction
Consideration of the Bill
Clause-by-Clause Scrutiny of the Bill

Appendix 1

Minutes of Proceedings Relating to the Report

Appendix 2

Minutes of Evidence

Appendix 3

Written Submissions

Appendix 4

Other Correspondence

Appendix 5

Northern Ireland Assembly Research Paper

Appendix 6

List of Witnesses

List of Abbreviations

DARD Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
DCAL Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
DSD Department for Social Development
OFMDFM Office for the First Minister and deputy First Minister
RPA Review of Public Administration

Introduction

1. The Public Authorities (Reform) Bill was initially issued for consultation as a proposal for a draft Order in Council from 24 January to 20 April 2007.

2. When issued originally for consultation, the legislation contained provisions for abolition of the Fisheries Conservancy Board, Disability Living Allowance Board and the Northern Ireland Housing Council as well as a number of public appointments provisions and repeals of redundant legislation. As a result of the consultation and a review by the devolved administration following restoration of the Assembly, the provisions relating the abolition if the Housing Council and public appointments have been withdrawn.

3. The Public Authorities (Reform) Bill (NIA 19/07) (the Bill) was referred to the Committee for consideration in accordance with Standing Order 33(1) on completion of the second stage of the Bill on 30 June 2008.

4. The Ministers for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister have made the following statement under section 9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998:

“In our view the Public Authorities (Reform) Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly”.

5. The stated purpose of the Bill is “to make provision for, or in connection with, the abolition of certain public authorities”.

6. The Committee considered the Bill and related issues at 4 meetings, on 1 October, 8 October, 12 November and 19 November 2008. The relevant extracts from the Minutes of Proceedings for these meetings are included at Appendix 1 and Minutes of Evidence are included at Appendix 2.

7. The Committee had before it the Public Authorities (Reform) Bill and the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that accompanied the Bill.

8. On referral of the Bill to the Committee after the second stage, the Committee wrote on 5 September 2008 to key stakeholders and on 28 August 2008 placed a public notice in the Belfast Telegraph, Irish News and Newsletter seeking written evidence in the provisions of the Bill.

9. In response to its call for evidence, the Committee received written submissions from the following:

  • Ulster Farmer’s Union
  • Belfast City Council
  • Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure
  • Committee for Social Development
  • Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

A copy of the submissions received by the Committee is included at Appendix 3.

Consideration of the Bill

10. On 8 October 2008, the Committee took evidence from officials from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM), an official from the Department for Social Development (DSD) and an official from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD).

11. The Committee discussed the recommendation made by the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. Mr Tom Elliott proposed that the Committee ask that the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister introduce the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board into the Bill.

12. The Committee divided on the proposals Ayes 6; Noes 2

i. Ayes: Mr Tom Elliott, Mr Danny Kennedy, Mrs Naomi Long, Mr Stephen Moutray, Mr Jim Shannon, Mr Jimmy Spratt.

ii. Noes: Ms Martina Anderson, Mr Barry McElduff.

13. The Committee wrote to the First Minister and deputy First Minister on 9 October 2008 requesting the Ministers introduce the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board into the Bill.

14. On 20 October 2008, the Assembly agreed to extend the Committee Stage of the Bill to 12 December 2008.

15. On 10 November 2008, the First Minister and deputy First Minister wrote to the Committee. The Committee considered this response at its meeting of 12 November 2008.

16. On 12 November 2008, the Committee discussed whether to propose an amendment to the Bill or refer it back to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development for that Committee to propose an amendment to the Bill at Consideration Stage. The Committee agreed not to propose an amendment to the Bill and to write to the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development referring the matter to that Committee.

Clause-by-Clause Scrutiny of the Bill

17. The Committee undertook its formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill on 12 November 2008. The Minutes of Evidence are included at Appendix 2.

Clause 1 – Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland

18. The Committee agreed to Clause 1 as drafted.

Schedule 1 – The Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland

19. The Committee agreed to Schedule 1 as drafted.

Clause 2 –Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board for Northern Ireland

20. The Committee agreed to Clause 2 as drafted.

Schedule 2 – Amendments: The Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board for NI

21. The Committee agreed to Schedule 2 as drafted.

Clause 3 – Northern Ireland Pig Production Development Committee

22. The Committee agreed to Clause 3 as drafted.

Clause 4 - Enterprise Ulster

23. The Committee agreed to Clause 4 as drafted.

Clause 5 - Laganside Corporation

24. The Committee agreed to Clause 5 as drafted.

Clause 6 - Repeals

25. The Committee agreed to Clause 6 as drafted.

Schedule 3 – Repeals

26. The Committee agreed to Schedule 3 as drafted.

Clause 7 - Commencement

27. The Committee agreed to Clause 7 as drafted.

Clause 8 - Short title

28. The Committee agreed to Clause 8 as drafted.

Long Title

29. The Committee agreed the Long Title as drafted.

Minutes of Proceedings
Relating to the Report

Wednesday 1 October 2008
Senate Chamber, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Danny Kennedy (Chairperson)
Mrs Naomi Long (Deputy Chairperson)
Ms Martina Anderson
Mr Tom Elliott
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Francie Molloy
Mr Stephen Moutray
Mr Jim Shannon
Mr Jimmy Spratt

In Attendance: Mrs Cathie White (Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Linda Gregg (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Keith McBride (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Lynda Mulholland (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Helena Maginness (Clerical Officer)

2.02 p.m. The meeting opened in public session.

  1. Apologies

Mr Barry McElduff.

3.33 p.m. Mr McCrea left the meeting.
3.33 p.m. Mr Moutray left the meeting.

  1. Public Authorities (Reform) Bill

Members considered the written evidence received from the Committee’s consultation process on the Public Authorities (Reform) Bill.

Agreed: Members agreed to request officials from OFMDFM, the Department of Social Development and the Department for Agriculture and Rural Development to attend to give oral evidence to the Committee concerning the Public Authorities (Reform) Bill at next week’s meeting.

4.10 p.m. The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 8 October 2008
Room 144, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Danny Kennedy (Chairperson)
Mrs Naomi Long (Deputy Chairperson)
Ms Martina Anderson
Mr Tom Elliott
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Barry McElduff
Mr Stephen Moutray
Mr Jim Shannon
Mr Jimmy Spratt

In Attendance: Mrs Cathie White (Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Linda Gregg (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Keith McBride (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Lynda Mulholland (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Helena Maginness (Clerical Officer)
Mr Denis Arnold (Bill Clerk)

2.32 p.m. The meeting opened in public session.

  1. Apologies

Mr Francie Molloy

  1. Public Authorities (Reform) Bill

2.49 p.m. Officials from OFMDFM, the Department for Social Development and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development joined the meeting.

Officials from OFMDFM, the Department for Social Development and the Department for Agriculture and Rural Development, gave oral evidence to the Committee concerning the Public Authorities (Reform) Bill. A question and answer session followed.

3.05 p.m. Mr McCrea left the meeting.

Mr Elliott proposed that the Committee ask that the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister introduces the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board into the Bill.

The Committee divided on the proposal: Ayes 6; Noes 2

Ayes Mr Tom Elliott, Mr Danny Kennedy, Mrs Naomi Long, Mr Stephen Moutray, Mr Jim Shannon, Mr Jimmy Spratt.

Noes Ms Martina Anderson, Mr Barry McElduff.

Agreed: The Committee asks the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to introduce the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board into the Bill.

3.21 p.m. Officials from OFMDFM, the Department for Social Development and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development left the meeting.

Agreed: The Committee agreed a motion to extend the Committee Consideration Stage to 12 December, Ms Anderson wished to note that she did not agree with the motion to extend.

3.37 p.m. The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 12 November 2008
Room 144, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Danny Kennedy (Chairperson)
Mrs Naomi Long (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Stephen Moutray
Mr Jim Shannon
Mr Jimmy Spratt

In Attendance: Mrs Cathie White (Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Linda Gregg (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Keith McBride (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Lynda Mulholland (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Helena Maginness (Clerical Officer)
Mr Denis Arnold (Bill Clerk)

2.06 p.m. The meeting opened in public session.

  1. Apologies

Mrs Dolores Kelly, Mr Barry McElduff

2.46 p.m. Mr Kennedy left the meeting, Mrs Long took the Chair.

  1. Public Authorities (Reform) Bill

3.12 p.m. Officials from OFMDFM joined the meeting.

Mr Neil Jackson and Mr Jim Hamilton joined the meeting for the Committee’s clause-by-clause consideration of the Public Authorities (Reform) Bill. The Committee considered a response from the First Minister and deputy First Minister to the Committee’s request that the Agricultural Wages Board be included as a body to be abolished in the Bill. The response advised that the First Minister and deputy First Minister will not be proposing an amendment to include the Agricultural Wages Board as a body to be abolished in the Bill.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to write to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development to advise that this Committee would not be proposing an amendment to the Bill.

The Committee commenced formal clause-by-clause consideration of the Public Authorities (Reform) Bill.

Clause 1 – Fisheries Conservancy Board

Schedule 1 – The Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause and schedule as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 2 – Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board Northern Ireland

Schedule 2 – The Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board Northern Ireland

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause and schedule as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 3 – Northern Ireland Pig Production Development Committee

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 4 – Enterprise Ulster

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 5 – Laganside Corporation

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 6 – Repeals

Schedule 3 – Repeals

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause and schedule as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 7 – Commencement

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 8 – Short Title

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Long Title

Question: That the Committee is content with the Long Title as drafted, put and agreed to.

3.19 p.m. Officials from OFMDFM left the meeting.
3.20 p.m. The Deputy Chairperson adjourned the meeting.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 19 November 2008
Room 144, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Danny Kennedy (Chairperson)
Mrs Naomi Long (Deputy Chairperson)
Ms Martina Anderson
Mr Tom Elliott
Mrs Dolores Kelly
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Barry McElduff
Mr Francie Molloy
Mr Stephen Moutray
Mr Jim Shannon
Mr Jimmy Spratt

In Attendance: Mrs Cathie White (Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Linda Gregg (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Keith McBride (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Lynda Mulholland (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Helena Maginness (Clerical Officer)

2.02 p.m. The meeting opened in public session.

  1. Public Authorities (Reform) Bill

Members considered the draft Report on the Public Authorities (Reform) Bill.

Agreed: Members agreed pages 1 and 2 without objection.

Agreed: Members agreed page 3 witho ut objection.

Agreed: Members agreed page 4 without objection.

Agreed: Members agreed to include submissions from Belfast City Council, Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, Committee for Social Development and Ulster Farmer’s Union in the report.

Agreed: Members agreed to include the following correspondence in the report: letter to First Minister and deputy First Minister; letter from First Minister and deputy First Minister; and letter to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development.

Agreed: Members agreed to order the report to be printed.

Agreed: Members agreed that an extract from the Minutes of Proceedings of today’s meeting should be included in Appendix 1 of the report and are content that the Chairperson agrees the minutes to allow the extract to be included in the printed report.

3.54 p.m. The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.

[EXTRACT]

Appendix 2

Minutes of Evidence

8 October 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Danny Kennedy (Chairperson)
Mrs Naomi Long (Deputy Chairperson)
Ms Martina Anderson
Mr Tom Elliott
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Barry McElduff
Mr Stephen Moutray
Mr Jim Shannon
Mr Jimmy Spratt

Witnesses:

Mr Jim Hamilton
Mr Neill Jackson

Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister

Mr John O’Neill

Department for Social Development

Mr Peter Toner

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

1. The Chairperson (Mr Kennedy): I welcome Neill Jackson and Jim Hamilton from the Office of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister (OFMDFM), John O’Neill from the Department for Social Development (DSD), and Peter Toner from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD). You are very welcome, gentlemen; thank you for your attendance. Do any of you wish to make an opening statement?

2. Mr Neill Jackson (Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister): If members would find it helpful, I will recap the main purpose of the Bill. The Bill has three main elements. First, there is the abolition of the Fisheries Conservancy Board and the transfer of its functions to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. Secondly, there is the abolition of the Northern Ireland Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board. Thirdly, there is the removal of several redundant provisions from the statute book relating to bodies that have already been abolished, such as the Pig Production Development Committee, Enterprise Ulster and the Laganside Corporation.

3. OFMDFM has been facilitating the Bill on behalf of the relevant Departments with a policy interest in the matters contained in it. Colleagues from DSD and DARD are here today in relation to the response we believe has been received from the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and to answer any questions in relation to that matter.

4. The Chairperson: The position of the Agricultural Wages Board (AWB) seems to be the controversial issue. The other Departments appear to have accepted the logic behind the abolition of other bodies, but the Agriculture Committee has come back to us about the AWB. Mr Toner, do you wish to provide a perspective on that?

5. Mr Peter Toner (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): I wish to reiterate the DARD Minister’s position and her rationale for holding that position. The Minister has indicated that she does not propose to abolish the AWB and has therefore not sought inclusion of any related provisions in the Bill. Last year, the Minister considered the case for the abolition of the AWB in the context of the national minimum-wage structure and decided not to abolish it for the following reasons. First, the national minimum-wage structure does not offer farm workers the same protection afforded by the board; in particular, regarding wage rates. Secondly, although wage costs are slightly higher, that has to be balanced against the need to retain suitably skilled agricultural workers in Northern Ireland.

6. Thirdly, the level of bureaucracy associated with the board’s rates is not significant and is no different in the North than anywhere in these islands. Fourthly, and finally, the board is a valuable forum for wage negotiations and, importantly, is used as a benchmark for the wider agrifood industry and other rural occupations. In short, the Minister is of the view that the abolition of the AWB would place agricultural workers here at a disadvantage when compared with those elsewhere on these islands and that her decision was made in the interests of sustainable farming and to protect the rights and continued availability of farm workers, including migrant workers, in the North.

7. The Chairperson: Are there any comments or questions?

8. Mr Shannon: Can this Committee put forward a proposal today relating to the AWB, or are we just being informed of what is being recommended?

9. The Chairperson: The Committee has two options. We can refer the matter to OFMDFM — for example, we could say that this Committee has a view that the AWB should be abolished —

10. The Committee Clerk: No, the Committee would not have to do that.

11. The Chairperson: The Committee Clerk will advise us.

12. The Committee Clerk: The Committee can accept what the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development has said; that it is concerned, and that it would like the AWB to be abolished. We could pass that request and recommendation to OFMDFM and ask whether the Department wishes to include the abolition of the AWB in the Bill. Alternatively, the Committee could decide that it has already dealt with the matter at draft Bill stage; whereby we noted the concern, forwarded it to OFMDFM, and the Department noted that concern but did not include any provision in the Bill. The Committee could then inform the Agriculture Committee that it could propose an amendment to the Bill at Consideration Stage or introduce its own Committee Bill. Those are the Committee’s options; forward the response to OFMDFM and wait for a reply, or send it back to the Agriculture Committee informing it that it should proceed by itself.

13. The Chairperson: We would be leaving the responsibility with the Agriculture Committee to handle the issue as it chooses to do so.

14. Mr Elliott: Just for clarification, can this Committee recommend to OFMDFM that the abolition of the AWB be included in the Bill?

15. The Committee Clerk: That would not be part of the remit of this Committee.

16. The Chairperson: We have been advised that it is not within our remit.

17. Mr Elliott: Then, what is the point in the Committee consulting on the matter?

18. The Committee Clerk: OFMDFM is responsible for the Bill as a whole because it comes under the review of public administration (RPA). However, the AWB is part of DARD’s remit.

19. Mr Spratt: Is it not OK for this Committee to say that it agrees with the Agriculture Committee?

20. The Committee Clerk: The Committee can do that if it so wishes.

21. Mr Shannon: I believe that the Committee Clerk indicated that we could do so.

22. The Committee Clerk: The Committee can do so, if it wishes. However, the matter is not within the remit of this Committee. The Bill has come to this Committee as a result of RPA, and it refers to the abolition of several bodies.

23. Mr Shannon: However, under the Committee’s RPA remit, it could make a recommendation and say that it agrees to the abolition of the AWB.

24. The Committee Clerk: Yes; if that is the Committee’s wish.

25. Mrs Long: My assessment is that this Committee was acting as a clearing house for the views of other Committees on matters that are within their remits — in the same way that we do for the Budget and Programme for Government. Therefore, individual Committees take forward issues that are within their own remits. My only concern about forwarding the response to OFMDFM is that we have done so at draft stage, at which point the concerns were noted but not included in the Bill. If we do that again, the process would be the same.

26. It might be better if the Agriculture Committee were to deal with the matter proactively: for example, by moving an amendment. I do not foresee that there will be a major change of heart on the issue. We would be forwarding the same argument on behalf of both Committees to OFMDFM, and that argument did not convince the Department to make any changes at draft stage. It would be better if the Agriculture Committee took the argument forward. That Committee might be more successful and achieve a better result.

27. The Chairperson: The Clerk of Bills has joined us. He may wish to share some insight on procedures. You are welcome. Sorry to call upon you suddenly. I am grateful to you.

28. The Clerk of Bills: At present, the Public Authorities (Reform) Bill is before this Committee, which can decide to propose an amendment if it wishes. The Committee Clerk has already pointed out that the matter under consideration falls within the remit of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. That is the appropriate Committee to deal with that subject matter. However, this Bill is before this Committee, and this Committee has the power to make amendments if it so decides. If the Committee decides not to move in that direction; there is nothing to stop the Agriculture Committee proposing an amendment. There are several options available.

29. Mr Shannon: If this Committee decides to make an amendment, will that become part of the Bill, or must it go to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister for their ratification? I would like to know what happens from the procedural standpoint.

30. The Clerk of Bills: No, a proposal today will not become part of the Bill. The Committee will conduct clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill and will, eventually, produce a report. In that report, the Committee would suggest that the Bill be amended appropriately. The Committee Chairperson would put forward the amendment, which would be considered at Consideration Stage. However, in view of the evidence that I have heard, the amendment would most likely be opposed by the Executive. That is my speculation. Therefore, it would be for the Committee to persuade the Assembly in plenary session.

31. The Chairperson: Would the amendment be opposed by the Executive or by the Department?

32. The Clerk of Bills: It would be opposed by the Executive, I would say.

33. Mr Shannon: It might be a reason for the Executive to meet again.

34. The Chairperson: I am afraid that we will not sort that matter out today.

35. Mr Elliott: I have a question about procedure. If the Agriculture Committee decides to submit an amendment, will that be at a later stage of the Bill or at the same stage?

36. The Clerk of Bills: It will be at the same stage — Consideration Stage. At that point, it is open to any Member to propose an amendment.

37. Mr Elliott: My second question is whether, at this stage, this Committee can recommend to OFMDFM that it amends the Bill without our putting forward an amendment?

38. The Clerk of Bills: The Committee can certainly record that suggestion in its minutes. The Committee can write to the Department in an attempt to persuade the Ministers to take the amendment on board and include the AWB in the Bill. However, the decision would be entirely up to the Ministers.

39. As regards Assembly procedure, that option would be effective at Consideration Stage. Whether Ministers or the Committee recommend the change does not matter; it must be introduced as an amendment for debate.

40. The Chairperson: Are you saying that it cannot be a suggestion; it must be an amendment?

41. The Clerk of Bills: It must be an amendment proposed by somebody. The Committee may suggest that the Ministers take forward the amendment. However, if they do not take the amendment —

42. The Chairperson: It would, potentially, slip.

43. Mrs Long: Based on the work that was done at the draft stage, I assumed that OFMDFM and the Executive would oppose any amendment. I suggested that it might be better to recommend taking forward the change through the Agriculture Committee because that is where the bulk of the detailed discussions is taking place.

44. If this Committee moves an amendment, then it would be for us to drive it through, even though the issue is well outside our area of expertise. It may not be outside individual members’ expertise — I am not questioning that. The question is how to most productively pursue the matter that has been raised by the Agriculture Committee. It may be that the matter would be more effectively followed up by that Committee, because its members will debate the issue in the Assembly more effectively.

45. The Chairperson: I presume that this Committee, in referring the matter back to the Agriculture Committee for action, could make its view known.

46. Ms Anderson: The opinions of Committee members are known. The issue falls within the remit of the Agriculture Committee. I agree with Naomi about the degree of expertise on the matter in that Committee in comparison to that which exists in this Committee.

47. The issue does not matter to me, as a republican. However, boards exist in England, Scotland and Wales. I do not oppose the scrapping of any quango, but the evidence presented shows that the AWB does not deal only with wages. One of the arguments put forward in the Assembly during the Second Stage debate was that there would be some minimum wage protection for agricultural workers. However, the board also deals with items such as holiday pay and holiday entitlement. Therefore, arguments concerning the minimum wage alone do not cover those issues, and for that reason, Sinn Féin opposes the board’s inclusion in the Bill.

48. Mr Spratt: Will Mr Toner explain the position of the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU)? The Committee knows the views of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development.

49. Mr Toner: When the Minister took up office last year, the UFU called for the abolition of the board. The Minister considered the issue on foot of that call. The UFU called for the abolition in the context of the national minimum wage structure.

50. Mr Spratt: Does that mean that the Minister’s decision is opposed by the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, and the Ulster Farmers’ Union, which represents the vast majority of farmers in Northern Ireland?

51. Mr Toner: Yes. The Minister decided to retain the board on foot of the UFU’s request that it be abolished.

52. Mr Spratt: On what did the Minister base her decision to retain the board?

53. Mr Toner: For the reason —

54. The Chairperson: Order, please. I am having difficulty in hearing what is being said.

55. Mr Toner: The Minister considered the abolition of the board last year on foot of a call from the UFU to do so. That was in the context of a national minimum wage that the UFU considered protected agricultural workers’ rights sufficiently.

56. For the reasons that I outlined earlier, the Minister decided not to abolish the board. If members wish me to, I will repeat those reasons: there are four of them. First, the national minimum wage structure does not offer farm workers the same protection afforded by the board, in terms of wage rates in particular. Secondly, although wage costs are slightly higher — and the farmer perspective comes in here — that must be balanced against the need to retain suitably skilled agricultural workers in the North. Thirdly, the level of bureaucracy — again where farmers come into it — associated with board rates is not significant and is no different in the North to anywhere else on these islands. Fourthly, it is considered that the AWB provides a valuable forum for wage negotiations and, importantly, is used as a benchmark for the wider agrifood industry and other rural occupations. The Minister considered the abolition of the AWB on foot of a UFU request.

57. Mr McElduff: Jimmy Spratt said that the UFU represents the “vast majority” of farmers. I presume that it represents the majority of farmers, but I am unsure whether it could be described as the “vast majority”. What stance did the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association (NIAPA) — another farmers’ union — adopt on that matter? It has been brought to my attention that serious adverse circumstances would accrue for low-paid workers. Has an equality impact assessment (EQIA) been completed?

58. Mr Toner: An equality impact assessment has not been carried out, because there has been no decision to change the policy. If such a decision were taken, we would pursue an EQIA. I cannot recall what stance NIAPA adopted.

59. Mr Elliott: I declare an interest as a member of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. As Mr McElduff mentioned, I would welcome an EQIA because the national minimum wage is lower than the minimum wage set by the AWB. I understand that a decision was taken to include the AWB as part of the abolition of several quangos in the Province, which was then changed. Is that so? Furthermore, I understand that, over a year ago, all parties in the Assembly supported the abolition of the AWB.

60. Is the information on wage differences accurate? For example, someone who digs potatoes on a farm comes under the remit of AWB regulations. However, if that person then packs those potatoes the next day, they would come under the national minimum wage. That situation is an absolute nonsense and it is one of the reasons for supporting abolition.

61. The Chairperson: I remind members that this is not the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development.

62. Mr Elliott: We are discussing the AWB today.

63. The Chairperson: I accept that, and, on that basis, I allowed the question.

64. Mr Toner: The 2003 review of public administration recommended the abolition of the AWB. However, around that time, a subsequent decision was taken to retain the board, because the UK Government had given such assurances to trade unions in the UK. There are boards in the rest of the UK.

65. Mr Elliott asked about wage levels. A 22-year-old worker who is employed for more than 40 weeks — that is, an experienced agricultural worker — is paid an AWB hourly rate of £5·92, as opposed to a national minimum wage rate of £5·73 an hour. That constitutes a 19 pence difference. Although that may seem insignificant, it results in a difference of £7·60 a week or £30·40 a month when multiplied by a 40-hour week — not an inconsiderable difference.

66. Mr Elliott’s comments in relation to agricultural work and non-agricultural work were correct. Workers in the field, planting potatoes, etc, would attract an AWB rate. Workers packing potatoes would attract a rate at the national minimum wage level. The difference in wage rates is explained by the fact that agricultural activity is being undertaken.

67. Mr Elliott: Does any other industry or employment sector in the Province have its own wages board?

68. Mr Toner: I am not aware of any.

69. The Chairperson: Are members content that they understand the options available to them? There seem to be a number of options available. We have debated the issue, does anyone wish to make a proposal?

70. Mr Elliott: I propose that the Committee makes a recommendation to OFMDFM that the AWB is included for abolition in the Public Authorities (Reform) Bill.

71. The Chairperson: Does anyone wish to second the proposal?

72. Mr Jackson: At this point, it might be helpful to record what junior Minister Kelly said during the debate on the Second Stage of the Bill. He said that OFMDFM could not include in the Bill legislation that has not been requested or approved by another Minister of the Executive.

73. The Chairperson: Therefore, in other words, if we forward Mr Elliott’s proposal to the Department, we will receive a letter referring to that ministerial view?

74. Mr Jackson: That is the position the junior Minister took during the debate and I am not aware of it having changed.

75. The Chairperson: Mr Elliott; in light of that, do you wish to revise your proposal?

76. Mr Elliott: No. There are other Ministers in the Executive. That view was obviously expressed by OFMDFM —

77. The Chairperson: Yes; but Mr Jackson has said that the junior Minister made that statement on behalf of the Executive. Is that correct, Mr Jackson? Is that your understanding?

78. Mr Jackson: Yes. The Bill was approved by the Executive. It has been advanced on their behalf by the First Minister and deputy First Minister and in turn by the junior Ministers. The First Minister and deputy First Minister do not think it appropriate to unilaterally introduce legislation that has not been requested by another Minister of the Executive.

79. Mr Shannon: Is that contrary to information that the Clerk of Bills gave to the Committee earlier today?

80. The Clerk of Bills: That is the position of the Executive. As far as Assembly procedure is concerned, this Committee is entitled to make its own decisions and propose any amendment that it feels is appropriate to any piece of legislation. Any Member of the Assembly may also do that, and those amendments would then be dealt with during Consideration Stage in the Assembly. That is the Assembly procedure. There is no bar.

81. Mr Shannon: Therefore, there is nothing to stop the Committee from doing that?

82. The Chairperson: Is it fair to say that it is unlikely to be sponsored either by the Department or by the Executive?

83. The Clerk of Bills: From the evidence that has been given, that would seem to be the case.

84. Mrs Long: That is the key issue. The only way that such a recommendation can be included in this Bill is if an amendment is tabled, debated in the House and a majority of Members vote in favour. That is the only way that it can happen. However, the question is how that can happen.

85. The Committee already knows that OFMDFM is not going to sponsor the amendment: therefore, asking it to do so is essentially a waste of time. We would be better either tabling an amendment ourselves — if members choose to do so — or refer the proposal to the Agriculture Committee, asking it to propose an amendment. Realistically, those are the only ways that an amendment can be included. My suggestion was that it would be more effective for the Agriculture Committee to advance the amendment. It is closest to the subject matter and best placed to have the debate.

86. I propose that we write to the Agriculture Committee, saying that we do not see merit in our approaching OFMDFM based on the Department’s previous responses. However, the Agriculture Committee would be able to bring —

87. The Chairperson: We would be giving that Committee the option of tabling an amendment.

88. Mrs Long: Yes.

89. Mr Elliott: I am happy if Naomi wishes to add that suggestion to my proposal. That would demonstrate to the Agriculture Committee that they have our support on the matter. Whether OFMDFM do what we ask is up to them —

90. The Chairperson: It would then become a two-fold approach. The Committee would write to OFMDFM, and, given the likely response we will receive, we would then refer the matter to the Agriculture Committee.

91. Mr Elliott: We should also take up Naomi’s suggestion of referring the matter back to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development with our support.

92. The Chairperson: Yes, but we would have to await a formal response from OFMDFM first.

93. Mrs Long: The difficulty with that proposal is that we would have to wait until OFMDFM responded before referring the matter back to the Agriculture Committee. As we already know, essentially, what OFMDFM’s response will be, we could include its previous response with our reply to the Agriculture Committee as the evidence on which we are basing our decision. That would make it clear that we are not making a judgment on the Committee of Agriculture and Rural Development’s position and are simply referring the matter back to that Committee. I understand where you are coming from, Chairperson, but my concern about combining the two proposals is that we will end up elongating the process. I want to get to a point at which something is likely to happen.

94. The Chairperson: Is there a time consideration?

95. The Committee Clerk: The closing date for tabling amendments at Consideration Stage is 4 November 2008. If the Committee has to write to OFMDFM and await its response, we would require a motion to be passed in the Chamber to extend the Committee Stage.

96. Ms Anderson: Surely this matter comes under the role of the Agriculture Committee. It has made a recommendation to us, and we know what OFMDFM’s decision will be. Therefore, Naomi is correct in saying that we should refer the matter to the Agriculture Committee so that it can take action.

97. Mr Spratt: Paragraph 10 of the paper from the Agriculture Committee states:

“The Committee for Agricultural and Rural Development asks, therefore, that the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister recommends that the Office of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister reintroduces an amendment to include the Agricultural Wages Board as a body to be abolished under the Public Authorities (Reform) Bill.”

98. It seems that we will just be kicking the ball back again.

99. Mrs Long: Notwithstanding that, we know that OFMDFM will refuse the request. We are trying, therefore, to short-circuit that process to give the Agriculture Committee an opportunity to formulate an amendment that will subsequently be debated in the Assembly when the Bill reaches Consideration Stage. That is the only opportunity that I can foresee for any change being made to the Bill. OFMDFM has stated that it is not prepared to consider such an amendment.

100. I understand why the Agriculture Committee made the request, but we could end up simply stringing the process out and being no further forward in four weeks’ time.

101. The Clerk of Bills: The normal process is that by the time the Committee reaches the stage of clause-by-clause scrutiny, it will have had to consider whether this is an issue and whether an amendment should be made. By not including an amendment, this Committee would be saying, effectively, that it is not in favour of one. The Committee would be assuming that another Committee will then make a concrete decision. However, the Bill is before this Committee alone, and these are issues that this Committee should be considering.

102. Another Department is involved but, in this instance, a single Department is taking forward a piece of omnibus legislation that covers several matters. As a civil servant, I was involved in progressing legislation, and I know that it happens regularly. It is within the remit of this Committee to consider the issue: indeed, it would be normal practice to do so. It just so happens that the legislation covers more than one Committee, and the expertise on the matter in question lies with the other Committee. In addition, several Ministers are involved in the legislation. However, let us be clear that the responsibility lies with this Committee, because this is the Committee Stage of a piece of legislation that is before only one Committee.

103. The Chairperson: The other option is for us to refer the matter back to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development with our view on how it should be handled.

104. Mr Elliott: Is that appropriate within the legislative process?

105. The Clerk of Bills: The Committee can decide that it will not take a view on the matter, but will decide to —

106. The Chairperson: The Committee may take a view but it will not take action. It will refer the action to another Committee.

107. The Clerk of Bills: Yes — the Committee can do that.

108. Mr Elliott: How long will the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development have to submit its amendment?

109. The Clerk of Bills: That is entirely up to the Committee. There will be a period of time between the end of the Committee Stage and the scheduling of the Consideration Stage. My guess is that it is likely that the Agriculture Committee has already considered that kind of issue. Another member of the Bill Office is dealing with that issue, because separate advice must be given to each Committee about what can be done. There will be an adequate period of time during which the Agriculture Committee would be able to propose amendments. It is at least a couple of weeks, so time is not an issue.

110. The Chairperson: OK. Mr Elliott had an earlier proposal that was seconded.

111. Mr Elliott: The proposal still stands, because that is what the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee asked us to do. The proposal is that this Committee should ask the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to introduce the abolition of the AWB as part of the Public Authorities (Reform) Bill.

112. The Chairperson: Does anyone second the proposal?

Several Members indicated assent.

113. The Chairperson: Are there any amendments to the proposal?

Members indicated dissent.

114. The Chairperson: Do members agree with the proposal?

Members indicated assent.

115. The Chairperson: The Committee has agreed to write to OFMDFM.

116. The Committee Clerk: Yes.

117. The Chairperson: OK. Are there any other issues that members want to raise with the officials, or that officials want to raise with members?

118. Mr Elliott: I assume that the Fisheries Conservancy Board will continue to operate until it is abolished?

119. Mr Hamilton (Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister): That is correct.

120. The Chairperson: As there are no further questions, thank you very much for your attendance, gentlemen.

12 November 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mrs Naomi Long (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Stephen Moutray
Mr Jim Shannon
Mr Jimmy Spratt

Witnesses:

Mr Jim Hamilton
Mr Neill Jackson

Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister

121. The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs Long): We now come to the consideration of the Public Authorities (Reform) Bill. We have received correspondence from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister concerning the Committee’s request that the Agricultural Wages Board be included in the Bill as a body to be abolished. That has been tabled, and, as you can see, it advises that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister will not move such an amendment. Members now need to decide whether we want to propose an amendment, or refer it to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. The Bill Clerk is here to give as any advice that may be required, as are officials from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

122. Mr I McCrea: I am not surprised by this response. I think we knew what the answer would be. It would be worth sending this to the Agriculture Committee.

123. The Deputy Chairperson: That would happen at Consideration Stage. Are members happy with that approach?

124. Mr I McCrea: Does it make any difference whether it comes from this Committee or that one?

125. The Deputy Chairperson: The advice that we are getting is that it does not. It will be put down as a Committee amendment to the Bill at Consideration Stage. It will be tabled in the Bill Office as usual.

126. Mr Elliott: The only option now is to bring it up at Consideration Stage?

127. The Deputy Chairperson: Yes. Are members agreed that we should refer it to the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee?

Members indicated assent.

128. The Deputy Chairperson: We now have the detailed clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill. Members will have an opportunity to raise any concerns and suggest any amendments. I welcome Neil Jackson and Jim Hamilton from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, who are available for points of clarification.

129. Members should read the relevant clauses of the Bill along with the related commentary in the explanatory memorandum. This session will be recorded by Hansard for inclusion in the Committee’s Bill report. The Bill has eight clauses and three schedules. Each clause, and any subsections, will need to be considered in turn, after which the Committee will have two options: to agree that the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, or to agree that the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended.

130. The Bill seeks to abolish the Fisheries Conservancy Board and transfer its functions to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, and to abolish the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board for Northern Ireland. The Bill also carries several repeals of primary legislation relating to organisations that have already been abolished, such as Enterprise Ulster, the Pig Production Development Committee, and the Laganside Corporation.

Clause 1 (Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland)

131. The Deputy Chairperson: We shall discuss clause 1 of the Bill in conjunction with schedule 1. Clause 1 provides for the abolition of the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland and the transfer of the functions exercisable by that board to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure.

132. Part 1 of schedule 1 deals with the transfer of assets, liabilities and staff etc. Paragraph 2 transfers all assets and liabilities of the board to the Department. Paragraph 3 transfers the employees of the board to the Department. Paragraph 4 provides that in any statutory provision or document any reference to the board shall, in relation to time after the appointed day, be construed as a reference to the Department. Paragraph 5 provides transitional arrangements for accounts and reports.

133. Part 2 of schedule 1 deals with amendments. Paragraphs 1 to 14 detail the amendments to legislation to change references to the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland into references to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board for Northern Ireland)

134. The Deputy Chairperson: Clause 2 deals with the abolition of the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board. Schedule 2 outlines the details of amendments to legislation to omit references to the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Northern Ireland Pig Production Development Committee)

135. The Deputy Chairperson: This clause details a number of statutory provisions that are repealed as a consequence of the winding-up order.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Enterprise Ulster)

136. The Deputy Chairperson: This clause details a number of statutory provisions that are repealed as a consequence of the dissolution order.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (Laganside Corporation)

137. The Deputy Chairperson: This clause details a number of statutory provisions that are repealed as a consequence of the dissolution order.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Repeals)

138. The Deputy Chairperson: We will discuss schedule 3 along with clause 6. This clause repeals the statutory provisions listed in schedule 3.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Commencement)

139. The Deputy Chairperson: This clause provides for the Department to make an Order or Orders bringing the Bill into operation.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (Short Title)

140. The Deputy Chairperson: This clause gives the short title of the Bill.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Long title

141. The Deputy Chairperson: The long title of the Bill is:

“A Bill to make provision for, or in connection with, the abolition of certain public authorities”.

Question, That the Committee is content with the long title, put and agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

142. The Deputy Chairperson: The draft report will be prepared for Committee consideration on 19 November 2008. I thank the officials for their attendance.

Appendix 3

Written Submissions

Belfast City Council

26 September 2008

Ms Cathie White
Clerk to the Committee
OFMDFM
Committee Room 404
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
BELFAST BT4 3XX

Dear Ms White

Public Authority (Reform) Bill

I refer to the above and your letter dated 5 September.

I can confirm that I do not see anything in the draft Bill which would give rise to any suggestion on the part of the Council for amendment or opposition.

Yours sincerely

CIARAN QUIGLEY
Director of Legal Services
Belfast City Council

/tmc

Committee for Agriculture
and Rural Development

Committee Response to the Committee Stage of the Public Authorities (Reform) Bill

To: Danny Kennedy
Chairperson, Committee for the Office of the First
Minister and deputy First Minister

Date: 24 September 2008

From: Dr William McCrea MP
Chairperson to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

The Public Authorities (Reform) Bill

1. I refer to the above proposed legislation which is currently being considered at the Committee Stage.

2. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (the Committee) has previously issued correspondence to you seeking to have the Agricultural Wages Board (AWB) re-introduced to the schedule of bodies to be abolished by the legislation.

3. As you will be aware, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr Peter Hain MP, announced sweeping changes to public bodies in Northern Ireland, as part of the Review of Public Administration (RPA), in March 2006. This was part of the Secretary of States’ attempts to deliver “…on his promise to cut needless bureaucracy in Northern Ireland” (NIO Press Release, 22 March 2006).

4. The Northern Ireland Office (NIO) issued a press release on 21 March 2006 detailing the changes to public bodies impacted by the RPA decisions. This included a table of bodies impacted by the changes and the proposed effects of the decisions made by the Secretary of State. The effect of the decision in respect of the AWB was to abolish it. A copy of this statement is attached at Appendix A.

5. Two weeks later, Mr Hain reversed his decision in respect of the AWB following heavy pressure from the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union. This was reported by the AGTWU at the time as follows:

“…protecting the agricultural wages boards, which help set minimum standards for workers in the industry, was a keystone of the Warwick agreement between the unions and the Labour government,” points out AT&G agriculture leader Chris Kaufman. “We could not possibly allow the abolition of the board in Northern Ireland, and so we raised the issue with Peter Hain. We’re delighted that he has been big enough to give the matter an immediate rethink, and the Northern Ireland Agricultural Wages Board has had the quickest comeback since Lazarus.”

6. All the major Northern Ireland political parties have supported the abolition of the AWB, as was evidenced during a Transitional Assembly debate on agriculture on 8 January 2007 (Official Report, Bound Volume 21). However, whenever the Northern Ireland Assembly debated the abolition of the AWB on 22 October 2007, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Ms Michelle Gildernew, stated that, following advice from departmental officials and the AGTWU, she had decided not to abolish this body. The Assembly, however, resolved that the Minister bring forward the required legislation to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board.

7. On 6 November 2007, the Committee wrote to the department asking to be advised of the steps that they intended taking to ensure that the motion passed by the Assembly was fully implemented. The department responded by stating that it would be taking no steps to implement a motion passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly. This decision was based on a Ministerial response to a written question placed by Mr David Ford MLA on 12 November 2007 where the Minister detailed her reasons for not abolishing the AWB. These were as follows:

a. “The National Minimum Wage structure does not offer farm workers the same level of protection offered by the Board, in particular in terms of wage rates”;
b. “Whilst wage costs are slightly higher this has to be balanced against the need to retain suitable skilled agricultural workers in the North”;
c. “The level of bureaucracy associated with the Board’s rates is not significant and is no different in the North than anywhere else on these islands”; and
d. “It is a valuable forum for wage negotiations and importantly is used as a benchmark for the wider Agri-food industry and other rural occupations”.

8. The Minister concluded that this decision:

“…is in the best interests of sustainable farming, protecting the rights and continued availability of farm workers, including migrant workers, in the North”

9. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development disagree with these arguments and believes that the Agricultural Wages Board should be abolished for the following reasons:

(i) The Northern Ireland Assembly passed a motion calling on the Minister to abolish the AWB;

(ii) The AWB was originally included as a body to be abolished under the Review of Public Administration, being recognised by the then Secretary of State and the current Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, prior to appointment to that post, as contributing to bureaucracy in Northern Ireland;

(iii) The decisions to retain the Board were not based on a reassessment of whether these levels of bureaucracy were reduced but rather following lobbying by the AGTWU;

(iv) The department states that the Board only costs £25,000 to run each year and that this is not a bureaucratic burden on the department. However, the bureaucratic burden falls on the agricultural industry that has to be complicit with both the National Minimum Wage and the AWB. The abolition of the board would ensure that a level of bureaucracy within the agricultural sector was removed, helping to make the sector slightly more competitive;

(v) The Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, the enabling legislation, was not introduced to protect migrant workers but was introduced at a time that saw a number of wage councils for differing industrial sectors. These were the mechanisms that were used in the seventies and eighties to control the setting of wages and conditions and were the predecessor to National Minimum Wage. All other wage councils were abolished in 1993, with agriculture being the only industry to retain a board;

(vi) The above Order defines agriculture as including “…horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming and livestock breeding and keeping, the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, market gardens and nursery grounds, the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes, the scutching of flax and tow and any process preparatory to or connected with the scutching of flax or tow”. This is outdated and does not include, for example, the processing of vegetables. In these circumstances, the farm worker is paid a wage under the AWB for harvesting a crop but if they then commence processing it, they are paid under an entirely different regime, the National Minimum Wage;

(vii) Whilst there is a need to balance protection for farm workers with that of ensuring that the Northern Ireland agricultural sector remains competitive, this does not justify having exclusive protection for a portion of the agri-food industry and not for workers either within the reminder of the industry and with workers in other sectors;

(viii) The Committee believes that the fact that there is a large supply of migrant workers contradicts the department’s argument that the board is required to retain farm workers in Northern Ireland;

(ix) All workers will enjoy the protection of the National Minimum Wage.

10. The Committee for Agricultural and Rural Development asks, therefore, that the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister recommends that the Office of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister reintroduces an amendment to include the Agricultural Wages Board as a body to be abolished under the Public Authorities (Reform) Bill.
Dr William McCrea MP MLA
Chairperson to the Committee for Agricultural and Rural Development

Cc: Deputy Chairperson
Members of Committee
Clerk to the Committee

Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure

FROM: Kathryn Bell
Committee Clerk

DATE: 18 September 2008

TO: Cathie White
Clerk, Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister

Public Authority (Reform) Bill

Thank you for your letter of 5 September 2008 regarding the Public Authority (Reform) Bill. At its meeting of 18 September 2008, the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure agreed that it would not submit evidence to the Committee stage of this Bill.

KATHRYN BELL
Committee Clerk
Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee
Ext 21620

Committee for Social Development

Room 347
Parliament Buildings
BELFAST
BT4 3XX
Email: david.simpson@niassembly.gov.uk
Tel: 028 9041 8375
Fax: 028 9052 1108

22 September 2008

Our Ref: CSD/046/2008/MA

Mr Danny Kennedy
Chairperson
Committee for the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister
Room 304
Parliament Buildings
Belfast
BT4 3XX

Dear Mr Kennedy,

Public Authority (Reform) Bill

At its meeting on 18 September 2008, the Committee for Social Development considered the Public Authority (Reform) Bill, and in particular, the abolition of the Disability Living Allowance Board for Northern Ireland.

The Committee for Social Development agreed that it was not opposed to the abolition of the Board. However, it would wish to highlight the need for the Department for Social Development to continue to receive quality and timely independent expert advice on Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance matters under the new arrangement.

Yours sincerely

David Simpson MLA
Chairperson

Ulster Farmers’ Union

Clarke Black
Chief Executive

25 September 2008

Committee Clerk
Room 404
Parliament Buildings
Belfast BT4 3XX

Dear Sirs,

Public Authority (Reform) Bill – Removal of Agricultural Wages Board

The Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) have already declared our view that the NI Agricultural Wages Board should be removed. However, we wish to use this opportunity to repeat our reasons and reiterate our continued calls for it’s removal.

Principally the UFU has argued that with the National Minimum Wage (NMW) structure already in place throughout the UK, the AWB is an additional layer of red tape and bureaucracy which is unnecessary and our industry could do without it. The AWB impacts on a much wider category of persons than those merely employed within traditional farming practices. Since the Agricultural Wages Board is applicable across the UK, it bears a detrimental financial impact to a wide range of persons and employers.

The NMW applies to all jobs and takes into account the age of the worker and his/her skills. Exceptional allowance was made for agricultural workers to have a higher minimum wage than any other category of worker, although the logic has never been justified. There’s no logical reason why agricultural workers should have a minimum wage higher than any other worker. This was the consistent point made by the UFU and now in 2008, if you refer to the table below, you will be able to see that the gap between the two rates is miniscule, bringing into question again the need for the NI AWB.

NMW Rates

All other Wages Councils (which performed a similar function in certain other industries) were abolished in 1993. For NI agricultural industry to maintain it’s competitive edge, in an increasingly volatile market, with agriculture input prices at all time high, we need to attract the highest caliber workers, which means we must offer good pay and conditions. The National Minimum Wage, the Working Time Directive and a wide-range of other employment laws provide significant protection for employees.

It should be pointed out that the vast majority of farm workers are paid well above the minimum agricultural rates set by the Board.

Agricultural employers are currently providing accommodation for less than cost, and are therefore further subsidising their employees.

The NI AWB currently awards overtime rates of pay for all employees working weekend shifts. This places our industry at a competitive disadvantage compared to other industries. We recognise the need to pay overtime beyond a 39 hour week, but are opposed to being forced to pay overtime rates where an individual only works a Saturday or Sunday.

The UFU calls on the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to consider our calls for the NI AWB to be abolished.

Yours sincerely,

Graham Furey Signature

Graham Furey
President, UFU

Appendix 4

Other Correspondence

The Committee for the Office of the
First Minister and deputy First Minister

Rt. Hon. Peter Robinson MP MLA and
Mr Martin McGuinness MP MLA
Room 8
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX

   

Committee Office Room 404
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX
Tel: (028) 9052 1903
Fax:(028) 9052 1083
Committee.ofmdfm@niassembly.gov.uk

Date: 9 October 2008

Dear First Minister and deputy First Minister

Public Authorities (Reform) Bill

At its meeting on 8 October 2008 the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister discussed the Public Authorities (Reform) Bill during the Committee Stage of the Bill.

The Committee agreed to ask the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to introduce the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board into the Bill.

A response by noon on 7 November 2008 would be appreciated. This is the latest date which will allow the Committee to meet its deadline for the Committee Stage of the Bill.

Yours sincerely

Mr Danny Kennedy
Chairperson, Committee for the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Letter from FM and dFM

Minister for ARD views

The Committee for the Office of the
First Minister and deputy First Minister

Dr William McCrea MP MLA
Chairperson
Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development
c/o Room 284
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Belfast

Committee Office Room 404
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX
Tel: (028) 9052 1448

Fax: (028) 9052 1083
Committee.ofmdfm@niassembly.gov.uk

Date: 13 November 2008

Dear Dr McCrea

Public Authorities (Reform) Bill

At its meeting 8 October 2008, the Committee for the Office of the First and deputy First Minister discussed the Public Authorities (Reform) Bill and agreed to ask the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to introduce the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board into the Bill.

A response from the First Minister and deputy First Minister was received and put before this Committee for consideration on 12 November 2008. The response advised that the First Minister and deputy First Minister would not be including the Agricultural Wages Board as a body to be abolished in the Bill. Members agreed to refer the issue of the Agriculture Wages Board back to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development to decide if they wish to propose an amendment to the Bill at Consideration Stage. The Committee Stage of the Bill was extended to 12 December 2008.

Yours sincerely

Danny Kennedy Signature

Mr Danny Kennedy
Chairperson, Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister

Appendix 5

Research Paper

Research Paper

The Public Authorities
(Reform) Bill 2008

September 2008

This Research Paper provides information in relation to the Public Authorities
(Reform) Bill 2008 and traces the origins of the Bill to the Review of Public Administration.
It also highlights changes that have occurred between the provisions contained in the
proposed Public Authorities Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2007, which went out
to consultation under direct rule and the current Public Authorities (Reform) Bill 2008.

Library Research Papers are compiled for the benefit of Members of The Assembly and their
personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members
and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public.

Summary of Key Points

The Review of Public Administration was launched by the Northern Ireland Executive in June 2002. The final outcome of the review was announced by the Secretary of State in two parts; in November 2005 final decisions on the future of local government, Education and Health and Social Service structures and in March 2006 decisions on the remaining public bodies. The March 2006 announcement contained a proposal to reduce the number of public bodies through abolition or transfer of functions.

Draft primary legislation, Public Authority Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2007 (‘the Draft Order’), contained provisions to reduce the number of public bodies by six. Notably, it also contained provisions designed to change how appointments to public bodies are made by removing the statutory rights of a number of organisations, referred to as ‘nominating bodies’, to have their interests represented on the board of a particular public body. The Draft Order proposed to ‘remove statutory representation obligations and obligations to consult in relation to appointments to a number of public bodies’.

The Public Authorities (Reform) Bill 2008 (‘the Bill’) has two significant differences from the Draft Order. Firstly, provision to abolish the Northern Ireland Housing Council has been withdrawn in the Bill and secondly provisions relating to changes to the existing arrangements for making public appointments have also been withdrawn.

Contents

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Background
3.0 The Public Authorities (Reform) Bill 2008

Transfer of Functions of the Fisheries Conservancy Board
Abolition of the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board for Northern Ireland
Repeal of Primary Legislation

4.0 Public Authorities Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2007 (the Draft Order)

Abolition of the Northern Ireland Housing Council
Appointments to Public Bodies
Industrial Court
Table 1: Comparison of proposals contained in the 2007 Draft Order and the 2008 Bill
Annex A
Executive Agencies: [18]
Executive Public Bodies (excluding Health and Education) [34]
Annex B

1.0 Introduction

This Research Bill Paper provides information relating to the Public Authorities (Reform) Bill 2008 (’the Bill’). The Bill seeks to abolish or make changes to a number of public bodies and its origins lie in the decisions made as part of the Review of Public Administration (RPA) in 2006[1] under direct rule.

Section 2 of the paper provides background to the decisions, from their origins through to a Draft Order in Council 2007 (‘the Draft Order’) which sought to implement the final decisions on the RPA[2].

Section 3 considers the provisions that were contained in the Draft Order.

Section 4 outlines the proposed legislation contained in the Bill and compares this with the provisions that were proposed in the Draft Order.

2.0 Background

The RPA in Northern Ireland was launched by the Northern Ireland Executive in June 2002 but, due to suspension of the devolved Assembly in October 2002, it was taken forward by direct rule Ministers. Extensive research was carried out before an initial public consultation in 2003[3] when 170 written responses[4] showed broad support for a more streamlined and locally based system of public administration. A further consultation was undertaken in 2005[5] resulting in 1032 responses from organisations in the public, private, voluntary and community sector and from private individuals.

The Secretary of State announced final decisions following the RPA in two parts. Decisions on the future of education, health and social structures were announced in November 2005 followed in March 2006[6] by recommendations that included a reduction in the overall number of Executive Agencies[7] and Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs)[8].

The RPA considered all public bodies that were ‘significant in terms of their role, influence, expenditure or staffing without regard to their precise status as a Non-Departmental Public Body, Company Limited by Guarantee, or any of the other legal forms they can take.’ Other than Local Government, Health and Education Bodies, there were 79 significant public bodies (listed in Annex A). This list includes 18 Executive Agencies within government departments. These were not included in the 2005 consultation as there were no strong opinions expressed about Executive Agencies in the 2003 consultation. For the purposes of the review, 61 public bodies were considered and divided into three groups:

  • Executive Public Bodies – wholly, or almost wholly dependent on public funding, run by a board and employing staff. There are 34 in Northern Ireland consisting of Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs), Companies Limited by Guarantee and some other bodies.
  • Advisory Public Bodies – do not spend any public money and employ few if any staff. There are 16 in Northern Ireland and they usually have a board. Their role is to provide advice to Ministers and departments.
  • Tribunals – there are 11 tribunals in Northern Ireland and they perform a judicial role[9].

Annex A of this Bill Paper provides a list of these public bodies and the impact of proposals identified in the RPA further consultation in March 2005.

The first RPA consultation[10] between October 2003 and the end of February 2004 provided an overview of the administration of Northern Ireland with four models for future governance as a basis for discussion. A key theme that emerged from this initial consultation was a broad consensus on the need for fewer public bodies with more collaboration and less fragmentation[11].

The document launching further consultation on the RPA in March 2005[12] stated that there were 79 significant public bodies and 18 Executive Agencies[13] delivering public services in Northern Ireland. Based on the previous consultation in 2003, the 2005 consultation document stated:

There were strong views voiced about the remaining public bodies, also referred to collectively as Quangos. Two options are proposed. The first is that, in the context of strong local government, there should be no public bodies – all functions deemed necessary should be transferred to either central or local government.

An alternative approach, which is recommended, is that all public bodies should be reviewed with a view to transferring some functions to central or local government, achieving a reduction in the number of bodies through mergers and transfers out of the public sector, and improving accountability arrangements of those that remain.

There was an absence of strong views about the future of Executive Agencies, and it is proposed that decisions on their future should best be left to the returning Executive and the Assembly[14].

The 1032 responses to the 2005 RPA further consultation showed that a reduction in the number of public bodies and an enhancement of their accountability was supported across all sectors.

The final outcome of the review was announced by the Secretary of State in two parts: in November 2005 he announced final decisions on the future of local government, Education and Health and Social Service structures; in March 2006 he announced decisions on the remaining public bodies.

In relation to the November 2005 announcements, work is being taken forward in the following ways:

Health and Social Services

In February 2008 the Health Minister Michael McGimpsey launched a full public consultation on his proposals to reform health and social care in Northern Ireland. ‘The Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill’ is currently at Assembly Committee stage and Health and Social Care Reforms are on schedule for April 2009[15].

Local Government

At the 5 July 2007 Executive Committee meeting, proposals for a review of the decisions of the RPA as they relate to local government were agreed, together with proposals for governance of the review, its timeline and key milestones. In a Ministerial statement to the Assembly in March 2008 it was announced that a reform package had been agreed by the Executive for 11 new councils[16].

Education

In July 2007, the Education Minister, Caitríona Ruane, received the support of the Executive to establish an Education and Skills Authority (ESA) by April 2009 at the latest. In addition, the Education Minister is considering the arguments relating to the transfer of youth services to local councils.

The final decisions on the RPA announced in March 2006[17] addressed bodies outside of Health, Social Services, Local Government and Education. The decisions included a reduction in the overall number of public bodies and changes to the existing arrangements for making appointments to the boards of public bodies. In relation to NDPBs[18] or Quangos it stated that:

In order to streamline public administration, clarify accountability, and ensure public services are easily accessible and customer-focused the number of these bodies will go from 81 to 53. This will be achieved, in the main, by merging bodies or transferring complete functions to local government or central government. Many of the remaining bodies will have reduced responsibilities through some of their functions transferring to local government. All of the bodies that remain will be required to work with councils in the community planning process[19].

In addition to the transfer of functions, the following three public bodies were to be abolished: Enterprise Ulster; Agricultural Wages Board; and the Northern Ireland Housing Council. Annex 1 identifies the impact of the decisions announced in March 2006 on those public bodies originally identified in the 2005 consultation document.

Since the decisions were announced in March 2006, there have been significant developments in relation to a number of public bodies, including:

  • Establishment on 1st April 2007 of Land & Property Services as an Executive Agency within the Department of Finance and Personnel for Northern Ireland. The Agency has been established initially from the merger of the former Rate Collection Agency and the Valuation and Lands Agency. This was followed by the addition of Land Registers of Northern Ireland and Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland from 1 April 2008[20].
  • The Public Record Office Northern Ireland, previously an Executive Agency, now operates as part of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure.
  • The Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA), as part of the Review of Public Administration, brings together the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland (DVLNI) and the Driver & Vehicle and Testing Agency (DVTA). This means that a single organisation will now be responsible for licensing and testing vehicles and drivers in Northern Ireland.
  • Creation of the Agri-Food & Biosciences Institute (AFBI) on 1st April 2006 as an amalgamation of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) Science Service and the Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland (ARINI)[21].

The process of reducing numbers and transferring powers from public bodies developed further with the launch by the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) in January 2007, of a consultation exercise on a Proposal for a Draft Order in Council: The Public Authorities Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2007 (‘the Draft Order’)[22]. The closing date for responses to the Draft Order was 20 April 2007[23].

The Draft Order was intended to provide legislation to implement a small number of the final decisions by Peter Hain, then Secretary of State, as part of the RPA and included:

  • Abolition of the Northern Ireland Housing Council;
  • Abolition of the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board for Northern Ireland;
  • Transfer of functions of the Fisheries Conservancy board to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure;
  • Consequential primary legislation repeals in respect of Enterprise Ulster and the Pig Production Development Committee to remove primary legislation in respect of these bodies that is now redundant;
  • Dissolution of the Laganside Corporation which had already been effected as it had achieved its statutory obligation;
  • Removal of statutory representation obligations and obligations to consult in relation to appointments to a number of public bodies; and
  • Regulation making powers for the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) to address the future appointment needs of the Industrial Court and the removal of a statutory obligation to consult in relation to making appointments to the Court and having to provide a Court case manager.

Information relating to the provisions of the Draft Order and the responses to consultation on the proposed legislation are provided in section 3 below. The current Bill is a further development of the proposals contained in the Draft Order.

3.0 The Public Authorities (reform) Bill 2008

The Bill contains 8 clauses and 3 schedules and is designed to reduce the number of public bodies through both abolition and transfer of functions.

Clause 1 provides for the abolition of the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland and the transfer of its powers to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL). Schedule 2.3.-(3) applies the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) to the transfer of the functions of the Fisheries Conservancy Board to DCAL.

The Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance (NIPSA) in its response to the consultation on the draft Order and in talks with the RPA Central Joint Forum argued that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) must apply in any transfer of functions to the Department for Culture, Arts and Leisure[24].

Transfer of Functions of the Fisheries Conservancy Board

The Fisheries Conservancy Board is responsible for the conservation and protection of the salmon and inland fisheries of Northern Ireland other than those which are the responsibility of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. On 5 November 2007 the Assembly approved a motion that legislation to abolish the Fisheries Conservancy Board and transfer its responsibility to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure should be brought forward as a matter of urgency[25]

The response from the Fisheries Conservancy Board to the 2005 Consultation[26] in relation to the absorption of their functions into the Department said that in the view of the Board it would:

….inevitably result in the loss or diminution of stakeholder involvement …

The Board would also have reservations about the compatibility of conservation functions with DCAL’s wider remit. ….The Board would [sic] is of the view that fisheries functions absorbed into the Department would be likely to struggle to achieve priority among the competing priorities of the Department.

The Board acknowledges that there are a number of potential advantages of absorption such as proximity to Ministerial influence, streamlining of decision-making and regulatory process and the integration of functions within a wider government network. However the Board considers that these would be achieved by effecting changes to the functions of the FCB and how it interfaces with the Department without losing the advantages of continued NDPB status[27].

Abolition of the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board for Northern Ireland

Clause 2 of the Bill provides for the abolition of the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board for Northern Ireland.

The role of the Disability Living Allowance Board (DLAAB) is to advise the Department for Social Development on such matters in relation to Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance as it refers to the DLAAB. This includes advice to the Department’s medical officers on specific cases or questions. The Department would continue to have access to independent expert advice in relation to these two important benefits, as legislation will be brought forward to extend the remit of the DLAAB in GB to include provision of advice to the Department for Social Development.

This would provide a single source of advice to both the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in GB and to the Department for Social Development (DSD) in Northern Ireland and bring provision of advice on these allowances into line with the other two statutory bodies in the social security field. It was not anticipated by DSD that there would be any material difference in the quality or timeliness of advice[28].

In response to the consultation document on the Draft Order[29] and the proposal to abolish the Board, the DLAAB did not oppose the abolition, but suggested that:

The ideal arrangement would be to have a seamless transition of functions from DLAAB (NI) to the expanded role of the GB Board. It is accordingly requested that the transfer of functions be considered as part of the process. This would ensure that the Department for Social Development will have a minimum break of continuity of advice from the DLAAB[30].

Repeal of Primary Legislation

Clauses 3 – 5 provide for the repeal of primary legislation in relation to the dissolution of public bodies, namely the Northern Ireland Pig Production Development Committee, Enterprise Ulster and the Laganside Corporation.

Separate subordinate legislation has already been used to wind up the Northern Ireland Pig Production Development Committee and for the dissolution of Enterprise Ulster and the Laganside Corporation.

Clause 6 provides for repeals as set out in schedule 3, clause 7 commencement of the Act and clause 8 the short title which may be cited as the Public Authorities (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2008.

4.0 public authorities reform (northern ireland) order 2007 (the draft order)

The provisions in the Draft Order that were subsequently not included in the Bill are outlined in this section. There is also a table providing an easy reference comparison between the Draft Order and the Bill.

The two most significant differences between the Draft Order and the Bill are the withdrawal in the latter of the provision to abolish the Northern Ireland Housing Council and the withdrawal of provisions relating to changes to the existing arrangements for making public appointments.

Abolition of the Northern Ireland Housing Council

The Northern Ireland Housing Council (‘the Housing Council’) was established in 1971 under the same statute as the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) and has one elected member from each of the 26 District Councils. It represents local government in the development and implementation of housing policies and strategies and four of its members are on the board of NIHE[31].

The proposal in the Draft Order[32] to abolish the Housing Council was strongly opposed by NIHE and the District Councils[33]. In its consultation response to the Draft Order NIHE argued that the Housing Council had played a significant role in:

  • Ensuring political input into the Housing Policy debate;
  • Holding the Housing Executive to account; and
  • Addressing wider housing and planning issues[34].

District Councils argued that the Housing Council was the only democratically elected representation for housing matters in Northern Ireland and that it had provided a ‘monitoring, advisory and consultative service on housing and housing policy’.[35] Also, since as a statutory body it has the power to call the Department for Social Development and NIHE to account[36].

The response to the Draft Order 2007 consultation from the Housing Council itself stated:

The Housing Council has operated successfully for 35 years and under every form of public administration in Northern Ireland during that time. It has already operated within two devolved governments, both of whom recognised the value in having such a body oversee housing in the province. No rational argument has been forthcoming from the Secretary of State or his Ministers as to why the Housing Council is no longer required[37].

The withdrawal of the provision to abolish the Northern Ireland Housing Council has been made following strong opposition in the 2007 consultation and representations from the Social Development Minister to an Executive Sub-Committee established to review the decisions of the RPA as they relate to local government. An interim report from the Executive Sub-Committee states that:

The Northern Ireland Housing Council was earmarked for abolition under the original RPA proposals. However, the Minister for Social Development wants to retain the Council, along with statutory nominating rights to the body, and set it a more challenging remit[38].

Appointments to Public Bodies

Public appointments are made by Ministers or Departments to public bodies which are performing some public function. In March 2006 there were 2070 public appointments held in 107 public bodies in Northern Ireland[39].

Of the 1032 responses to the 2005 RPA consultation[40] with regard to ‘democratic accountability’, the analysis of responses showed:

… there was considerable support from the political parties and local government for the inclusion of elected representatives on all public bodies. This was viewed as key to increasing the accountability of such organisations. There were mixed views from other sectors, including an acknowledgement that elected representatives had a place on boards but should be recruited on the same basis as others.’

The Draft Order 2007 proposals contained legislation for the removal of statutory obligations to consult in relation to appointments to a number of public bodies[41]. In relation to remaining public bodies and the need for clear accountability, the Final Decisions document states that ‘Board members must be chosen solely on the basis of the skills and expertise necessary to do the job’[42].

One District Council in response to the Draft Order consultation stated:

The Council is strongly opposed to the removal of the obligation for statutory representation on certain boards as well as the removal for the need to consult in relation to appointments to certain bodies. This removal is in total contradiction to the original principles of the Review of Public Administration which emphasises the need for strong accountable local government at the heart of the community providing civic leadership now and into the future. The proposed change will result in the absence of democratic accountability in major public services with an un-elected and unaccountable Board being responsible for the governance of major public service functions particularly in Health and Education[43].

During the RPA the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Public Appointments[44] emphasised that:

….the over-arching principle of public appointments is appointment on merit with Board members being fit for purpose and appointed through a process that is open, transparent, fair and equitable. Nominating bodies, including councils, do not normally run an open process to select their nominees and they do not normally have to meet the same “person specification” and criteria as other candidates.

And on the topic of accountability in relation to nominated members of boards:

Ministers are ultimately accountable for public bodies but they have little or no control over the appointment of nominees. Clearly this issue is exacerbated when nominees are not subject to the Commission’s Code, which includes restrictions on re-appointments and a 10-year limit on serving a particular body[45].

The Commissioner also pointed out that Northern Ireland already has a higher proportion of nominated members on boards than in GB.

Provision regarding the removal of statutory representation obligations and obligations to consult in relation to appointments to a number of public bodies has been dropped from the Bill. This has happened in the context of an analysis of responses to the further consultation in 2005 which noted that ‘a reduction in the number of public bodies and an enhancement of their accountability was supported across all the sectors’[46].

Three of the 21 responses to the Draft Order 2007 consultation opposed the removal of statutory representation obligations and obligations to consult in relation to appointments to boards of public bodies. All three came from Councils who argued that elected representatives on the boards of public bodies gave local government input to policy development.

Industrial Court

A public body which would have been affected by the legislation proposed in the Draft Order 2007 was the Industrial Court[47] (‘the Court’). The Court is a Tribunal NDPB with statutory powers. Its main function is to adjudicate on the recognition and de-recognition of trade unions for collective bargaining purposes. It can also determine disclosure of information for collective bargaining in disputes between trade unions and employers.

Members of the Court are appointed by the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) following consultation with the Labour Relations Agency (LRA). The draft Order 2007 proposed regulation making powers for DEL that would make appointments to the Court more flexible in that the Department would no longer have to consult with the LRA and would no longer need to provide a Court case manager to the Court.

The consultation response from the Court[48] concludes that the ‘Court welcomes proposals to allow for the making of regulations on matters of the appointment and functioning of the Court’.

Four consultation responses were opposed to legislation relating to the Court. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions[49], NIPSA[50], Down[51] and Omagh District Council[52] all argued that the statutory obligation for DEL to consult with the LRA on appointments to the Court should be maintained.

Omagh District Council went on to say that its members were ‘strongly opposed to the removal of the obligation for statutory representation on certain boards as well as the need to consult in relation to certain bodies’. It argues that this goes against the original principles of the RPA which emphasised the need for strong, accountable local government.

Comparison of the Draft Order (2007) and the Bill (2008)

Table 1 below provides a quick reference guide to enable comparison between the proposals contained in the Draft Order 2007 and those contained in the Bill.

Table 1: Comparison of proposals contained in the 2007 Draft Order and the 2008 Bill

The Public Authorities Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2007 (‘the Draft Order’)

Public Authorities (Reform) Bill
(‘the proposed Bill’)

Proposals

Abolition of the Northern Ireland Housing Council.

Withdrawn: Having considered responses to the consultation it was decided not to abolish the Northern Ireland Housing Council.

Abolition of Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board for Northern Ireland.

Retained: Following consultation it was decided to retain the proposed provisions to abolish the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board for Northern Ireland in the Bill.

Transfer of functions of the Fisheries Conservancy Board to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure.

Retained: On 5 November 2007 the Assembly approved a motion that the proposed legislation to abolish the Fisheries Conservancy Board and transfer its responsibility to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure should be brought forward as a matter of urgency. This legislation is contained in the Bill.

Repeals of primary legislation to allow winding up orders to take effect for the Northern Ireland Pig Production Development Committee and Enterprise Ulster. It was possible to implement the RPA decisions in relation to the Pig Production Development Committee and Enterprise Ulster by separate subordinate legislation.

Retained: The repeals contained in the Bill refer to primary legislation that is no longer relevant relating to those organisations.

The dissolution of the Laganside Corporation was not included in the final decisions on the RPA53. The Corporation had already been dissolved by subordinate legislation as it had achieved its statutory remit.

Retained: Repeal of statutory provisions relating to the Laganside Corporation.

Changes to existing arrangements for making appointments to the boards of public bodies. This included removal of statutory representation obligations where appointments were to be based on merit rather than a position held in another organisation. Also the removal of obligations to consult in relation to a number of public bodies54.

Withdrawn: As a result of the consultation and the review by the Executive Sub-Committee it was decided to withdraw the proposed changes to the existing arrangements for making public appointments.

The Order provided a proposal for regulation making powers for the Department for Employment and Learning to address the future needs of the Industrial Court3. It also proposed to remove the statutory obligation to consult with the Labour Relations Agency in relation to making appointments to the Court.

No longer relevant: Changes to existing arrangements for making appointments to the boards of public bodies has been withdrawn (see above).

[53][54]

Annex. A

Impact on Public Bodies outside Health, Social Services Education, Social Services, and Local Government identified in ‘The Review of Public Administration Further Consultation’ March 2005

Executive Agencies: [18]

Executive Agencies: [18]

Impacted

Impact

Forest Service (DARD)

No

subject to review of environmental governance

Rivers Agency (DARD)

Yes

Functions transferring to new Environment Agency – subject to the outcome of the review of environmental governance

Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (DCAL)

Yes

De-agentise, incorporate into Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure

Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland (DCAL)

Yes

Functions transferring to Land and Property Services Agency

Environment and Heritage Service (DOE)

Yes

Functions transferring to new Environment Agency – subject to the outcome of the review of environmental governance

Planning Service (DOE)

Yes

Functions to pass to local government

Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency (DOE)

Yes

Merge into a single Driver and Vehicle Agency

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DOE)

Yes

Merge into a single Driver and Vehicle Agency

Business Development Service (DFP)

Yes

Functions transferring to Department of Finance and Personnel

Valuation and Lands Agency (DFP)

Yes

Functions transferring to Land and Property Services Agency

Rate Collection Agency (DFP)

Yes

Functions transferring to Land and Property Services Agency

Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (DFP)

No

 

Land Registers of Northern Ireland (DFP)

Yes

Functions transferring to Land and Property Services Agency

Health and Social Services Estates Agency DHSSPS)

Yes

Transfer functions into new HSS structures

Water Service (DRD)*

   

Roads Service (DRD)

Yes

Local Roads functions to pass to Local Government

Child Support Agency (DSD)

No

 

Social Security Agency (DSD)

No

 

* New arrangements for the delivery of water and sewerage services came into operation on 1 April 2007. The Water and Sewerage Services (NI) Order 2006 came into effect providing for an “undertaker” to run the services. A company - Northern Ireland Water - has been appointed as sole water and sewerage undertaker for Northern Ireland. The company is 100% owned by the Government (through DRD). It takes over from the Department’s Water Service Agency from 1 April 2007. The land, assets and staff of the Water Service Agency transferred to the company on 1 April.

Executive Public Bodies (excluding Health and Education) [34]

Executive Public Bodies (excluding Health and Education) [34]

Impacted

Impact

Agricultural Research Institute for Northern Ireland -

Yes

Functions transferring to new Agri-food Biosciences Institute

Livestock and Meat Commission for Northern Ireland

Yes

Incorporate the functions of the Pig Production Development Committee

Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority

Yes

Functions transferring to local government

Pig Production Development Committee

Yes

Functions transferring to Livestock & Meat Commission

Rural Development Council

Yes

Functions transferring to local government and policy role to central government

Agricultural Wages Board for Northern Ireland

Yes

Abolish

Fisheries Conservancy Board

Yes

Functions transferring to Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure

Northern Ireland Museums Council

Yes

Functions transferring to local and central government

Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland

No

 

Arts Council of Northern Ireland

Yes

Some funding to transfer to local government

Northern Ireland Film and Television Commission

No

 

Sports Council for Northern Ireland

Yes

Some funding to become responsibility of local government

Northern Ireland Events Company

Yes

Functions transferring to NI Tourist Board

Enterprise Ulster

Yes

Abolish

Ulster Supported Employment Limited

No

 

Construction Industry Training Board

Yes

Amalgamate with Construction Skills Sector Skills Council

Labour Relations Agency

No

 

General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland

No

 

Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland

No

 

Northern Ireland Tourist Board

Yes

To incorporate the NI Events Company and local tourism functions transferring to local government

Invest Northern Ireland

Yes

Local economic development functions transferring to local government

Fire Authority for Northern Ireland

Yes

Transfer to local government as a shared operational service

Northern Ireland Local Government Officers’ Superannuation

No

 

Local Government Staff Commission

Yes

Staff Functions transferring to local government when new councils are established

Northern Ireland transport Holding Company

No

 

Trust Ports of Belfast, Coleraine, Londonderry and Warrenpoint

No

 

Laganside Corporation**

   

Northern Ireland Housing Executive

Yes

A range of non-core functions will transfer to local government

ILEX

No

 

Registered Housing Associations

   

Equality Commission for Northern Ireland

No

 

Strategic Investment Board

No

 

Economic Research Institute for Northern Ireland

No

 

NI Commissioner for Children and Young People

No

 

** Dissolved April 2007 at end of natural life.

Advisory Public Bodies (excluding Health and Education) [16]

Impacted

Impact

Drainage Council

Yes

Functions transferring to new Environment Agency – subject to the outcome of the review of environmental governance

Northern Ireland Higher Education Council

No

 

Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside

Yes

Functions transferring to new Environment Agency – subject to the outcome of the review of environmental governance

Historic Buildings Council

Yes

Functions transferring to new Environment Agency – subject to the outcome of the review of environmental governance

Historic Monuments Council

Yes

Functions transferring to new Environment Agency – subject to the outcome of the review of environmental governance

Waste Management Advisory Board

   

Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee

No

 

Lay Observer

No

 

Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland

No

 

Statistics Advisory Committee

No

 

Northern Ireland Water Council

   

Charities Advisory Committee

No

 

Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board

Yes

Functions will transfer to the equivalent Board in Great Britain, whose remit will be extended

Planning Appeals Commission*** (PAC)/Water Appeals Commission (WAC)

   

Statute Law Committee for Northern Ireland

No

 

Advisory Council on Infrastructure Investment

No

 

*** Also included under Tribunals

Tribunals [11]

Yes

Combined Tribunal Administration Service under NI Court Service. Planning Appeals Commission to remain as a Tribunal.

Special Education Needs tribunal (DE)

   

Northern Ireland Industrial Court (DEL)

   

Fair Employment Tribunals (DEL)

   

Office of Industrial Tribunals (DEL)

   

Registered Homes Tribunal (DHSSPS)

   

Mental Health Review Tribunal (DHSSPS)

   

Tribunal under Schedule II to the HPSS Order 1972 (DHSSPS)

   

Rent Assessment Panel (DSD)

   

Office of the President of Appeals Tribunals (DSD)

   

Planning Appeals Commission (OFMDFM)

   

Water Appeals Commission (OFMDFM)

   

Sources:
The Review of Public Administration in Northern Ireland: Further Consultation (March 2005)
http://www.rpani.gov.uk/2005_consultation_doc.pdf
Better Government for Northern Ireland – Final Decisions of the Review of Public Administration (March 2006)
http://www.rpani.gov.uk/index/rpa-reviewresearch-decisions/final-announcements/21-march-2006.htm

Annex B

Number of Public Bodies by Department at 31 March 2007

Department

Executive

NDPB

Advisory

NDPB

Tribunal

NDPB

Health and Personal Social Services Bodies

Public Corporations

Other

Department for Employment and Learning

3

 

3

     

Department for Regional Development

       

2

 

Department for Social Development

2

3

1

   

1

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

5

2

       

Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure

5

         

Department of Education

9

         

Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment

4

         

Department of Finance and Personnel

 

4

       

Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety

5

2

1

14

 

2

Department of the Environment

2

3

       

Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister

4

2

2

     

Total

39

16

7

14

2

3

Source:
‘Northern Ireland Public Bodies 2007’ available on DFP website at:
http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/public_bodies_2007.pdf

[1] Better Government for Northern Ireland: Final Decisions of the Review of Public Administration (March 2006) http://www.rpani.gov.uk/bettergovernment_doc-_final_decisions.pdf

[2] Consultation on ‘The Public Authorities Reform (Northern Ireland) Order’ 2007.
http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/consultation_on_draft_primary_legislation.pdf

[3] The Review of Public Administration in Northern Ireland (2003) available at: http://www.rpani.gov.uk/consult2003_doc.pdf

[4] An analysis of the written responses is available at:
http://www.rpani.gov.uk/index/rpa-reviewresearch-decisions/consultation

[5] ‘The Review of Public Administration in Northern Ireland: Further Consultation’ (March 2005) available at: http://www.rpani.gov.uk/2005_consultation_doc.pdf

[6] ‘Better Government for Northern Ireland: Final Decisions of the Review of Public Administration’ (March 2006)

[7] Executive Agencies are part of government departments, but set up separately to deliver services directly e.g. Social Security Agency and Driver Vehicle Licensing Authority.

[8] Non-Departmental Public Bodies, often referred to as Quangos (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations), operate at arms length from government and are run by boards who are appointed through the public appointments process.

[9] ‘The Review of Public Administration in Northern Ireland: Further Consultation’ (March 2005) (pp 95/96)

[10] The Review of Public Administration in Northern Ireland (2003).

[11] Review of Public Administration Implementation 2003 Analysis of responses to Consultation October 2003 – February 2004 available at:
http://www.rpani.gov.uk/index/rpa-reviewresearch-decisions/consultation

[12] The Review of Public Administration in Northern Ireland: Further Consultation (March 2005).

[13] Executive Agencies are part of government departments, but are set up separately to deliver services directly, for example the Social Security Agency and Driver Vehicle Testing Agency.

[14] The Review of Public Administration in Northern Ireland: Further Consultation (March 2005) (p7)

[15] Review of Public Administration Implementation website at: http://www.rpani.gov.uk/

[16] Official Report for 31 March 2008 available on NI Assembly website at: http://archive.niassembly.gov.uk/record/reports2007/080331.htm#2

[17] ‘Better Government for Northern Ireland: Final Decisions of the Review of Public Administration’ (March 2006).

[18] Non-Departmental Public Bodies for example the Equality Commission.

[19] ‘Better Government for Northern Ireland: Final Decisions of the Review of Public Administration’ (March 2006) (pp 14/15).

[20] http://www.lpsni.gov.uk/splash.htm/

[21] http://www.afbini.gov.uk/index/about-us.htm

[22] Consultation on Draft Primary Legislation: Proposal for a Draft Order in Council: The Public Authorities Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2007 available at: http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/consultation_on_draft_primary_legislation.pdf

[23] Consultation responses on proposal for a Draft Public Authorities Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2007 are available at: http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/index/making-government-work/legislation.htm

[24] The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. Explanation available on CIPD website at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/emplaw/tupe/tupe.htm

[25] The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. Explanation available on CIPD website at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/emplaw/tupe/tupe.htm

[26] RPA 2005 consultation responses: http://www.rpani.gov.uk/index/rpa-reviewresearch decisions/consultation/consultation_2005/2005_consultation_responses.htm

[27] Fisheries Conservancy Board RPA 2005 consultation response available at: http://www.rpani.gov.uk/fisheries_conservancy_board-2.pdf

[28] The Public Authorities (Reform) Bill Explanatory and Financial Memorandum.

[29] http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/consultation_on_draft_primary_legislation.pdf

[30] http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/disability-living-allowance-advisory-board.pdf

[31] Northern Ireland Housing Council consultation response to Draft Order available at: http://www.rpani.gov.uk/the_northern_ireland_housing_council-2.pdf

[32] Consultation on ‘The Public Authorities Reform (Northern Ireland) Order’ 2007

[33] Consultation responses on proposal for a Draft Public Authorities Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2007 are available at: http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/index/making-government-work/legislation.htm

[34] NIHE’s consultation response to Draft Order available at:
http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/northern-ireland-housing-executive.pdf

[35] Ards Borough Council Draft Order consultation response available at: http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/ards_borough_council.pdf

[36] As above

[37] Northern Ireland Housing Council response to the Draft Order 2007 consultation (para. 2.2).

[38] Emerging Findings of the Executive Sub-Committee are available on the DOE website at:
http://www.doeni.gov.uk/index/local_government/emerging_findings.htm

[39] Briefing Paper NI Assembly Research Service ‘The Commissioners for Public Appointments throughout the United Kingdom’ 1 October 2007 by Carol Doherty, Research Officer.

[40] The Review of Public Administration in Northern Ireland: Further Consultation (March 2005).

[41] Consultation on ‘The Public Authorities Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2007.

[42] ‘Better Government for Northern Ireland: Final Decisions of the Review of Public Administration’ March 2006 (p15).

[43] Omagh District Council Consultation response available on OFMDFM website at:
http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/execsec.pdf

[44] Dame Rennie Fritchie.

[45] The Review of Public Administration in Northern Ireland: Further Consultation (March 2005).

[46] Consultation responses for 2005 consultation at: http://www.rpani.gov.uk/analysis_of_rpa_2005_consult_responses.pdf

[47] Industrial Court website at: http://www.industrialcourt.gov.uk/

[48] http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/industrial-court-for-northern-ireland.pdf

[49] ICTU response to 2007 Draft Order consultation http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/index/making-government-work/legislation/irish-congress-of-trade-unions-northern-ireland-committee.htm

[50] NIPSA response to 2007 Draft Order consultation http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/nipsa-3.pdf

[51] Down District Council response to 2007 Draft Order consultation http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/down-district-council.pdf

[52] Omagh District Council response to 2007 Draft Order consultation http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/nipsa-3.pdf

[53] ‘Better Government for Northern Ireland: Final Decisions of the Review of Public Administration’ March 2006: http://www.rpani.gov.uk/bettergovernment_doc-_final_decisions.pdf

[54] Provisions relate to: The Arts Council; The Certification Officer for Northern Ireland; The Drainage Council; The Industrial Court; An industrial training board; The Labour Relations Agency; The Board of Trustees of the National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland; The Sports Council for Northern Ireland; The Governing Body of Stranmillis University College.

Appendix 6

List of Witnesses

List of Witnesses

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Mr Peter Toner

Department for Social Development Mr John O’Neill

Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister Mr Neil Jackson
Mr Jim Hamilton