Session 2007/2008

First Report

Committee on Procedures

Report on
Committee Systems
and Structures

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

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

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

Committee on Procedures
Membership and Powers

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

The Committee has the power to:

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

The Committee first met on 16 May 2007.

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

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

Table of Contents

Report

Executive Summary

Summary of Recommendations

Introduction

Consideration of Key Issues

Appendix 1:

Minutes of Proceedings

Appendix 2:

Minutes of Evidence

Appendix 3:

Written Submissions

Appendix 4:

Research Papers

Appendix 5:

Party Position Papers

Appendix 6:

Correspondence and Other Papers

Executive Summary

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

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

Membership of Assembly committees.

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

Use of substitutes

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

Use of rapporteurs

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

Days and Times of Committee meetings

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

Quorum

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

Voting.

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

Joint committees.

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

Summary of Recommendations

Recommendation 1

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

Recommendation 2

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Consideration of Key Issues

Key issue one The membership of Assembly committees

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

Table 1 Northern Ireland Assembly Committee Membership

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

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

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

Table 2 - Number of Members sitting on Multiple Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

And later in the same evidence session:

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

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

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

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

Table 3:- Party Membership on all Statutory Committees

Table 4:- Party Membership on all Standing Committees

Table 5:- Party Membership on a single committee

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

Key issue two the use of substitutes in Assembly committees

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

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

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

Key issue three use of rapporteurs in Assembly committees

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

Key issue four days and times of Committee meetings

The days on which Assembly Committees should meet

48. Assembly Standing Order 44(3) allows that:

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

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

Table 6 The Days and Times of Assembly Committee Meetings

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

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

Timing of Committee meetings

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

Key Issue five quorum

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

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

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

Key issue six voting in committees

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

Key issue seven joint committees

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

Rule 6.14 Joint consideration by committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [5] Prof Rick Wilford.

Appendix 1

Minutes of Proceedings

Wednesday 30 May 2007
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

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

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

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

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

1. Potential Inquiries

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

Wednesday 13 June 2007
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

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

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

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

1. Terms of Reference for Inquiries

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

Action: Clerk

Wednesday 27 June 2007
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday 3 October 2007
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

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

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

Apologies: Mr David McClarty

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

10. Correspondence

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

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

Wednesday 17 October 2007
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

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

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

Apologies: Lord Browne
Mr Adrian McQuillan

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

5. Committee Systems and Structures

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

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

Wednesday 14 November 2007
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

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

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

Apologies: Mr Adrian McQuillan
Mr Declan OLoan

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

5. Committee Systems and Structures

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

2.10 p.m. Mr Willie Clarke arrived.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Millar for his informative briefing.

Wednesday 12 December 2007
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

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

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

Apologies: Lord Morrow (Chairperson)
Lord Browne

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

Deputy Chairperson in the Chair.

5. Committee Systems and Structures

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

2.22 p.m. Mr Ken Robinson arrived.

A question and answer session ensued.

The Deputy Chairperson thanked Professor Wilford for his informative briefing.

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

The Deputy Chairperson thanked Ms Galbraith for her presentation.

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

Wednesday 9 January 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

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

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

Apologies: Mr Francie Brolly

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

5. Committee Systems and Structures

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

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

Wednesday 23 January 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

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

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

Apologies: Raymond McCartney

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

Committee Systems and Structures Consideration of Issues

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

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

8. Any Other Business

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

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

Wednesday 2 April 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

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

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

Apologies: Mr Ken Robinson
Mr David McClarty
Mr Sean Neeson

The meeting opened at 2.09pm in public session.

1. Committee Systems and Structures

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

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

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

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

Wednesday 16 April 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

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

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

Apologies: Mr Sean Neeson
Mr Willie Clarke

The meeting opened at 2.03pm in public session.

1. Committee Systems and Structures

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

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

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

The Committee noted the verbal response of UUP.

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

3.29pm Mr Declan OLoan left the meeting.

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

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

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

Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

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

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

Apologies: Mr David McClarty

The meeting opened at 2.04pm in public session.

8. Draft report on Committee Systems and Structures.

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

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

Introduction

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

2.26pm Mr Storey left the meeting.

Consideration of Key Issues.

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

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

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 2.56pm.

Wednesday, 14 May 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

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

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

Apologies: Mr Ken Robinson
Mr Sean Neeson

The meeting opened at 2.03pm in public session.

10. Report on Committee Systems and Structures

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

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

Agreed: The Committee ordered the report to be printed.

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

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

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 3.02 pm.

Appendix 2

Minutes of Evidence

14 November 2007

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

Witnesses:

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

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

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

12 December 2007

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

Witness:

103. The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Storey): We are glad to have with us Professor Rick Wilford from Queens University Belfast. Members should have a copy of his written submission; I also ask members to take note of the secretariat paper.
104. Professor Wilford, you are welcome to the Committee. We appreciate the work that you have done and your interesting paper. I will ask you to speak about that, after which members will ask questions.
105. Professor Rick Wilford (School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy, Queens University Belfast): Thank you for inviting me. I was not sure exactly what you wanted, so the paper that I have submitted is a summary review of the work in which I and a number of other colleagues have been engaged regarding the first mandate of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the operation of the Committee system in particular.
106. I have been involved in the Northern Ireland devolution monitoring project since 1999. In addition, my paper includes discussions that I have had with former Committee Chairpersons, and gauging their experiences of what worked, and what did not work. I have tried to collate, compile and compress quite a lot of information in the paper, and I am content for you to ask me questions based on my submission.
107. The Deputy Chairperson: I shall start by asking a question that is relevant to an issue in your paper and is also relevant to all Members and to this Committee in particular. To be a member of more than one Committee not only creates huge pressure on MLAs time but has a negative impact in the sense that it does not allow one to concentrate on, and become expert in, the work carried out by a Committee.
108. From what you have seen of the previous Administration, what has been the experience to date of the shortfall that is caused by a doubling, trebling or quadrupling of membership? I sit on three Committees, of which I am Deputy Chairperson of two, which puts a considerable pressure on a working week at the Assembly.
109. Professor Wilford: Indeed it does, Mr Storey. In that respect, I am probably pushing at an open door. I am sure that members will appreciate that the large remit of Statutory Committees is difficult in itself, and if one is serving on more than one Statutory Committee, one may be stretched in many ways. There are ways in which the labour may be divided more effectively and efficiently. Multiple Committee membership is not a good idea in principle, and it rarely happens in the Scottish Parliament. You are constrained by Standing Orders that stipulate that every MLA must be offered at least one seat on a Committee, and each Statutory Committee must have 11 members, and they must be filled.
110. In my experience of talking to former Committee members, and former Committee Chairpersons in particular, they felt that if they sat on a Committee other than the one that they chaired, they were there to make up the numbers and to fill the party quota. They focused most of their attention on the workload of the Committee that they chaired, and everything else took a poor second or third place. In principle, multiple membership is not a good idea, and lessons could be learned from the Scottish Parliament, where it is a rare occurrence.
111. Mr Neeson: I agree entirely with you. I sit on three Committees, including the Assembly Commission, and I am the Chairperson of an Ad Hoc Committee; therefore, as well as sitting days, I am in Stormont on Wednesdays and Thursdays, and that puts certain constraints on what I can do in my constituency. There appears to be certainty about this Assembly, and the one thing that we are trying to achieve through work on the Assembly Commission is greater outreach in order to involve the community in the workings of the Assembly, and create a sense of ownership. Do you have any suggestions as to how that can be done?
112. Professor Wilford: I have a number of suggestions. I had a glancing relationship with the Assembly Commission when George Reid was working on a capability review of the Assembly. I met him, and I know that outreach to the community was very much on his agenda. I have a few suggestions as to how that could be achieved.
113. I was struck by how sedentary the Committees were from 1999 to 2002. The bulk of Committee meetings were held in Parliament Buildings, and, by comparison, very few were held off site. There are different ways of holding meetings off site. It is difficult, logistically, for Committee members to up sticks and go off to hold an evidence session elsewhere in the Province.
114. That leads me to another area on which I have strong feelings. It is odd that Statutory Committees, in particular, are reluctant to establish subcommittees. Committees could usefully deploy the subcommittee system, which you are permitted to organise and set up. Subcommittees could go off on field trips on behalf of the parent Committee. There would be no need for Committee members to be apprehensive, because subcommittees cannot make any decisions; they would merely refer back to the parent Committee. A willingness to be more peripatetic is one suggestion towards achieving greater outreach to the community.
115. The style of Committee activity is orthodox. Committees hold evidence-gathering sessions, summon witnesses to Parliament Buildings and - provided there is a quorum - proceed with their meetings. I understand that many people like to come to Parliament Buildings to give evidence for the sheer experience, but there is room for experimentation. In fact, the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment experimented with conferencing in Omagh and Coleraine during its tourism inquiry. That enabled the Committee to bring in more people than it could during an evidence session at Parliament Buildings. That is another means by which you could begin to practise outreach.
116. Subcommittees, rapporteurs and conferencing are devices that could be deployed to stimulate greater public interest in the operation of the legislative institution. The Assembly is an important body. I know that the Assembly Commission is keen to promote outreach, and the Committees have a role to play in creating that outreach. Committees could contribute to embedding the Parliament within the psyche of the population.
117. Mr Neeson: I was the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment during the first mandate, and that Committee did get out and about. I feel strongly that there are too many Departments, and there are areas of interest that involve various Committees. Do you subscribe to the idea of joint meetings of Committees?
118. Professor Wilford: There were some such meetings in the first mandate, but not many. Standing Orders encourage Committees to communicate with other Committees that have an interest in a particular policy area or piece of legislation. Committees are encouraged to copy papers to other Committees with which they share mutual interests and keep them up to speed with how an inquiry, or scrutiny of legislation, is progressing. Why not have joint subcommittees rather than joint Committees? During the first mandate, the reluctance among parties to make use of the provision for subcommittees was, I suspect, related to the issue of trust.
119. I hope that you are right when you say that the political institutions are bedding down and that they are stable and robust. Perhaps, this time in the second, and current, functioning mandate there will be a greater readiness and preparedness to engage in subcommittee work. It would not be desirable for two entire Statutory Committees to meet together. Perhaps two members from the parent Committees would be more appropriate when conducting an inquiry. My preference would be for joint subcommittees, whereby the quorum could be reduced. A subcommittee of that size should be, logistically, rather more manageable, particularly if it were willing to go out and about to gather evidence in whatever form was preferred.
120. Mr McQuillan: How does the Scottish Parliament get around the one-committee model?
121. Professor Wilford: Do you mean how does it travel around?
122. Mr McQuillan: No. How would we get around Standing Orders if each member sits on only one Committee?
123. Professor Wilford: There is no requirement in the Scottish Parliament for MSPs to sit on committees. That is different from this Assembly. However, committees in Scotland can have up to 15 members. What is interesting about the Scottish committees is that, on average, they are only eight-strong. As you know, the Scottish Parliament has more powers than the Northern Ireland Assembly - in theory, anyway. However, we are dealing with like bodies. Why does the Northern Ireland Assembly need 11-member Committees when the Scottish Parliament can manage with eight-member committees? The answer is that the Scottish Parliament is not required to offer every MSP a seat on a committee.
124. Mr OLoan: There seems to be a logjam at the Northern Ireland Assembly that is caused by rules, regulations and the number of Departments; it will take some time to resolve those matters. You have said that the Scottish parliamentary model is the most comparable to that of the Northern Ireland Assembly. When the Committee visited the Scottish Parliament, members were impressed by many aspects, such as the functions of the plenary Parliament and the committee system. The committees seemed to be tighter - with fewer members - and were more focused and effective in their output. Would that be your general assessment?
125. Professor Wilford: I have read the secretariats report on the effectiveness of Committees during the first mandate of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I take that with a bit of a pinch of salt, because it is a series of quantitative measures. One can certainly say, for example, that amendments to Bills that were put down by Committees were much more successful than amendments that were tabled by individual Members. That is an example of a way in which success can be measured.
126. I am more concerned with the quality of reports and the work that Committees do. I have an anxiety that Statutory Committees are asked to do too much, because their remits are so expansive. I think that they find that the pressure of managing their workloads is quite difficult. I have some sympathy about the way in which it is managed. That is why I suggest that administrative devices could be used in order to spread the workload by, for example, having subcommittees or rapporteurs.
127. A rapporteur is a Committee member who will talk to potential witnesses, or other MLAs, and report back to the Committee. He or she does not have a particular mandate to make decisions but is there simply as a fact-gatherer or information-gatherer. There are administrative ways and means by which the load can be lightened, or labour can be divided up more equitably, more effectively and, perhaps, more efficiently.
128. When I was doing some work in the 1980s on the territorial Committees in the House of Commons - and subsequently on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee - I found that committees, when they start to work, tend to go for rather lengthy inquiries. I can understand the psychology of that, because new members want to bed themselves in. They want to get to know one another and develop some kind of esprit within the committee itself. However, that is not an efficient use of a committees time. My view is that a committee would be better served - and, perhaps, returning to Mr Neesons point - and would contribute to making a greater public impact by choosing topics for inquiry quite selectively, which would be short, time-limited and could be delegated to a subcommittee.
129. I am a great fan of parliamentary committees. In a sense, they are the efficient open secret of Parliaments, and they do not do themselves justice collectively about the work that they do and the effects that they can exert on legislation, policy or draft Budget proposals. Perhaps members are not doing themselves justice because they feel so constrained and encumbered by the workload and by the rather stilted way in which they have chosen, or been forced, to operate.
130. Mr OLoan: Some of the Committees outputs are very good and very important. Substantial reports are produced, but we cannot expect the public to relate to them. We must think hard about outreach and how we get messages out, and perhaps we should think about a different form of publication for reports.
131. Professor Wilford: I agree with that. There should be timely press releases. I do not want to overburden Committee Clerks or staff, but perhaps there is a case for Committees making a more concerted public-relations effort.
132. The Deputy Chairperson: An interesting comment was made this morning when the Committee was finalising its report for the Department of Finance and Personnel on the draft Budget. The Committee Clerk said that the executive summary would be put at the front, with the main recommendations in bold type, because it helps the media to pick up on key points. The focus was - rightly - on getting the message out via the media. However, Declans point was about reaching the wider public. Many Committees produce an immense volume of work, and the question is how that is transmitted to the public in a way in which people can relate to and which will allow them to see exactly what this place is achieving.
133. Professor Wilford: That point came up in relation to George Reids capability review. I have made the point to the Assembly Commission and others that the Assemblys website really must be overhauled. It is pretty outdated -
134. The Deputy Chairperson: It is not as bad as Ballymoney Borough Councils website. I can say that because I am on the council.
135. Professor Wilford: I believe that it was the First Minister who captured the attention of journalists in Northern Ireland by describing them as rather lazy. Journalists tend to go straight to executive summaries and recommendations. However, Committees have the power to make their own discrete impact. That relies, among other things, on a Committees ability to maintain a consensus on whatever inquiry or report it is producing. It does not help to have a minority report published alongside a majority report. That would be good copy for the journalists, because they can point to a divided Committee.
136. Equally, if a Minister is confronted by a divided Committee, it is a boon, because he or she can simply say that, as the Committee cannot agree on the issue, he or she will take whatever decisions he or she wishes. There is a premium on consensus, and that might constrain the Committee in what it might like to include in a report.
137. Consensus or unanimity on a Committee is a great resource, particularly when trying to influence policy or legislation. If the Committee can agree on its recommendations, it is a powerful weapon in the armoury of the entire Assembly.
138. Mr W Clarke: You are very welcome. I agree with your proposals for joint subcommittees. I can think of a couple of pieces of work that could be handled in that way. One is the proposal for a national park, which comes under the remit of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee for the Environment. It is important that both Committees have equal input into that matter. I am a member of the Committee for Regional Development, which is considering traffic management and the review of traffic speeds. That is also a big job of work for the Committee for the Environment. Both Committees should work together on that issue, and they could save money in the long run.
139. I want to tease out the point about substitutes and how they might be used. From the Committees experiences in Scotland, there is more likelihood of better attendance with lower quorums. However, it might be useful to have a substitute system for Committees with a high quorum, especially for members who sit on several Committees. I was a member of five Committees, but now I sit on only four. In fact, I was lucky that todays meeting of the Committee on Standards and Privileges ran short; otherwise I would have been unable to attend this Committee meeting. Therefore, it would be useful to have a dedicated substitute.
140. Professor Wilford: It would be useful. You are clearly a man of many talents, Mr Clarke, to be capable of sitting on four Committees. Joined-up scrutiny is smart scrutiny, because one can pool expertise and make the process of putting together a report much more efficient. I agree with you there.
141. A substitute system simply does what is says on the tin. If members are unable to attend a meeting for whatever reason, a named substitute from their party could attend in their place. In theory, that would reduce the total number of Committee members. If there was no longer an obligation to offer every MLA a Committee place as of right, that could be tempered by offering them a Committee place or a place as a substitute. In that way, the labour could be divvied up within the party grouping, so that if members were unable to attend, they would simply have someone come in their stead. It would not be Bugginss turn; the substitute would have to be committed and up to speed on the subject of the inquiry. There is a risk that some colleagues might regard substitution as simply making up the numbers, which would not be the case. The substitute should be someone who has an interest in the particular remit of a Committee, has some experience and could be drafted in when necessary.
142. More radically, there could simply be a rotation system, whereby, over the life of an Assembly, half the eligible members could sit on Committees for two years and the other half take over for the following two years. That is a more radical proposal than the substitute one, and there could be some resistance to it.
143. Mr Neeson made a point about the number of Departments. I have my own views about that, which I will not articulate today. However, if there is a move to there being fewer members on each Committee, members will have to contemplate carefully the effect that that might have on the smaller parties in the Assembly. Again, it is a matter of trust. Perhaps you should be guided by expertise, experience or interest rather than working on a strict numeric proportional basis, where the risk of appearing to simply make up numbers is enhanced.
144. Mr Brolly: Rapporteurs would be much better from the point of view of saving members time. If someone sits on a subcommittee, he or she must remain part of the full Committee; therefore, he or she will spend a greater amount of time on it. What you have said relates to how members could better use their time, minimise wasted time or time that could be saved for something else. Where expertise and party representation is concerned, if there were a subcommittee, there should be representation from each party, whereas if we chose a member of this Committee as our rapporteur, it would be a universal choice. Therefore, such an issue would not arise.
145. Professor Wilford: That is true, but we must bear in mind that the rules relating to subcommittees are that the membership should reflect the balance as far as is practicable, which is a looser formulation than for membership of Statutory Committees. There is a stronger steer towards each Committee having proportional membership. Therefore, there is no requirement to feel overly constrained about the party composition of subcommittees.
146. Mr Brolly: How many members should there be on a subcommittee? If there were four, that would mean a member for each of the four main parties.
147. Professor Wilford: Would that necessarily be so? As I said earlier, during the first mandate, a lack of inter-party trust bedevilled Committees. However, I hope that we are over that particular hump.
148. Committee make-up does not need to be as formulaic as you suggest. You might opt for three or four members, but let us stick with four. The Standing Order states: as far as is practicable. If there is trust and mutual confidence, and Committee members are reassured that a subcommittee cannot make a decision, there is no reason that the subcommittee cannot take evidence, pursue a particular inquiry and report back to the full Committee. In such circumstances, there is no reason to overly constrain subcommittees - we should not be too anal about such matters. The rules allow flexibility in the membership of subcommittees. I would prefer it if a subcommittee were composed of members with a special interest in a particular aspect of an inquiry rather than being there simply to reflect the Assemblys party balance.
149. Rapporteurs are used extensively in the regional network of the European Parliament and in the UN, and their role is, in effect, that of a reporter. They are individuals who are tasked by a committee to, perhaps, ferret out information on a particular subject or talk to potential oral-session witnesses, and then report back to the committee. Their role is similar to that of a platoon leader - gathering information and reporting back to the committee. That would be an efficient method for the Assembly; however, a rapporteur would not be a substitute for a subcommittee, which would be tasked to do something else, such as, for instance, taking initial soundings for the Committee Stage of a Bill or for some aspect of a particular inquiry.
150. The purpose of the ideas that I have suggested is to allow members to explore administrative techniques that might be used in order to divide up labour and unburden Committees. Rapporteurs, subcommittees and Committees can undertake separate but related tasks.
151. Mr Brolly: A large part of a Committees time, particularly in the Statutory Committees, is spent listening to witnesses presentations. A rapid-fire meeting might get rid of that drain on time. Everything need not happen here; a mobile rapporteur could meet an education and library board, Sport NI or whoever, and report back. That would save a considerable amount of time.
152. Professor Wilford: It would save time. A subcommittee would not be a substitute for an oral session held by a Committee. It would supplement the Committees work and report back to it. In a meeting in which the Committee was attempting to crowd in X number of witnesses, because some work had been delegated to a subcommittee, it might be necessary only to see X minus Y witnesses.
153. The Deputy Chairperson: I accept Francies point about saving time and why such mechanisms might be used. However, is there not a risk of giving the impression of becoming distant from many of the organisations that want to get to the heart of the Administration? From a public-relations perspective, such organisations want to go before the Committee that has been tasked with going through the legislative detail and all that that entails. There is a risk that that distance could be created. Although, in principle, the idea is appealing from a time-saving point of view, it has its downside.
154. Professor Wilford: Subcommittees would have fewer members, but their status would not be reduced.
155. The Deputy Chairperson: That would apply more so in the case of the rapporteurs.
156. Professor Wilford: When a Committee embarks on an inquiry, it requests written evidence and then sifts through it. The Chairperson, the Deputy Chairperson and the Committee Clerk will do some of the legwork. Committee members make strategic choices about who they want to see. If the Assembly adopts a rapporteur system, there is no reason that that should affect those strategic choices about who you would like to summon to give oral evidence to the Committee. In fact, it might help you to make up your minds about who you should summon. The rapporteur might be able to sift out the wheat from the chaff, as it were, as part of that exercise. It could add to the efficiency of the full Committee.
157. Mr K Robinson: I apologise for being late; I was at another meeting. I am interested in the rapporteur system, because I have had some experience of dealing with one of the Scottish rapporteurs. I can see pluses, but there are one or two minuses that I would like to tease out. I was on the EU Affairs Subcommittee of the former Committee of the Centre. That subcommittee came into being because members felt that the Committee could not devote the time required to the amount of European business with which it had to deal. That subcommittee had four or five members, all of whom went on to greatness: Eileen Bell, Alasdair McDonnell, Conor Murphy, Edwin Poots; I was the weak link in the chain.
158. The Deputy Chairperson: You are bound to get a promotion in the new year.
159. Mr K Robinson: Is it in the post?
160. The Deputy Chairperson: It is in the post.
161. Mr K Robinson: The subcommittee undertook fairly copious surveys in Brussels. We gathered a great deal of information in America and also visited the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and then reported back to the full Committee of the Centre. Unfortunately, that evaporated at the end of the first mandate, but it was a useful exercise. We were getting to grips with things. It also built camaraderie among members: in those early days, there were many different opinions and fractured edges all round, but we managed to have a cohesive group. I can see benefits in the idea of a subcommittee. I thought that the rapporteur concept was a very good approach until I realised that in Scotland they were working to a tight time factor. I wondered whether the rapporteur would be able to gather the breadth of information required in the time allotted to him, or when he reported back to the Committee, how much time it could spend disseminating his information. When his report reached the Scottish Executive, there was so little time remaining that they more or less passed everything that was in it. There is a danger if the time schedule is very tight.
162. How can we create extra time for the rapporteur, and how can we persuade our colleagues on other Committees that subcommittees are not dangerous little beasts that do nasty things but are effective, and provided they are structured properly, report back?
163. Professor Wilford: I agree: new procedures would have to be evolved in order to allow such a diverse system to operate effectively and efficiently. There is no particular requirement to time-limit the activity of a rapporteur, although it makes some sense to do that. It comes back to the strategic issue of how Committees manage their agendas. To a large extent, the agendas of Statutory Committees are structured by the Executive. Bills have to be scrutinised and the draft Budget and draft Programme for Government proposals have to be addressed. It is about agenda management. The decision by the Committee to time-limit a rapporteur depends on what he or she is being asked to do. That is a difficult question to answer.
164. Negative and positive lessons can be drawn from the Scottish experience. If the Committee is slightly anxious about the role of the rapporteur in the Scottish Parliament, there is no reason for it to follow that exact model. Committees could adopt the role of a rapporteur, but they could take a novel approach and think about how the role could be discharged and in what sorts of activity they might like a rapporteur to engage. One suggestion is to have a preliminary sift of potential witnesses.
165. If a Committee decides to create a rapporteur role or establish subcommittees, I suspect that the Assembly will need to provide each Committee with additional administrative support. Such choices would have implications, and they are probably for the Assembly Commission to address. The sole purpose of my comments is to try to make the job of Committees more effective and efficient. I am merely pointing the Committee in the direction of various administrative tools that it could adopt and adapt for its own purposes.
166. I believe that the demands made on Statutory Committees are onerous. To a large extent, they were not as effective in the first mandate as they might otherwise have been. I do not think that that was to do with lack of willingness or ability; I think it was simply a matter of the pressure of what Committees had to do. I am aware that there were particular problems, to which reference has been made. Nevertheless, Committees could make their lives much easier, more efficient and, ideally, more effective if they contemplated adopting new devices that could help to redress the imbalance that may have developed between Departments and Statutory Committees.
167. Members may call me an idealist, but when I first read the Good Friday Agreement, I saw the relationship between Departments and Statutory Committees as being, on paper at least, very much a partnership relationship.
168. Mr K Robinson: I think that MLAs also saw it in that way.
169. Professor Wilford: It became much more of a patronclient relationship, and the Assembly must redress that balance. It can help to do so by tackling some of the administrative and structural issues that perhaps have weakened the Committees to some extent.
170. Mr K Robinson: Some Committees are already finding themselves faced with precooked legislation. Committee members may have reservations about the legislation, but there is a timescale involved, and, in many cases, the legislation has progressed so far down the line as to be almost totally committed to, and we are finding it very difficult to stamp our authority on such legislation. We have major concerns about, say, the number of members on Committees, or the balance of community representation. We have been digging our heels in a little bit, but it is like a tug of war; we are well over the line and we are just trying to put in a token effort at the moment. Is there some way that we can address that matter so that, when future legislation is initiated in the Assembly, we will not find ourselves being dragged over the line?
171. Professor Wilford: The trend - over the water, in particular - has been to provide draft Bills, which enables Committees to examine legislation earlier. That approach should be implemented here, because it would give Committees more of an opportunity to consider legislative proposals. The Committees would not feel so pressured. Committees here have a device whereby they can ask for a time extension, but it seems that asking for an extension is considered a sign of pressure and, almost, of weakness. The answer to your question lies less with Committees than it does with the Executive, and the Executive should make more of an effort to produce draft Bills to facilitate a proper and extensive scrutiny of planned legislation. That is where I feel that the responsibility primarily lies.
172. Mr Neeson: Believe it or not, I want to ask about rapporteurs. I have served on the Committee of the Regions and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe. In fact, a joint meeting of the UK and Irish delegations was held on Monday 10 December.
173. There are differences between those two committees; in the Committee of the Regions, the rapporteur appears to be a member of the European Commission, whereas in the congress, it is an elected member. Where would you see that responsibility lying if a rapporteur system were to be developed here? This Committee should look at the matter, because there is certainty about the stability of the institutions, and it will be useful to know whether a rapporteur would be an advantage to the whole system, if we are to move forward.
174. Professor Wilford: A rapporteur should come from among the MLAs rather than anywhere else, because, for one reason, it is a really important role for a member to play for his or her Committee. My focus is on how the operation of Committees may be improved, and the use of rapporteurs is one means to help to secure that objective. You are correct about the European Commission appointing rapporteurs, which is a bad idea; rapporteurs should come from within.
175. The Deputy Chairperson: Thank you, Professor Wilford. That has been an informative session, and your paper - to which we will refer - has been very useful.
176. A concluding question: schoolchildren will be receiving reports at Christmas. Given that the Assembly has been running now since 8 May 2007, what would be your assessment if Committees were to be given a report this Christmas?
177. Mr Brolly: Could do better.
178. Professor Wilford: A for effort, C+ for achievement and, as Mr Brolly said, could do better. [Laughter.]

Appendix 3

Written Submissions

Belfast City Council provided the Committee with their Standing Orders,
these are available in the Assembly Library

Proposals for Changes to Political Management Structures

Executive Summary

At its meeting on 23rd June 2006, the Policy and Resources Committee agreed in principle to new proposed political management arrangements for the Council. The Committee requested that a second report should be produced providing further detail on the various elements of the proposed structures including the role and remit of the various committees, the relationship between them, clarity in relation to areas of delegation and how the new structure would work in practice. This report provides the detail requested and outlines proposals on timescales for implementation.

In essence the report provides more detail on the exact role of the full Council, the Strategic P&R Committee and the standing committees and the relationships between them. It also answers the Members concerns around the new Strategic P&R resembling a cabinet and highlights the key differences between the new structures and a cabinet style arrangement. There are also recommendations on what the membership of this committee should be.

In relation to the current standing committees an enhanced role for them in the form of overview and scrutiny is discussed including the establishment of fixed term sub committees to consider cross cutting issues.

The report then outlines proposals for speeding up decision making through the removal of sub committees and the delegating of some routine operational decisions to Chief Officers. Details and examples of the types of decisions for delegation are provided and a process for the monitoring of these decisions is also outlined.

The need for a separate Licensing Committee with delegated authority is explored and issues which will need to be further considered are listed.

The timeframe for the full implementation of the new Committee Structures has been recommended to coincide with the beginning of the new committee term in June 2007. This should also tie in with changes to member remuneration which are also discussed in relation to the recent paper from the DoE. There is a need for the stronger P&R Committee to begin now and options for how this can be constituted on an interim basis have been suggested.

Recommendations

1. To establish a Strategic P&R Committee with the responsibilities as outlined in the report.
2. Given the nature of the decisions to be taken by the new Strategic P&R and its proposed relationship with the other standing committees it is recommended that Party Groups should allocate their places in the first instance to the Party Group Leaders, and the Chairs of the main committees within their allocation under proportionality.
3. It is also recommended that the Party Group Leaders meet with Senior Officers on a regular basis in regard to major issues facing the Council.
4. Remove the current P&R sub committees
5. To report all Single Status issues directly to the Strategic P&R Committee.
6. To establish an Audit committee as a sub committee of the Strategic P&R to replace the current Audit Panel (as outlined in Appendix 4).
7. To report all issues in relation to Good Relations to the Strategic P&R Committee subject to the recommendations of the current review.
8. Make provisions in Standing Orders to allow for the establishment of fixed term scrutiny sub committees.
9. To remove the sub committees of the Development Committee and the Community and Recreation Committee.
10. To transfer responsibility for all matters relating to corporate procurement policy and decisions relating to asset management and the disposal and acquisition of land from the Development Committee to the Strategic P&R Committee.
11. To approve the establishment of a Licensing Committee with delegated authority. A full report on the detail of how it will operate will be presented to Members in advance of the committee being set up.
12. To agree in principle the key areas outlined in the body of the report for delegation to Chief Officers. CIT to report back on the specific implications of delegating these decisions, including details of appropriate call in procedures and review mechanisms.
13. To implement the new Committee structures in line with the new Committee term in June 2007.
14. The P&R Committee is reconstituted to ensure that the Party Group Leaders sit in the committee and have an input into making key decisions. This would mean where the Party Group Leader is currently not on the P&R Committee, they would take the place of one of their party members who does have a seat on the Committee.

The recommendations in the report are made in response Members request for the need to improve decision making and allow greater control over resources and assets to help generate efficiencies. An additional need to approve these changes stems from the current review of public administration which will substantially increase the services and resources the Council will have to manage. Improvement to the governance structures is necessary if the organisation is to be prepared for the challenges ahead.

Background

At its meeting on 23rd June 2006, the Policy and Resources Committee agreed in principle to new proposed political management arrangements for the Council. The structures were developed in response to a request from the Council Improvement Board for priority to be given to developing a new governance framework that speeds up and streamlines decision making and also allows members to make strategic decisions based on the resources that the Council has at its disposal. Members also expressed through a survey in 2005 that they felt that the existing decision making process would benefit from being altered to ensure decisions are made more speedily.

The purpose of the report therefore was to present options on how the Councils political management arrangements can be improved to:

• facilitate faster more streamlined decision making
• allow Members to take a strategic view of the running of the Council and adopt a one council approach to city leadership
• make better use of Members time
• control ratepayers resources
• influence the Review of Public Administration to make it fit for purpose to deliver the greater responsibilities which will be exercised by Council post RPA
• empower managers to deliver and be held accountable through improved delegation
• develop a climate between Members and Officers where decision making is achieved by an appropriate and challenging relationship

The proposed structure essentially recommended a modernisation of the current traditional departmental committee structure through the introduction of a Strategic P&R Committee, the creation of a Licensing Committee with delegated authority and the removal of the current sub committees. The changes are not major and in effect largely reflect current standing orders, however there is a greater emphasis on application of regulation which will require a greater level of political leadership. In addition to this recommendations were made to revise the scheme of delegation to remove some routine operational matters from committee business and an emphasis was placed on the importance of good member / officer working relations and adherence to the principles of good governance.

The P&R Committee requested that a second report should be produced providing further detail on the various elements of the proposed structures including the role and remit of the various committees, the relationship between them, clarity in relation to areas of delegation and how the new structure would work in practice. In addition to this the Director of Improvement was also asked to address a number of points raised by the members through discussions with the party groups, Council Improvement Board and the Policy and Resources Committee. A list of recommendations from the original report and issues raised by Members is included in Appendix 1.

Proposed Committee Structure

The Full Council

The full Council chaired by the Lord Mayor remains the ultimate decision making committee in the organisation. The revised Standing Orders will now detail the functions of the full Council in relation to the decision making process and in effect this role has not changed except in relation to Licensing decisions which is detailed further in the report. The Councils areas of responsibility are detailed in Appendix 2.

This means that all decisions made by Committee, except in areas where delegated authority has been granted, must be ratified by full Council. Committees will therefore as present continue to report all their business to full Council via their Committee minutes. This applies to all Committees including the new Strategic P&R Committee. Unlike a cabinet system this committee will have no delegated authority and therefore all of its decisions must be ratified by full Council.

The Role of the Strategic P&R

The Strategic P&R Committee has overall responsibility for developing and recommending the Councils policy framework, allocating resources, determining the relative priority of issues, integrating activities and managing overall performance. The importance of having a committee with this remit is that it allows the council to make strategic decisions based on all the resources it has at its disposal. Budgets would be allocated based on the Councils overall objectives and priorities in a co-ordinated way. Committees would then provide high level performance information to the strategic P&R to enable comprehensive monitoring and management of the organisations performance.

In practice the Strategic P&R will largely retain the function of the current P&R Committee in that its main responsibilities cover developing the overall councils policy through its corporate plan and allocating and managing the organisations resources. The Committee would also provide the highest strategic level Council interface in the new Community Planning arrangements under RPA (Councillors would also be involved with Community Planning at thematic and area level). As at present it will continue to be responsible for Human Resource Policy, Finance, Information Systems and Democratic Services - although these issues will be dealt with by the main committee rather than through the current sub committees.

The role of the Strategic P&R committee will be more explicit in how it will manage and control resources within the agreed priorities and to be fully effective will be responsible for;

• Policy and Strategy
• Performance
• Resources
  • Money including Procurement*, Capital Expenditure and budget setting
  • People including control of overall establishment figures
  • Assets** acquisition and disposal of land and property including capital programme development and delivery
• Democratic Services
• Communication

* All issues in relation to Procurement which are currently reported to the Development Committee will be transferred to the new Strategic P&R Committee. This is essential if there is to be overall control of Council expenditure given that around 30% is on supplies and services. Central control of procurement will allow the organisation to make better use of its buying power which in turn will lead to the identification of efficiency savings.

** Land and property is an important factor in the Councils overall financial position and is crucial in the assistance of delivery of services and benefits to the City. It is therefore essential that such decisions are also considered by the Strategic P&R in relation to other resource issues. These decisions will therefore also have to be transferred from the current Development Committee.

The proposed areas of responsibility for the Strategic P&R are detailed in Appendix 3.

The Relationship between the Strategic P&R and the Standing Committees

At present, all Standing Committees have to obtain approval of the P&R Committee to the annual proposed cash limits and seek approval to any additional resources. This would continue to be the case in the new structure with the significant addition that Standing Committees would also report to the Strategic P&R Committee on their performance on a quarterly basis.

In effect the Strategic P&R committee, in consultation with the other committees, will be responsible for setting the Councils priorities through the development of the Corporate Plan. As at present once the priorities have been set they must be agreed by full Council. The Strategic P&R Committee will also determine the financial constraints within which these priorities must be delivered through recommending the level of the District Rate which again must be agreed by full Council.

These priorities and the level of finance available will be communicated to the standing committees to enable them to develop their plans and set their spend for the coming year. The departmental plans and budgets, including any proposed capital expenditure will then be considered collectively by the Strategic P&R who will recommend allocation of resources to each committee in line with the Councils Corporate Plan and total budget. This allocation of spend will be discussed and agreed with committees but the ultimate recommendation to Council will come from the Strategic P&R Committee. During the year the standing committees will report quarterly to the Strategic P&R on their performance based on their departmental plans and the resources attached to it. This reporting mechanism is the real difference from current procedures. However apart from this the standing committees will not have to report through the Strategic P&R on a monthly basis unless they require additional expenditure, or want to take on additional projects or work that was not included in their initial plans and budgets this includes any changes to staff establishments, capital programme, business plans etc.

Recommendation
To establish a Strategic P&R Committee with the responsibilities as outlined in the report.

Membership of the Strategic P&R

There are a number of options for determining the membership of the strategic P&R Committee in line with its special functions and areas of responsibility. As outlined in the benchmarking analysis in the previous report different Councils have adopted methods of selecting members for the strategic committee. For example Armagh has only four members on its executive one from each of the main parties, Sunderland has a cabinet of 10 portfolio holders and Falkirk have a Policy and Resources Committee comprising of 8 senior members.

A number of Councils who have developed a strategic tier committee stipulate that the members of this committee can not sit on any of the main standing committees or alternatively others agreed that the chairs of the main committees must be on the strategic committee.

A recent example in Belfast City Council of adopting different methods for the selection of a committee, albeit not actually part of the main committee structure was the set up of CIB (formerly MIB). When first constituted the then MIB was made up of the six Party Group leaders and the chairmen of the five main committees. The membership of the Board was then questioned in that the Improvement Agenda is likely to run over the period of this Council. As Chairmen are appointed for a maximum of two years this raised questions over continuity. A further question had arisen in that some Parties have members who are not necessarily chairmen but have a stronger interest in improving and ensuring the organisation is fit for purpose and that it may therefore be appropriate to allow such members to replace chairmen at the Parties discretion.

It was agreed that Parties were given the discretion to replace their Chairmen with another nominee if they were satisfied that the Committees can remain aligned to the Improvement Agenda and that the membership remains at 11 members i.e. Six Party Leaders and the five Chairmen places.

There are therefore a number of ways the new Strategic P&R could be constituted as outlined below.

• Strategic P&R to be constituted with 20 Members to include the chairs of the main committees and the remaining places filled through d'hondt
• Strategic P&R to be constituted with 20 Members to include the Party Group Leaders, the chairs of the main committees and the remaining places filled through d'hondt
• Strategic P&R to be constituted with 20 members using d'hondt but not including any of the chairs of the main committees
• Strategic P&R to be constituted with 11 Members including party group leaders and chairs of the main committees
• Strategic P&R to be constituted with 11 members with membership the same as the current CIB.
• Strategic P&R to be constituted with 20 Members as with the other main standing committees and councillors elected onto it following the d'hondt process.

Recommendations

Given the nature of the decisions to be taken by this new committee and its proposed relationship with the other standing committees it is recommended that Party Groups should allocate their places in the first instance to the Party Group Leaders, and the Chairs of the main committees within their allocation under proportionality.

It is also recommended that the Party Group Leaders meet with Senior Officers on a regular basis in regard to major issues facing the Council.

Removal of Sub Committees

One of the aims of the revised governance proposals is to speed up decision making. The current committee system requires that, except for Health and Environmental Services, decisions are reported to sub committee, then committee and finally to full Council before a decision can be ratified. This can take up to three months or much longer if a recommendation is deferred or referred back for further information. The removal therefore of the sub committee tier would speed up the decision making process by a month and also reduce the number of meetings thus freeing up members time.

P&R Sub committees

At present the Policy and Resources Committee has four formal sub committees

• Personnel
• Finance, Administration and Information Systems
• Member Services
• Policy and Performance Review

The proposal is to eliminate all of these sub committees and the business of these committees to be reported to the main committee. Clearly there will be an effect on the workload of the principle committees and it is therefore proposed that in the first six months the Strategic P&R Committee will meet twice per month to deal with the increased volume of business. During this time alternative proposals for dealing with items for noting will be implemented. A review of operational input can then take place.

Recommendation
Remove the sub committees of;

• Personnel

• Finance, Administration and Information Systems

• Member Services

• Policy and Performance Review

Proposals for the removal of the sub committees of the Development and Community and Recreation Committees are detailed on page 11.

While the new governance proposals recommend the removal of all sub committees it is recognised that the establishment of a smaller committee for a fixed term is an effective way of dealing with a particular issue. Revised standing orders can make provision for this and it is envisaged that Standing Committees could use this provision in particular to focus on new areas of

policy development and investigate relevant issues in line with overview and scrutiny as detailed further in the report. This is explained in greater detail under fixed term scrutiny panels.

Single Status Fixed Term Sub Committee

A key area for the Council at the minute is the implementation of the Single Status agreement which requires all Councils to undertake a review of their local pay and grading structures to ensure that pay arrangements comply with equal value legislation and best practice. A review of the Councils pay structures has been completed and on 15th June 2006 the P&R Personnel sub committee endorsed management proposals on a new pay structure for Belfast City Council allowing consultation to begin with trade unions. Due to the early stages of negotiation it is not possible to gauge how many difficulties and issues may be encountered but the Council is committed to implementing the new pay system within the agreed time frame of April 2007. In the original proposal it was recommended that a fixed term sub committee should be set up to oversee the implementation of Single Status. However as a management position has now been agreed and due to the contentious nature of the agreement and the challenging timescales it may now be more appropriate to report all issues relating to single status directly to the Strategic P&R Committee. The risks associated with not reaching agreement with the trade unions cannot be underestimated as front line operational staff may initiate strike action and it is important that Members are kept fully informed of the emerging issues and can make key decision on a regular basis.

Recommendation
To report all Single Status issues directly to the Strategic P&R Committee

Audit Sub Committee

The Council also operates an Audit Panel and while not detailed in Standing Orders this is in effect a sub committee of the current P&R Committee and is made up of the members of the Finance, Administration and Information Systems sub committee. While this sub committee is being removed there is still a need to retain an independent audit committee. The key reasons for having an audit committee are to

• raise greater awareness of the need for internal control and the implementation of audit recommendations
• increase public confidence in the objectivity and fairness of financial and other reporting
• reinforce the importance and independence of internal and external audit (e.g. providing a view of the Statement on Internal Control)
• provide additional assurance through a process of independent and objective review

In addition to this the CIPFA Solace Good Governance in Local Government: A Framework, recommends that Councils should

'develop and maintain an effective audit committee which is independent of the executive or scrutiny functions.'

The proposed audit sub committee would be established as a sub committee of the Strategic P&R Committee and replace the current Audit Panel. The core functions of and Audit Committee are detailed in Appendix 4.

Recommendation
To establish an Audit committee as a sub committee of the Strategic P&R to replace the current Audit Panel.

Good Relations

As an important cross cutting issue for the Council and the City a number of Members asked that consideration should be given to where Good Relations sits within the decision making process and in particular if it required a separate sub committee. The view is that at present there is not enough business to warrant a separate sub committee and also such a sub committee could duplicate the work of the Good Relations Panel. The creation of a Good Relations sub committee would also lengthen the decision making process which is contrary to the overall principles of the governance review. In addition to this Good Relations is an important issue which cuts across all areas of the Council and therefore should be considered directly by the Strategic P&R Committee. An independent review of the Good Relations Panel is currently being undertaken and the outcome of this review will inform the relationship between the Good Relations Panel and the Strategic P&R Committee.

Recommendation
To report all issues in relation to Good Relations to the Strategic P&R Committee subject to the recommendations from the current review.

The Role of Standing Committees

It is proposed to retain existing standing committees at least until RPA is implemented when further change may be required in line with Government recommendations. The Standing Committees will oversee the work of the relevant Department with Chief Officers reporting to their own committee as at present (except areas agreed for delegation) and minutes from their meetings still being ratified by full Council. As previously outlined principal committees will have to go through the Strategic P&R Committee to obtain resources on an annual basis, or in relation to a request for additional resources not included in their approved budgets, and report to the Strategic P&R Committee on a quarterly basis on their performance. However it is also expected that the standing committees will play an enhanced role in relation to overview and scrutiny.

Overview and Scrutiny

The role of overview and scrutiny has become increasingly important particularly in those authorities where delegated authority has been given to a cabinet or portfolio holder to make decisions on behalf of the Council. Clearly mechanisms need to be put in place to ensure that these decisions are right for the authority as a whole, reflect the Council priorities and the needs of the community as well as ensuring a single councillor or committee does not abuse the delegated authority given to them.

There are three elements involved in overview and scrutiny

• Holding decision makers to account
• Policy Development
• Policy Review.

In the current and proposed structures for Belfast the Council as the ultimate decision maker holds committees to account for decisions which are made. Minutes of each committee need to be ratified by full Council before a committees decision can be acted on. All elected members therefore have the right to query any of these decisions in this forum.

In relation to policy development and review all committees undertake this role within their relevant areas however there is no formally agreed structure as to how this should be carried out and in many cases it is not always clear which committee is responsible for certain issues and areas of policy. In addition to this, the Council as its role as civic leader, and in preparation for its new role in Community Planning may need to widen its scrutiny role in some areas by investigating issues on a city wide rather than simply an organisational level.

Fixed Term Scrutiny Panels

Where issues arise outside of planned activity or where Members feel an issue is not being properly resolved it is proposed that fixed term scrutiny forums which would operate as sub committees of a relevant standing committee could be established so that Members could fully investigate an issue. The role of a scrutiny panel would involve more than looking at issues in relation to how they affect the Council but on how they affect the City and would require an in depth investigation which could include;

• Consultation with other agencies, voluntary and community sector, local businesses etc.
• Site visits to other Councils or organisations
• Workshops with user groups
• Internal / external research

For example, recently the elderly was identified as an emerging issue for the Council which was not specifically included within the Council priorities for the coming year. Although many sections across the organisation provide services for the elderly within the current structures there is no one committee or officer with overall responsibility to whom this issue could be referred. In addition to this there are a wide range of agencies, charities, voluntary and community groups involved in supporting the elderly across the City. Within the new proposals a scrutiny panel could be establish to investigate fully the issues facing the elderly and recommend a way forward for the Council in addressing these issues. In doing this the panel would liaise with the relevant agencies, charities, service providers across the city as well as consulting with the members of the elderly population. This would allow the Members to exercise their role as representatives of the community, by obtaining first hand knowledge of the issues facing the elderly as well as helping to direct future service provision for them across the key organisations.

Clearly there is a need to develop clear processes and procedures for the establishment of Scrutiny sub committees to ensure that they address relevant issues. It is therefore recommended that these panels would be established on the recommendation of the Strategic Policy and Resources committee in consultation with the standing committees based on the following criteria;

• Reflects public consultation
• Impacts positively on the City
• Issue requires urgent attention
• Potential for significant impact on resources
• Improves the effectiveness of the organisation
• Potential scope for joined up working or partnerships with other agencies
• Assist the organisation to implement RPA
• Assist the organisation in delivering efficiencies

Once approval was given to establish a committee terms of reference including timescales and resources need to be drawn up and agreed by the Strategic P&R. The Scrutiny sub committee will therefore be expected to report back to the appropriate standing committee within the agreed timeframe. It is recommended that in the first instance one scrutiny sub committee is established as a pilot and evaluated before establishing any further scrutiny sub committees.

The establishment of these fixed term scrutiny committees would be a first step for the organisation in establishing the role of scrutiny as an important element that enables public service users shape the services they receive. The current Governance RPA work stream is considering future arrangements for overview and scrutiny which the Council will continue to influence and more formal structures may be adopted as new legislation is passed and future structures emerge.

Recommendation
Make provisions in Standing Orders to allow for the establishment of fixed term scrutiny sub committees.

Development and Community and Recreation Sub Committees

The Development and Community and Recreation standing committees currently have three sub committees each;

In line with proposals to speed up decision making all these sub committees would be removed and their business would be conducted by the main committee. As with the new Strategic P&R it is recommended that the two committees meet twice per month in the first six months to deal with the extra business. During this time it is envisaged that business will be reduced through the introduction of arrangements to deal with items for noting and the implementation of the revised scheme of delegation.

The Waterfront Hall Board currently has delegated authority to take decisions to ensure the smooth operation of the facility and this will need to be transferred to the relevant standing committee. Any changes to the governance arrangements of the Waterfront Hall should be considered by the main committee.

The reporting mechanisms for the Community and Recreation Committee and the Development Committee will remain as they are in that they will continue to report to full Council except in relation to issues concerning resources and performance which will be reported to the Strategic P&R as detailed earlier in the report.

The role of the Development Committee as outlined in the current standing orders will change in that areas in relation to Procurement and Asset Management will now be the responsibility of the Strategic P&R. Any agreed changes to departmental structures (detailed in a separate report) which have an impact on the role of the committees will also be considered when revising standing orders.

Recommendation
To remove the sub committees of the Development Committee and the Community and Recreation Committee

To transfer responsibility for all matters relating to Corporate Procurement Policy and decisions relating to asset management and the disposal and acquisition of land from the Development Committee to the Strategic P&R Committee

To revise Standing Orders to reflect any changes to the role of standing committees as a result of any organisational structural change.

Health and Environmental Services Committee

This standing committee has no sub committees and therefore will be un affected by the decision to remove sub committees. However the proposal to establish a separate Licensing Committee, detailed further in the report, with delegated authority will impact on the role of the Health and Environmental Services committee.

Town Planning Committee

This Committee has no sub committees and its role will remain unchanged.

Establishment of a Licensing Committee

The Health and Environmental Services Committee deals with all licensing applications and at present this is a cumbersome agenda with up to two special committee meetings being held almost every month to deal with licensing issues. In addition to this there may be a requirement for the Council to take responsibility for liquor licensing following the review of public administration with the post RPA scenario also pointing to issues such as taxis, doormen etc. Research into other local authorities has shown that there is a need to set up a specific committee to deal with licensing issues. This is not only in relation to the volume of applications which need to be considered but also the complexity of the decisions which require members of such a committee to be specifically trained. To be fully effective this Committee requires delegated authority from full Council to make all decisions in relation to Licensing issues.

A discussion paper on the arrangements for such a committee is currently being considered by Health and Environmental Services and Legal Services which includes;

• The role of the Committee
• The make up of the Committee
• The operation of the Committee
• Mechanisms to involve all Members in Licensing decisions
• Legal Implications
• Resource Implications
• Training requirements for Members of the Committee and officers servicing the committee
• Scrutiny of decisions

Research is also being carried out into the operation of similar committees in GB.

These findings will be fully considered and discussed with Members with a view to establishing a Licensing Committee at the beginning of the new Committee term in June 2007.

Recommendation
To approve the establishment of a Licensing Committee with delegated authority. A full report on the detail of how it will operate will be presented to Members in advance of the committee being set up.

Delegation

In order for the proposed committee structure to work effectively it was agreed that there needs to be a review of the level at which decisions are made in the organisation. Delegation is the greatest leverage that exists in running an organisation efficiently and effectively which are two key parameters that will have to be demonstrated to assure ratepayers they are getting value for money.

Committee decisions have to be outcome based and result focused i.e. what we want to see is ...., while officers need to be able to take the necessary decisions to make those desired results happen. As well paid employees officers must also accept full accountability for delivering results as directed.

At the end of the day what really counts is the positive difference made in the lives of our citizens and proper levels of delegation to allow things to happen is the most effective way of using the publicly funded resources at our disposal. To expect committees to become involved in decisions about how to do things is to absolve officers of responsibilities for which they are paid limiting their accountability to report writing. It is ineffective and inefficient and in the context of a bigger organisation is not sustainable.

The key issue to note about delegation is that Members will retain the full ability to call in and scrutinize any decision at any time. There will also be performance management arrangements put in place to allow members to scrutinize delegated decisions at regular intervals. The four main areas where enhanced delegation would lead to more effective use of resources are as follows;

Personnel - An area which is commonly delegated to officers in other authorities is the management of operational staffing issues within agreed staffing budgets and establishment levels. This includes minor changes to structures, amendments to establishments, changes in designation and reporting lines for officers below Head of Service level as long as it remains within existing budgets and does not have the consequential effect of increasing that budget in the future. The present arrangement is not only costly in terms of member and officer time taken up reporting on and considering such decisions, and the cost of retaining BIS to undertake the review, it is also inefficient in relation to service delivery in that managers can not react quickly to changes in operational needs and is often the reason why decisions take a lengthy time to implement. It is therefore important that these types of decisions are delegated to Chief Officers and taken in consultation with the Head of HR and are in line with HR policies and procedures.

Procurement The tendering process to procure goods and services from the private sector can be a long process and one which also could be delegated to Chief Officers. In awarding a contract a tender evaluation is carried out by a team of officers in liaison with the procurement unit using agreed criteria for evaluation. This all takes place in line with the Councils procurement policy which has already been agreed by Council and therefore could reasonably be delegated to Chief Officers. Regular reports on the outcome of the procurement exercise would be made so as members can assure themselves that Council procedures are being properly applied.

Allocation of grants This would relate to grants up to a certain limit (agreed by the committee). If this was delegated from the committee to officers the committee would have to discuss and agree criteria and guidelines for assessing grant applications and mechanisms to ensure that grant processing is open, transparent, accountable and subject to scrutiny.

Reconsideration of activities already agreed within business plans - An area which also could be delegated to officers is the implementation of activities within business plans already agreed by committee. This is clearly a duplication of effort in that the committee has already made the decision to approve a series of activities within an agreed budget and therefore there should not be a requirement for them to waste time considering each activity again on an individual basis. The onus will be on officers to ensure sufficient information is supplied within their annual plans so that members can confidently make the decision once in relation to activities for the coming year and expect officers to implement them in accordance with their decision. This does not absolve officers from keeping committee fully informed of progress on planned activities.

These areas reflect those already adopted in other Councils (examples included in Appendix 5). Legal Services have been tasked with working up the details of a proposed scheme that addresses these issues.

In applying these revisions appropriate review and call in mechanisms must be put in put in place to build the necessary trust and confidence between Members and Senior Officers. In setting the foundations to build trust there needs to be a clear understanding between Members and Officers in the following five areas;

1. Desired results and outcomes there needs to be clear understanding and agreement as to what decisions are being delegated and for what purpose. i.e. what do we want to be delivered?

2. Guidelines Parameters should be established so everyone is clear about the degree of delegation and in particular any constraints that need to apply e.g. contentious issues that may need referred to a committee, legislative, social, environmental limitations to what actions can be taken etc.

3. Resources Limits as to what resources are available must also be defined and agreed

4. Accountability Standards of performance must be set and regular reporting mechanisms back to the committee on decisions made and what the outcome of the decisions were must be established.

5. Consequences Procedures for call in of decisions need to be put in place so that Members can investigate any decisions they are not happy with. Where appropriate delegated authority may be revoked and the responsibility for the decisions reverted to the appropriate committee.

Increased delegation of operational issues to officers will not only reduce the amount of time spent in committee meetings dealing with routine issues and speed up decision making but if applied correctly will facilitate better working relations, increase trust and lead to a more effective organisation. It will also help the Council to focus on results, rather than processes and make officers responsible for delivering outcomes.

The timing for this is appropriate in preparation for RPA. From Members feedback it is clear that there is an issue of trust of officers. However micro management is not a solution. A scheme of delegation is valued by those officers who are keen to make a difference in the city and who value the legitimacy and primacy of the political process. As a scheme of delegation rolls out Directors will be encouraged to ensure that all officers are working to the Councils political mandate and not to any professional self interest.

The bottom line is that Members will scrutinise both the process and the outcomes produced and can take such action as deemed appropriate to continue, extend or to curtail the scheme.

Recommendation
To agree in principle to the key areas outlined above for delegation to Chief Officers. CIT to report back on the specific implications of delegating these decisions, including details of appropriate call in procedures and review mechanisms.

Impact on Departmental Structures

It is not only the current committee structures that hinder good integrated decision making and working that can address the multi faceted problems of people and communities. The silo impact of current departments, with officers primarily concerned with their own specific responsibilities and budgets, mitigates against a One Council approach to managing the City. Consequently an opportunity exists to realign responsibilities to allow more strategic working as reflected by the change to committee structures and recommendations on this are contained in a separate paper. The changes in departmental structures will precede the changes in the committee structures and therefore for a few months Directors and Heads of Service will continue to report business to committees as at present regardless of where the service is located within the new structures. As with any structural or procedural change it will depend again on the calibre of people, both members and officers, involved.

Remuneration

The review of councillors remuneration in Northern Ireland has been completed and will be discussed with the Minister and the National Association of Councillors on 31st October 2006. This meeting will be followed by a ministerial announcement and a short consultation period on the proposals. Legislation will then be drafted to allow the changes to come into effect in April 2007.

The recommendations essentially fall into two categories; pre RPA changes and mechanisms for determining allowances in the future in regard to the post RPA scenario. In terms of future allowances it is recommended that a panel is established to make recommendations on allowances for members post RPA including arrangements for shadow authorities and severance payments.

The key pre RPA implementation proposals recommend that;

• Attendance Allowance is abolished
• The Basic Allowance is enhanced
• The Special Responsibility allowance is enhanced
• The introduction of dependants carers allowances and other expense items

Timeframe for Implementation

Clearly the recommendations outlined in the report represent significant, but necessary changes to how decisions are made and requires the further development of trust between members and officers which will take time. In addition to this the recommendations are inter related and therefore should be considered as a package if the desired outcomes are to be achieved. However while approval is sought for all the recommendations there is a realisation that they should be implemented over a period of time to allow the new arrangements to be tested and reviewed to find the best solution for Belfast City Council.

In the first instance it is recommended that the changes outlined in relation to delegation are implemented immediately with the appropriate mechanisms in place to enable members to review delegated decisions. This will immediately quicken up decision making in some area and will allow the effect on the volume of business being considered by committee to be monitored in advance of any reduction of numbers of committees.

The actual changes to the committee systems - the removal of sub committees and changes to the roles of the P&R Committee, establishment of the Licensing Committee and Audit sub committee could then be made at the end of the current committee term, May 2007. This should also tie in with changes to member remuneration outlined earlier in the report.

Recommendation
To implement the new Committee Structures in line with the new Committee term in June 2007

Interim Arrangements for P&R Committee

The need for Members to take greater control of resources has been a key driver in recommending new governance structures and in particular the establishment of the Strategic P&R Committee. A number of important decisions in relation to resources which will have a big impact on the organisation eg the setting of a three year budget, key changes to staffing and organisational structures, accommodation need to be taken within the next few months. If the new structures are not to be implemented until June 2007 an interim arrangement for the Strategic P&R needs to be considered. There are three options;

1. The Current P&R Committee as it is presently constituted will make the decisions required.

2. The P&R Committee is reconstituted to ensure that the Party Group Leaders sit in the committee and have an input into making these important decisions. This would mean where the Party Group Leader is currently not on the P&R Committee they would take the place of one of their party members who does have a seat on the committee. This would be in keeping with the d'Hondt system.

3. Co-opt the Party Group Leaders who are not on the Committee to sit on the P&R. This would mean suspending the principles of d'Hondt for this committee for an interim period.

The addition to the Policy and Resources Committee of the Party Group Leaders would increase the number of members on the committee and would mean suspending the principles of d'Hondt for this committee for an interim period. However, Council Standing Orders are clear and explicit on the question of the principles for the appointment of Committees. Standing Order 37 states that seats on all Committees and Sub-Committees will be allocated on a proportional basis and that the number of seats allocated to each political group will bear the same proportion to the total of all the seats on the Committees as is borne by the number of Members of that group to the membership of the Council.

To interfere with the principles of proportionality would undermine the progress which the Council has achieved in recent years in terms of cross party working. The Council has introduced and operates effectively a system of appointments which is fair and transparent and easily understood. It is a system which is not often challenged and reflects well on the organisation as one which involves all Parties in its decision-making process. There is little doubt that the legislation which will be introduced to support and give effect to the Review of Public Administration will make proportionality compulsory, so it would be a retrograde step to interfere with the process at this stage and more particularly as a short-term measure.

Recommendation
The P&R Committee is reconstituted to ensure that the Party Group Leaders sit in the committee and have an input into making key decisions. This would mean where the Party Group Leader is currently not on the P&R Committee they would take the place of one of their party members who does have a seat on the committee.

An alternative solution would be to implement fully the changes to the whole committee structure immediately including eliminating the sub committees.

Conclusion

The recommendations in this report require big decisions and strong political leadership to move Belfast forward. Governance is the system by which local authorities direct and control their function and relate to their communities. The fast changing public sector financial environment makes it imperative that Belfast City Council, Members and Officers, do their utmost to ensure Belfast is a place where people want to live, the services it provides are valued and the Council is seen as a place where things get done.

The proposed changes to Governance structures will only be as good as the people, both Members and Officers, involved. However the new structures offer the opportunity of new ways of working that can build trust and understanding between Members and Officers.

Political leadership in terms of defining strategic priorities for the Council, reviewing and monitoring performance, representing local interests and people and challenging levels of service can be more easily exercised through the redefined committee roles. Officers can be freed up to get on with policy implementation in terms of delivering and managing services and also act as strategic advisors to Committees by providing knowledge and experience of policy areas.

The proposed changes offer the first tangible prospects of really moving the Council into base camp for the RPA climb and allowing the organisation to begin to get fit for purpose to meet the many challenges ahead.

Proposals for Changes to Political Management Structures

Purpose of Report

To present to the Council Improvement Board (CIB) options on how the Councils political management arrangements can be improved to:

• facilitate faster more streamlined decision making
• allow Members to take a strategic view of the running of the Council and adopt a one council approach to city leadership
• make better use of Members time
• control ratepayers resources
• influence the Review of Public Administration to make it fit for purpose to deliver the greater responsibilities which will be exercised by Council post RPA
• empower managers to deliver and be held accountable through improved delegation
• develop a climate between Members and Officers where decision making is achieved by an appropriate and challenging relationship

Context & Challenge

The modernising local government agenda is about creating places where people want to live and provide services they value with their council viewed as a place were things get done.

While the foregoing is directly applicable to England and Wales the ripple effects of these changes are now being felt on this side of the Irish Sea.

The Councils Improvement Agenda was and is aimed at improving the governance of the organisation; addressing how we plan our actions, allocate resources, deliver those agreed actions and then hold Officers to account for performance in regard to delivery.

An underlying assumption in going ahead with the Improvement Agenda was that the Review of Public Administration would be implemented and that the Council needed to be prepared for major change and to provide a positive response to the new local government environment.

In December the Council Improvement Board (CIB) met to consider Party priorities for Belfast but concluded that there was little point in Partys having key aims and objectives for the City and the Council unless they were in a position to do something about it.

In the Members view the key to improving the Council lies in governance i.e. the organisation, administration and the discipline of running things.

To address the latter issue it was agreed that priority be given to developing a governance model that ensured Members could be clear about the resources i.e. financial, people and physical assets and the influence they had at their disposal to tackle the issues facing the City and its citizens. The model would have to be clear on the roles and responsibilities of both Members and Officers and what type of decisions each should be accountable for and what decisions needed to be taken jointly.

A deadline of April 2006 was given to CIT to complete a draft paper following consultation with Members and Officers.

Current Situation

Before looking at our own situation it is worth considering the following comments from Making Local Governance Work by Sue Goss* which have a number of resonances for Belfast and show that the need for change is not unique to Belfast.

In Britain the committee was seen as the ultimate invention of the Victorians, an effective process by which a large number of volunteers could transact complex business. Over time the committee cycle set the rhythm of the whole organisation with meetings becoming formal highly ritualised events.

The tradition in local government was for officers to treat councillors with equal respectfulness as courtesy costs nothing and no profession is more respectful to its employer than the local government service.

Of course, along with the courtesy came condescension. Councillors were not always treated to the honesty and forthright advice that would be expected by a company board.

The formality of meetings made real exploration and discovery impossible and led to endless delays and bureaucratic obsession.

Much has changed. In many councils the old committee systems are almost unrecognisable. The committee system has been hollowed out by the growing weight of group meetings, pre committee briefings, the increasing importance of group structures and the fact that decisions are now more complex involving partners from other agencies, local business, regional government and neighbourhood projects. The old system had to change or be changed.

*Sue Goss is Director of Public Services at the Office for Public Management

Belfast situation

The current political management arrangements are based on a traditional structure with the council divided up into a number of committees each of which consists of a chair and a group of councillors from across the political parties. The organisational structure closely reflects the committee structure.

While this has served the organisation well it is now recognised that the current system of deciding priorities, allocating resources and holding people to account is disorganised and spread across too many committees and departments. In some instances one committee may have identified savings for the organisation and at the same time another committee many approve additional expenditure which in fact cancelled the previous savings out. While both of these decisions may be perfectly valid the concern is that they are made independently of each other without considering the overall effect on the organisation.

In effect the structures as they stand make it extremely difficult for Members to get an overall understanding of what the organisation is doing. It is very difficult for Members to set a strategic direction and determine relative priorities to address the problems facing our citizens or to take full advantage of opportunities to improve the economic, environmental and social well being of the City. In essence multi faceted problems are difficult to address in an organisation designed in departmental silos. The only way to solve multi faceted problems is by working in an integrated cross cutting manner.

The benefits of working in this way can be demonstrated by looking initiatives such as Brighter Belfast or the Holylands warden scheme.

A key finding in the I&DeA report was that the committee/departmental / silo mentality that exists across the organisation prevents joined up thinking and decision making. Where working across departments does take place there is often confusion as to which committee officers should report to, which budget is used to allocate resources and ultimately where decisions are made. This often leads to duplication of effort and slow decision making with officers reporting to two or possibly three committees on the same issue.

The Council needs to organise its affairs to meet the needs of its citizens rather that its own convenience. It is therefore important that we identify the needs of the City and its citizens and make decisions in ways that address that need rather than those which suit our current structures. In some instances functional structures may not be best suited to meet needs.

The overall needs of the City must also be balanced out by the needs of specific areas/wards. Members are elected by areas to represent their interests and it is important that appropriate mechanisms are put in place to allow this to happen.

Research into the current governance arrangements and feedback from Members has shown that;

• There is an increasing burden on members and officers in attending and servicing meetings .e.g. 1521 reports were sent to committee last year approximately 42% of which were either for noting or could have been dealt with by delegation to officers
• Some Members have spend in excess of 50 hours per week on Council business
• Decisions take a long time to make and this delays delivery
• There is an imbalance between corporate and service issues in favour of the latter
• There is a lack of scrutiny
• There is a dilution of political leadership
• A lack of accountability is evident with Members becoming increasingly frustrated at how difficult it is to make things happen quickly.

Members also expressed through a survey in 2005 that, they feel that the existing decision-making process would benefit from being altered to ensure that decisions are made more speedily whilst still allowing Members to be fully aware of the strategic issues that impact upon the Council.

The future leadership and community planning expectations of councils also increase the pressure for Members to be more fully involved in the strategic direction of the organisation and the City.

While it is important to touch on the shortcomings of the present situation the key issue is to identify the characteristics of Good Governance, so that these characteristics can be built into any new structure.

What is Good Governance ?

Governance is the system by which local government directs and controls its functions and relates to its communities.

Good governance is essential to the efficient and effective conduct of business in any organisation. Within the context of the public sector "Good Governance leads to good management, good performance, good stewardship of public money, good public engagement and ultimately, good outcomes."[1]

As noted by CIB, Governance is central to the way we do business and provide services to the people of Belfast and as such it is a crucial element of the Councils ability to change and improve.

In 2004 the Independent Commission for Good Governance in Public Services, supported by the Office for Public Management (OPM), published the Good Governance Standard for Public Services. The Standard puts forward the following six principles of good governance that are common to all public service organisations:

1. Good governance means focusing on the organisations purpose and on outcomes for citizens and service users

2. Good governance means performing effectively in clearly defined functions and roles

3. Good governance means promoting values for the whole organisation and demonstrating the values of good governance through behaviour

4. Good governance means taking informed, transparent decisions and managing risk

5. Good governance means developing the capacity and capability of the governing body to be effective

6. Good governance means engaging stakeholders and making accountability real

The Standard is intended to help organisations understand and apply common principles of good governance, and also to assess the strengths and weaknesses of current governance practice and improve it. The Standard has been universally acclaimed best practice for public service organisations.

Recommendation
The Council should adopt the principles of good governance and ensure any changes to the governance arrangements are in line with these principles.

What is Good Governance like in Practice?

These issues are not specific to Belfast or Northern Ireland and in recent years councils in the rest of the UK and the Republic of Ireland have put in place new structures to deal with changing circumstances and in response to the modernising government agenda.

Generic Models

Research has shown that Councils in England and Scotland have developed different models including, cabinet, directly elected mayor, executive committee, etc. and whilst the different political environment in which we operate may mean that some of these models are not appropriate they all point to a tiered form of governance based around strategic tier and a thematic/portfolio supported by area/local forums/committees with increased levels of delegation from Council to committee and committee to officers.

The Council

The highest tier is full Council which in many authorities only deals with those matters which it is strictly legislatively required to do ;

All other functions are delegated to an appropriate committee or officer.

Strategic Tier

Benchmarking and research from best practice and other local authorities highlights the need for one committee/executive/cabinet that takes overall responsibility for setting the Councils policy framework, allocating resources, determining the relative priority of issues, integrating activities and managing overall performance. The importance of having a committee with this remit is that it allows the council to make strategic decisions based on all the resources it has at its disposal. Budgets would be allocated based on the Councils overall objectives and priorities in a co ordinated way. Committees would then provide high level performance information to the strategic tier to enable comprehensive monitoring and management of the organisations performance.

Thematic Tier

Subordinate to the strategic Committee there are generally a number of thematic Committees which have replaced traditional departmental committees and reflect the Councils priorities for their City. The individual remit of each theme differs across each Council but benchmarking suggests that they generally cover the following broad areas

• Regulatory eg licensing, planning
• Service Provision in house and out sourced
• Community Development / Cohesion mainly focussed on neighbourhoods as the key remit
• Government Agenda eg Education
• Community Planning

Examples of themes adopted by benchmark authorities is provided in Appendix 1.

Irregardless of the theme the roles and responsibilities of thematic committees normally include.

• overseeing the provision of services to the public
• scrutiny and performance review
• resource management and allocation within their theme
• consideration of recommendations from all forums
• recommendations to the strategic committee arising from scrutiny work
• investigative work as directed by the strategic committee
• call-in of officer decisions

Area Committees

Many councils have moved towards the development of area committees to facilitate the identification of local community need and to allow elected members to represent ward interests in a structured way.

Area forums also help and use partnerships to target local need in a co-ordinated way.

Analysis of best practice suggests that in general area committees have four key functions

• to fulfil a local scrutiny function of services
• to engage with other public and voluntary sector organisations at a local level
• to develop, implement, monitor and evaluate community action plans at a local area level
• to manage delegated budgets

Whilst area forums provide the opportunity to co-ordinate service planning and delivery at a local level it requires dedicated resources and infrastructure to support it. If decisions around service delivery are being made at a local level services need to be provided in such a way that they can respond on an area basis. Mechanisms need to be put in place to ensure that area decisions are in line with the organisations overall priorities, and that Members are linked into the corporate level as well as the area level.

The Role of Scrutiny

With decisions being channelled through the strategic tier via one committee/executive/cabinet it is necessary to ensure effective scrutiny arrangements for those decisions are in place. In fact the Local Government Act 2000 required all local authorities in England and Wales to make executive arrangements for one or more overview and scrutiny committee. The role of the overview and scrutiny committees can be broken down into three main elements;

Policy Development Identifying particular policy areas and developing new proposals for the benefit of communities and to help achieve the strategic objectives of the Council.

Policy Review Reviewing existing policy areas, highlighting and proposing actions that will lead to improved service provision and better outcomes for ratepayers.

Holding Decision Makers to Account Considering decisions both before and after they have been made, and their implications for the people of the area.

There are a number of ways that overview and scrutiny committees can be structured from the setting up of one single committee whose sole function is overview and scrutiny to traditional standing committees taking on the role of scrutiny for their particular area of responsibility. A key issue for any structure is the need to focus on the strategic direction set for the Council and establish if the key strategies are appropriate and being implemented effectively rather than focus on narrow operational issues.

Figure 2 - Generic Example

This form of governance or similar models are likely post 2009 as the Council receives new functions and areas of responsibility as a result of RPA.

Benchmarking Specific Examples

As outlined above this general model of governance has been adopted by most councils in the UK over recent years. However different authorities have taken various approaches to how this generic model is translated into individual political management structures. Clearly a number of factors effect the type of political structures that are most effective including political make up, size of the authority, current processes and procedures, organisational structures, range of services and service delivery methods. A few examples of new political management structures are detailed in Appendix 2 with a brief summary outlined below.

Sunderland City Council Cabinet Model

The cabinet is headed up by the Leader of the Council and consists of 10 members elected by the Council. The cabinet provides political leadership and direction across the Council and considers all policy issues. Each member of the cabinet has responsibility for an area of the Council through a number of portfolios.

In addition to the Cabinet, the City Council has a number of statutory, special or quasi-judicial Committees to consider and make decisions about Council services. The Council also has six area committees which act in a consultative role and ensure clear and localised community links are maintained.

This cabinet style of Governance works well in Councils such as Sunderland due to a number of factors most importantly the political make up of the Council which has a labour majority of just over 80%. Therefore any decisions made by the labour dominated cabinet or individual portfolio holders on this cabinet are representative of the Council as a whole. This kind of system is much more difficult to operate in hung / multi party Councils such as Belfast as decisions could be made by a portfolio holder which may not be truly representative of the views of the Council and therefore the people it represents.

Armagh City Council

Armagh City Council has recently re-structured its committee system and has put in place a strategic tier which takes the form of an Executive Committee.

The Executive Committee is essentially Armagh City and Districts cabinet.

It has four members, one each from the four political parties represented on Council. The Chairmanship of this committee is rotated between all four members.

The Executive is supported by four other committees

• The Internal Scrutiny committee
• Public Services Scrutiny committee
• The Judicial Committee
• Audit Committee

To date this arrangement is proving successful in Armagh although there are proposals to amalgamate the two scrutiny committees. The Chief Executive of Armagh said that this new system has delivered improved co-ordination, elimination of duplication and clarity of who does what. However he also accepts that this arrangement works well in his Council because of the limited size of the organisation but if Armagh became the headquarters of a new Southern Council it would need a number of standing committees and possible different membership arrangement for the Executive.

An extract from the standing orders for Armagh City Council is attached as Appendix 3.

Council / Manager System in Ireland

In this model of governance the Council is the policy making arm, and the Council manager the executive. The Council is responsible for decisions on important matters of policy and finance eg adoption of annual budget and the development of plans. It has the powers of oversight and direction of the affairs of the authority in general, and for directing the Manager in the performance of the executive role in certain circumstances. The Mangers role is a powerful one responsible for almost all executive functions and has been viewed as providing a check and balance to the power of Councillors

Scottish Models

The I&DeA have recommended that Belfast look closely at some of the Scottish models which may have more relevance to the Northern Ireland context as a number of these are multi party councils. Two in particular have been identified as best practice; Fife and Falkirk.

Both Councils adopted similar political structures with a strategic P&R Committee supported by a number of thematic and area committees including a separate Regulatory Committee with delegated authority for all Licensing decisions. An outline of the two structures are summarised below.

Fife

Fife has 78 Elected Members; 43 Labour; 21 Lib / Dem; 9 SNP; 1 Conservative; 3 Independent / other

Strategic tier

When developing the strategic tier Fife focussed on the scrutiny of both policy and performance and what mechanisms should be put in place to deliver this.

Scrutiny of Policy - In relation to policy the role of the full Council was enhanced to allow more scrutiny of major policy items such as corporate plan, budgets, community plan etc.

In order to facilitate the change of emphasis to one of focusing on policy development it was recommended that:

Inter-party protocol on rights & responsibilities be developed for setting the rules for the use of the party whip and Members rights to call in a proposal for further review prior to a decision being taken.

Only items placed on agenda required a decision by Members whilst items for noting were incorporated within a regular Council bulletin.

Scrutiny of Performance -The Policy & Resources Committee deals with all strategic and corporate policy, policies and strategies to meet the corporate plan, overall capital and revenue expenditure, overall performance and quality of Council services, the use of Council resources, and overall scrutiny and performance review.

Thematic Level

In order to create a flexible, customer orientated organisation two Customer Committees and two Themed Committees were created to support the P&R Committee.

Customer Committees - Children Services
- Adult Services

Themed Committees - Community Safety Services
- Environmental & Development Services

Area Committees

Fife Council was committed at the outset to establishing structures that would bring the Council closer to the public. They therefore established 3 Area Committees and 10 Area Forums.

Fife Council believes Area Forums have not worked in general as both internal and external stakeholders have not bought into the concept. Elected Members also believe the Area Forums have usurped their role and authority resulting in significant Member objection, while the general public and other stakeholder groups have not demonstrated any real commitment.

Furthermore, experience has shown Fife Council that the public responds better to specific areas of public consultation as opposed to general forums for capturing all community concerns.

Falkirk

Falkirk has 32 Elected Members; 10 SNP; 14 Labour; 2 Conservative; 6 Independents.

Strategic Tier

When reviewing their political structures it was agreed unanimously that a cabinet system did not meet the needs of the Council. The structure that they therefore adopted involves Council as the ultimate decision making body with a Policy and Resources Committee which is responsible for determining the Councils strategic direction and allocation of resources.

Thematic Committees

Five Strategic Committees based on a thematic system were established with each of the Strategic Committees comprised of twelve Members (none from the Policy and resources Committee). The Committees were designed to focus on the Councils strategic objectives and to deal with issues which cut across traditional departmental lines in a joined-up manner. The Strategic Committees are represented by Economic Welfare & Development, Community Health & Safety, Social Inclusion & Equalities, Community & Citizen Development and Environment & Heritage.

The Strategic Committees combine a scrutiny and policy development role, including the review of policy and service delivery issues. Falkirk Council believes this has resulted in a number of advantages:

• the involvement of a large number of Members in scrutiny;
• the development of Members specialist knowledge;
• the ability to scrutinise in more depth.

Area Committees / Forums

Six Area Forums were established primarily to help develop the Community Planning role of the Council and to develop partnerships with external organisations. The Area Forums do not have any political power as no Elected Members sit on these forums and there is no decision-making or scrutiny responsibility.

Falkirk Council believes one of key achievements of their new structure was the move away from service based Committees to ones based on defined themes. This has achieved the objective of broadening out the role of Elected Members and distinguishing operational issues from policy issues. However, experience has shown Falkirk that some individual Members in their role as Convenors still monitor operational issues of services that report to their Committee.

Governance Options Considered For Belfast

Although there are numerous ways of structuring or reconfiguring governance models the following options were considered for Belfast which encapsulate five basic ways of organising.

Option 5 Strategic Policy and Resources Committee

The CIB considered that the only option worth spending time and effort on was option 5 as the others while having theoretical advantage would be difficult to deliver in the Belfast scenario.

The acid test for a new governance structure is what difference it makes to peoples lives out in the streets of Belfast not what difference it makes to the pecking order of Parties, Members, Departments, Officers within City Hall. If we are to aspire to a one Council approach the latter issue should be largely irrelevant.

The Victorian Councillors who set up the current committee structures gained a reputation as the City fathers in recognition of their leadership role in providing for the City and its people. A similar level of leadership is required at the beginning of this century although perhaps not in such a paternalistic style.

Leadership will be evident when difficult, tricky issues can be debated, decided and acted upon and relationships with partner organisations are good.

Such leadership depends on trust based on the acid test question of are we improving peoples lives? Joint working between Members and Officers is therefore essential to produce a culture that has the ability to ask for and expect greater contributions from all concerned.

Governance was described earlier in this paper as the system by which local authorities direct and control their function and relate to their communities.

The following option is intended to ensure that BCC can provide direction through vision and ambitions for the City, can control its service delivery via resource allocation and performance reporting and build its external relationships with all those other sectors and agencies that impact upon the people in Belfast.

However, it is only a structure and its success that will come down to the capability and productive relationships of the Members and Officers hence the emphasis on discipline of all involved to work to a common purpose.

Option 5 does not create improvement and change in itself but does allow time and space for Members and Officers to further develop their working relationships so that that dynamism can occur. The proposed structure is outlined in this section.

The Strategic Policy and Resources Committee would be responsible for the following.

Policy and Strategy

• Community Planning (post RPA)
• Councils Corporate Plan setting the overall direction of the Council and priorities, based on input from the other committees, the public, professional advice and statistical trends. Where cross cutting issues such as antisocial behaviour are identified as priorities the P&R Committee would take responsibility but with Officers allocated to the task from across the Council as required. This would also include RPA/Improvement issues. The P&R Committee may also chose to delegate some of these issues to Standing Committees to deliver.
• Agree other Committee plans and resources in line with corporate priorities - this will entail a different approach to resource/budget allocation as first call will be on agreed priorities. This may be a committee issue e.g. waste management but could mean a corporate priority taking precedence over a traditional committee budget. In short the intention is to move away from the current percentage addition based on Departmental projections to a more structured allocation based on what Members decide the City requires.
• External relations policy and procedure the P&R Committee would be responsible for prioritising and managing the Councils key external relations with other organisations both locally and internationally. It would decide which organisations the Council would be in a relationship with, how and who would represent the Council and what arrangements are needed to support Council representatives in terms of giving a Council position and reporting back to Council. The intention is to ensure a coherent and integrated response from the Council.
• The external relationship and management issue will become increasingly important as the RPA unfolds with the Council responsible for the Belfast Community Plan that will cover all issues relating to city performance e.g. crime, investment, education, health etc.

The relationship with six other similar sized Councils will also be a new factor and it will be important to build an effective Belfast and local government lobby to interface with Stormont, Westminster and Brussels.

Performance

• Performance monitoring of other committee plans if the P&R Committee is setting Council Policy and direction with input from other Committees it is incumbent upon the P&R Committee to ensure that the overall policy and direction is being adhered to.
• Value for money reviews across Council - as part of its toolkit to manage and control policy and resources the P&R Committee needs to have the authority to direct value for money and performance review in all areas of the organisation. The trigger for such action may be part of strategy development, poor performance results, concern expressed by Members at the P&R or other Committees or concern expressed by key stakeholders or citizen groups.
• Audit there is a requirement to undertake audit from a probity perspective which is different from the above reviews. The whole question of how local Councils are audited and reviewed will be further addressed during RPA implementation. At this point it is suggested that an Audit Committee is established in accordance with best practice.
• Exercise sanction for non delivery by other committees - the P&R committee must be able to take action if a committee is not delivering in accordance with agreed policies or plans or is failing to address poor performance by the Officers reporting to it.

Resources

There are three key resource areas the Council needs to get proper control over if corporate planning and delivery is to happen. These are money, people and assets (land, buildings, information).

Money

• Set overall budget both revenue and capital expenditure budget setting needs to be undertaken centrally within the constraints of what the Council wants or has to do (corporate plan) and the amount of money it is prepared to raise. A corporate plan for 3-4 years will give an indication of what is to be done and cost estimates will identify the impact on the rate. Obviously the final decision will require considerable discussion as to what is necessary, what is a priority and what is affordable before agreeing to a financial strategy. The Committee needs to commence these discussions in April rather than the current practice of debating marginal increases in January within the context of medium term (3-5 yrs) corporate and financial planning.
• Allocate budgets to other Committees there will be competing priorities and Committees will use different types of leverage to argue for their particular expenditure e.g. statutory requirement, evidenced public need, high profile projects, etc all of which are totally legitimate. However as resources are finite and politics is essentially a debate about resources there needs to be a final arbiter to make decisions and that is the role of the P&R Committee. Members will need to clarify priorities and budgets at both organisational and departmental levels.
• Overall monitoring of budgets to some extent this will be made easier for Members if we properly use the balanced scorecard approach for reporting Council performance. The P&R Committee if it is to properly set and allocate budgets needs to be continually informed of budget performance as undoubtedly estimates will not work out as planned. There will be overspends and under spends, there will be unforeseen costs and unexpected windfalls. Budgets are only plans in a financial format and as everyone knows plans need to be constantly reviewed to take account of changing circumstances hence ongoing planning and adjustment is every bit as important as the plan itself.
• Authorisation of additional expenditure outside budget limits there will be occasions when additional expenditure is required but again central control is required in this matter. The simple fact is if one part of the organisation overspends it has a knock on effect on what other parts of the organisation can do now or in following years. The P&R Committee with its overall remit needs to exercise such authorisation taking account of the impact both on the organisation and on the future of the financial strategy.
• Procurement policy and procedure - A substantial amount of Council expenditure is on supplies and services. This roughly equates to around 30% of our £130m budget. At the moment about a third of this expenditure is handled via tenders for amounts exceeding £30,000, the remaining two thirds is dealt with via quotations. There is central control over the tenders via the Procurement Unit currently reporting to the Development Committee. New corporate business systems are being introduced which will bring greater control over all the expenditure on procurement items. Better organised procurement which takes account of the buying power of the Council is essential to affect major efficiency savings without negative impact on services. Given its importance to the financial health of the organisation the P&R committee needs to take responsibility for procurement as a corporate issue.

People

• Authorisation of HR Policy people make the Council work and are both our most valuable and most expensive assets, 66% of Council expenditure (includes direct payroll and on costs) and therefore human resource management is an essential feature of the P&R Committee remit.

Revisions to the scheme of delegation discussed later in this report recommends giving more responsibilities to managers to manage staff e.g. the balanced scorecard is making absenteeism a big management focus in an effort to place such responsibility where it should be i.e. with line managers not the Human Resources Section or Committee.

On this basis with Members focussing on major issues the work of the Personnel Sub Committee can be subsumed into the reformed P&R Committee.

Over the coming year or so Single Status will remain a major issue and given the difficult decisions surrounding this issue it is recommended a fixed term Single Status Sub Committee is retained until that issue is resolved.

• Control of overall establishment figures in developing corporate strategy and financial plans staffing will play the major role in getting things done and in the cost of getting things done. Departments need set establishment figures in line with their budgets and be allowed to manage within that. Officer delegation is necessary to allow managers to manage staff within those limits to encourage innovation and to ensure actions are in accord with HR policy and legislation. However any addition to establishment needs P&R Committee sanction to control growth.
• Chief Officer appraisal a lot of what has been discussed to date places new and greater onus on Members to strategically direct the organisation. It is however a joint effort with Officers and a more coherent one Council approach will only work with a strong Executive team. To achieve this all Chief Officers will report to the P&R Committee both individually on strategic issues that affect their own service and collectively as a Chief Officers Management Team on the overall running of the organisation. Although Committee already undertake Chief Officer appraisals it is recommended that the P&R Committee should also appraise the Chief Officers as a Corporate Executive team on how well they are ensuring the organisation delivers for Belfast.

Assets

• Land and property policy and procedure have a major impact on expenditure and again it is important to have greater central control. Current standing orders require land and property acquisition and disposal to be reported to the Development Committee. This replaced earlier standing orders which had such issues reported to the Policy and Resources Committee and was intended to give the newly formed Development Committee some leverage in using the Council land assets to assist regeneration in the City and allow it to build creditability with other agencies.

Given the importance of land and property to the Councils overall financial position and ability to assist delivery of services and benefits the P&R Committee needs to take a greater role and mange these decisions.

• Capital programme development and delivery another important factor both in terms of service provision and cost. The delivery of the capital programme as a whole is currently monitored and reported to a sub committee of Policy and Resources. The development of the programme, however, falls between committees, sub committees and the P&R Committee. In the new scenario Departments and their respective Committee will make a serious business case for capital expenditure to the P&R Committee who will agree to the level of expenditure in the context of the Councils overall affordable aims and objectives.
• Information Services policy and procedure the Councils ISB section is an essential service to the running of the organisation in terms of communication internally and externally and in terms of income generation from external organisations. The future of information services is fast changing and technology will be a major driver in terms of how we interface with ratepayers, customers, each other and how things are done in the Council. For example, the new corporate business systems currently being purchased and installed will change how a lot of clerical processing type work is undertaken. The Policy and Resources Committee needs to be at the forefront in developing these type of services as the Council moves further into e-government.

Democratic Services

• The P&R Committee will remain as at present responsible for issues such as the Council constitution, standing orders and other types of governance regulation.

Communication

• The communication review is already aimed at creating some common messages and the P&R Committee will remain responsible for giving a Council position on major issues that do not fall within the remit of standing committees. If the P&R Committee is to seriously set a direction for the Council all aspects of promoting that direction should be captured including making much more corporate use of the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor to project the agreed image and aims of the organisation rather than leaving the theme of the mayoral year to individual choice.

Sub Committees

• In the above scenario and in accordance with the increased delegation of function to Officers proposed in this report it is recommended that the existing Sub Committees of Policy and Resources are eliminated. The exceptions as noted are a fixed term Sub Committee to address Single Status and an independent Audit Sub Committee which would meet at least four times per year.

The Director of Corporate Services has suggested that there may be a requirement for a Central Services Sub Committee that would address issues not covered by the main committee or delegation. At this juncture it may be appropriate to operate the main committee only to see how business works out rather than establishing a further sub committee at the outset.

The P&R Committee may need to meet more often than monthly particularly at the outset when a number of longer term issues need to be agreed. However, a number of these such as plans, budgets etc are annual decisions and would not occur on a regular basis.

Recommendation
It is recommended that the Proposed Strategic Policy & Resources Committee is established as described with a fixed term Sub Committee on Single Status and an Audit Sub Committee.

Standing Committees

• It is proposed to retain existing standing committees at least until RPA is implemented when further change may be required in line with Government recommendations. The Standing Committees will oversee the work of the relevant Department with Chief Officers reporting to their own committee as at present (except areas agreed for delegation) and minutes from their meetings still being ratified by full Council.

The relationship of these Committees to the P&R Committee is clearly not one of parity. The Standing Committees will develop proposals for addressing issues within their remit, seek agreement and resource via the P&R Committee and ensure their Departments undertake and deliver work as planned. In other words policy development within their own area and within overall Council parameters, review of existing policy and holding officers to account. The P&R Committee may delegate major cross cutting issues which have been agreed as corporate priorities to Standing Committees and Departments for delivery.

Where issues arise outside of planned activity or where Members feel an issue is not being properly resolved it is proposed that fixed term scrutiny forums could be established so that Members could fully investigate an issue in terms of site visits, meeting relevant agencies and those using or affected by the particular issue with the aim of arguing for adjustment to the Councils plans and subsequent budget and resource allocation.

As with the P&R Committee it is proposed to eliminate all Sub Committees and if necessary have Standing Committees meet more frequently.

Recommendations
To retain the current standing Committees of Development, Community and Recreation, Town Planning and Environmental Health with responsibilities outlined above.

To eliminate all current sub committees

Other Committees

Licensing

The Health and Environmental Services Committee deals with all licensing applications and at present this is a cumbersome agenda with up to two special committee meetings being held almost every month to deal with licensing issues. In addition to this there may be a requirement for the Council to take responsibility for liquor licensing in the near future with the post RPA scenario pointing to issues such as taxis, doormen etc. Research into other local authorities has shown that there is a need to set up a specific committee to deal with licensing issues. This is not only in relation to the volume of applications which need to be considered but also the complexity of the decisions which require members of such a committee to be specifically trained.

It would be important that decisions are delegated to such a licensing committee to cover the determination of applications and renewals otherwise committee debates could be rerun at Council meetings with those for and against particular licensing decisions exercising their right to appear at Council. Overall Council policy in regard to major issues such as liquor licensing would need to be agreed centrally as such policy frameworks could involve presumptions about licensing hours in particular areas and all members of the Council would receive papers for the Licensing Committee in advance of the meeting.

The matters which the Licensing Committee would consider in the short term would include:

Entertainment

• Grant of licences
• Renewal, transfer or variation of licences where objections are received
• Suspension and revocation of licences
• Consideration of applications where applicant has previous convictions
• Applications for a waiver to permit entertainment involving striptease or nudity

Amusement Permits

• Grant of permits

Sex establishments

• Grant of licences
• Renewal, transfer or variation of licences

Regulatory matters

• Street trading
• Sales of tobacco to children and young people
• Sunday trading
• Alcohol consumption in public places

Recommendation
To establish a Licensing Committee with delegated authority to make decisions on all Licensing issues.

Area Committees

Area Committees are a feature of many of the new arrangements elsewhere in councils across the British Isles. The Councils future role in community planning may indeed require such an arrangement. At this stage the recommendation on establishing area committees is to keep the issue on the agenda but not to create anything right away. The SNAP process which is due to be developed over 2006/07 will require area based forums which can be used to test the viability of area committees.

Proposed Committee Structure

Recommendation
Members are asked to agree to the new proposed committee structure.

Roles and Responsibilities

In order for any governance arrangements to be effective there must be clearly defined roles and responsibilities for Members and Officers. In accordance with good governance practices the Council should be concerned primarily with setting out a vision for the organisation, developing strategy, ensuring policies and procedures are in place to provide effective and efficient management of the organisation and monitoring, supporting and challenging senior management in this role.

At present the roles of Members and Officers are not always clear and the current traditional committee and sub committee structures have led both members and officers to become more focused on day to day operational Council focussed issues with less time devoted to strategic management, leadership and quality of life citizen issues.

Best Practice guidance from the I&DeA defines the role of members as;

• setting the strategic direction,
• ensuring accountability to the public for the organisations performance and
• assure the organisation is managed with ability and integrity.

The roles of officers on the other hand is to undertake the day to day operational management of the organisation, including advising on policy and strategy, consulting with stakeholders and reporting on performance.

Also good performing authorities work well because there are good

working relations between members and officers and while they have different roles to play they still operate as a team and share responsibility. This requires open and honest relationships and the sharing of information which allows decisions to be made in a transparent way for the benefit of the City. A model on Member / Officer roles developed by the I&DeA is attached at Appendix 4.

The I&DeA, through the Member Development Programme has begun to explore roles of members and examine how a culture of greater openness and trust can be fostered between members and officers. A key element of this is to foster a culture of open, respectful debate and sharing of knowledge. Often this can be done much better outside the formal setting of the committee meeting. Work has therefore begun on developing less formal ways for members and officers to interact with the establishment of set party briefing days. It is hoped this way of working can be developed further through more member / officer working groups and one to one meetings.

Recommendations
To agree roles and responsibilities for Members and Officers as outlined in Appendix 4.

To work on the basis of mutual respect with a clear understanding of the mutuality of each others role to ensure that the Council develops a better quality of life for the benefit of the people of Belfast.

To participate in the set party group briefing days and to use them as a means of sharing information and discussing issues.

To continue to work with the I&DeA and member peers to explore ways of improving Member/Officer relationships.

Delegation

In order for the preferred model to work effectively, it is agreed that there needs to be a review of the level at which decisions are taken i.e. Council, Committee, Sub-Committee or by Officers. While initial consideration was given to delegating some functions from Council to Committee members considered that that the role of the full Council as it stands in Belfast should be retained. This will allow Council time to oversee the implementation of the proposed new political structures and further consider if they could be improved by delegating responsibility for some areas eg Licensing to standing committees. However if the proposed structures are to be effective in improving and speeding up decision making there is a need to consider delegation of some decisions to officers.

In revising the Scheme of Delegation a number of fundamental factors will need to be borne in mind. Any revised Scheme of Delegation, if it is to be workable and effective, will require:

• a mutually respectful and trusting relationship between Members and officers
• clearly defined parameters for officers
• confidence of the Members that delegated decisions do not result in the diminution of their role
• an information flow to be established to ensure Members are kept abreast of minor policy changes and changes in operational activity.

In addition to the issue of delegation to officers, Members are often also tasked with preparing for and attending Committees and Sub-Committees where a significant amount of the business involves reports for information or noting and which could be dealt with by an alternative means should Members require specific information.

An analysis of reports presented to Committees and Sub-Committees from 24th January, 2005 until 20th January, 2006 has been undertaken. The findings show that during this period approximately 1521 reports were submitted for consideration. Of these a total of 372 were submitted for update or noting only. If these reports were to be omitted, a reduction of 24.5% in Committee business could be achieved. However, It is recognised that a number of the reports which do not require a decision have been requested by the Members and provide timely and relevant information. For example, the extent of vandalism and its subsequent costs in Council-owned parks and the quarterly report on the revenue budget position of the Belfast Waterfront Hall Board and the Managing Directors monthly progress report. Therefore, further work would require to be undertaken to identify how such information might be best considered by the Members if not at a formal Committee meeting. One solution may be a regular Council bulletin as is the practice in Fife Council.

Recommendation
To establish a mechanism which allows reports for noting to be removed from committee business while still providing councillors with timely and relevant information.

It is apparent that there are a number of areas which could be delegated to officers without diminishing the responsibility vested in Members to ensure that the Councils resources are managed wisely and to the benefit of the citizens of the city. Such decisions would be non-controversial in nature and governed by established and robust criteria previously agreed by Council. These would cover the following areas

• Inviting and Approving of Tenders / Contracts in accordance with agreed public procurement processes
• Implementation of initiatives under a Business Plan agreed by Committee
• Allocation of grants under a certain limit within criteria set by Committee
• Staffing changes to structures, amendments to establishment, change designations, change reporting lines etc within agreed budget and overall establishment levels.
• Funding for partnership working to deliver agreed Council objectives
• Viring budgets within the context of overall revenue estimates subject to financial regulations
• Ability to enter into lease agreements
• Permission to stage annual civic events after annual programme has been agreed
• Use of City Hall
• Civic Hospitality
• Repeat delivery of initiatives year on year subject to achievement of results acceptable to Committee
• Production of marketing materials in agreement with Corporate Communications
• Organisation of seminars and workshops
• Agreement to attendance at Committee of external organisations where necessary in agreement with Chairs
• Minor text approvals of final drafts of documents

All delegated areas must be implemented in line with financial regulations where relevant. In addition officers would still be expected to use their experience and awareness of political issues to bring any potentially controversial items to the attention of Committee.

The analysis referred to above showed that a total of 265 reports covering these areas were submitted for consideration. If the Members were to agree to delegation in these areas, it would result in a further decrease of 17.4% in the business to be considered by Committees/Sub-Committees. (See Appendix 5). If both categories, that is, reports which are for noting only and dont require decisions and those which have been identified as suitable for delegation are taken together, a total of a 41.9% reduction could be effected in the number of reports which are submitted to Members.

Research into other Councils has identified that these types of decision are delegated to officer level. A copy of Sunderlands Scheme of Delegation to Chief Officers is attached as Appendix 6 by way of example.

How should a Scheme of Delegation be Developed?

A process for developing a revised scheme of delegation is outlined below.

In the first instance members are requested to agree in principle the areas outlined above to be considered for delegation to officers.

It is then recommended that Legal Services Department draw up a draft Scheme of Delegation in consultation with the Directors and Heads of Service.

The Council Improvement Board to then consider the final draft of the Scheme of Delegation so as to provide a consistent approach.

Finally the Policy and Resources Committee to agree final Scheme of Delegation and final changes made to the Councils Standing Orders to make this operational.

Crucially, proposed changes to the Scheme of Delegation must be discussed in an open and transparent manner with Members.

Recommendations
Members are asked to agree in principle to the areas detailed for delegation to officers.

Members are asked to agree the process outlined for developing a revised scheme of delegation.

Performance Reporting

With greater delegation comes increased performance management and scrutiny. The proposed new political management arrangements outlines specific roles for committees in relation to scrutiny and monitoring of officer performance both on an individual basis through Chief Officer / Heads of Service appraisals and collectively through monitoring the performance of the Chief Officers Management Team. In support of increased performance reporting and monitoring the Core Improvement Team are facilitating the development of a balanced scorecard approach to performance management. Scorecards will be developed for every service and reported to the approproate Committee on a quarterly basis.

An example of what would be reported through a Balanced Scorecard against set targets is detailed below.

Membership of Committees

Membership of Committees and Sub-Committees is governed by Standing Orders and is based on the principle of proportionality. d'Hondt is used to provide a hierarchy of choices (see below) which Party Groups use to determine appointments where Groups have an unequal number of places (i.e. when the proportionality calculation results in fractions of places to be allocated).

Hierarchy of choices generated by the d'Hondt system (current Party Group strengths)

Currently the Party Groups have the following allocation of places:

The proposed Model (Assuming 6 Committees each with 20 places) would result in the following allocation of places to Committees:

The main implication of the proposed structure is that, due to the loss of Sub-Committee places, rather than 230 places to be filled there would be 120. The DUP would have 35 places to distribute between 15 Members, whereas currently it has 67 (29 + 38) places to allocate between 15 Members.

This would impact also on the potential of Members to receive Attendance Allowance payments as they may have fewer meetings to attend. Average attendance of a Councillor at meetings of Committees and Sub-Committees is in the order of 9 per month. This does not include attendances at working groups, conferences or outside bodies.

Chairman/Deputy Chairman Posts

Currently, using the d'Hondt principles, the following positions have been allocated to Party Groups:

In relation to the proposed structures, the following allocation, under d'Hondt, may apply (nb. assuming Party Groups were to fill Chairmanship positions first):

Party Groups may not fill Chairmanship positions first if, for instance, it were considered that the Policy and Resources Committee Deputy Chairmanship post were a more important position than the Chair of one of the other Standing Committees.

This scenario would reduce significantly the number of Members who would have a recognised position of responsibility and status.

Members with Special Responsibility
Financial Implications

Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen are deemed to have a role which carries additional responsibilities. The Party Group Leaders have now also been added to this list. There are now 38 positions which the Council has determined merit a payment of Special Responsibility Allowance. The maximum amount of Special Responsibility Allowance which the Council can pay is determined by Regulation (currently £44,714 for Belfast) and the following allocation per annum has been agreed:

Party Group Leader Allocation

The proposed new structure would result in 6 positions of Chairman, 6 of Deputy Chairman and 6 Party Group Leaders (Housing Liaison Committee not included).

The number of positions which would attract Special Responsibility Allowance would reduce from 38 to 18. This would reduce the earnings of those Members who hold Sub-Committee Chairmanships/Deputy Chairmanships, as well as reducing significantly the number of Members who would have a recognised position of responsibility and status. Of course, the Council would be in a position to reallocate Special Responsibility Allowance (to the maximum amount permitted) and extend the number of eligible posts if roles were identified which would have additional responsibility attached to them.

A revised scheme of Councillors Allowances would, of course, impact significantly on the above assessment.

Membership of the P&R Committee

There are a number of options for determining the membership of the strategic P&R Committee in line with its special functions and areas of responsibility. As outlined in the benchmarking analysis earlier in the report different Councils have adopted methods of selecting to members for the strategic tier committee. For example Armagh has only four members on its executive one from each of the main parties, Sunderland has a cabinet of 10 portfolio holders and Falkirk have a Policy and Resources Committee comprising of 8 senior members.

A number of Councils who have developed a strategic tier committee stipulate that the members of this committee can not sit on any of the main standing committees or alternatively others agreed that the chairs of the main committees must be on the strategic committee.

A recent example in Belfast City Council of adopting different methods for the selection of a committee, albeit not actually part of the main committee structure was the set up of CIB (formerly MIB). When first constituted the then MIB was made up of the six Party Group leaders and the chairmen of the five main committees. The membership of the Board was then questioned in that the Improvement Agenda is likely to run over the period of this Council. As Chairmen are appointed for a maximum of two years this raised questions over continuity. A further question had arisen in that some Parties have members who are not necessarily chairmen but have a strong interest in changing the organisation and that it may therefore be appropriate to allow such members to replace chairmen at the Parties discretion.

An additional consideration was building capacity of younger members who are more likely to remain in local government post 2009 when the abolition of the dual mandate of MLA and Councillor and the offer of severance will cause the loss of many experienced public representatives.

It was agreed that Parties were given the discretion to replace their Chairmen with another nominee if they were satisfied that the Committees can remain aligned to the Improvement Agenda and that the membership remains at 11 members i.e. Six Party Leaders and the five Chairmen places.

The size and structure of the Board has worked well. While being smaller than the Councils standing committee it provides a political balance and is proving to be an effective mechanism for driving the Councils improvement agenda.

If there are to be special arrangements for the number and make up of the strategic P&R Committee this will have an effect on the analysis of committee membership detailed in the previous section of the report.

Recommendation
Members are asked for their views on the membership of the proposed Strategic P&R Committee.

Remuneration

As Members are keen to point out they did not seek election for the miniscule financial reimbursement that Councils are obliged to allocate. Indeed Members spend substantial amounts of time on constituency issues for which there are no financial adjustments.

However, as detailed in the section on membership of the proposed new committee system there is a substantial reduction in the number of chairmen and deputies in relation to the Sub Committees with a subsequent knock on effect on allowances.

In the immediate period the issue of attendance allowance may not be as much affected since the Committees will most likely have to meet more regularly and depending on how things work out additional scrutiny forums may be required from time to time on particular issues. In fact if the scrutiny approach proves popular it may serve as a means of reallocating special responsibility lost from the Sub Committees but on a different basis and more focused on relevant issues.

Ultimately the Council is tied to the discretion of the DoE Local Government branch in terms of how flexible it can be with reimbursing Members. While the RPA holds out the prospect of a more sensible and permanent solution to this issue the Council has put forward arguments for an interim solution.

Appendix 7 sets out the detail of Council proposals to the Remuneration Working Group and also includes the Solace submission. The Members Remuneration Working Group set up by the DOE, is due to report to the Minister in April and DOE Officials have indicated that it is likely much greater discretion will be given to Councils to enhance the amount paid by way of Special Responsibility Allowance.

Implementation

Following consideration by the CIB and if accepted it is proposed to take the paper with any adjustments into the formal decision making process at a special P&R Committee on 10th April 2006. Again if accepted and further adjustments are required the amended report can be considered at a further P&R Committee in May with the aim of having agreed changes endorsed through the Councils AGM in June. These would also include formalisation of a scheme of delegation and amendments to Standing Orders as change cannot take effect without such adjustments.

If Members are not convinced these proposals are deliverable but still wish to drive improvement reconsideration of the role of the CIB may be an alternative.

The Council still has to meet efficiency targets, develop a coherent corporate plan, improve performance and respond to the rapidly developing RPA programme.

A major impact of all of this regardless of which route is chosen is the effect on Council departmental structures. The opportunity for increased efficiency, performance improvement and impact on peoples lives can all be derived if a clear Council direction is set at a political level that can be mirrored operationally.

Conclusion

The report has tried to cover the main issues as discussed with Members and Officers in as concise a fashion as possible.

The what and how of improving the impact and performance of Councils in delivering for local people is now generally well known and have been referenced in the report.

The key issue is the level of desire to lead and make a difference despite a number of difficulties of a general nature that have been faced by other cities and some problems that are peculiar to Belfast.

The report does set out a way forward that if adopted can allow the main concerns of Members to be addressed in how they can best represent their constituents and their city now and in the future.

We have already had an assessment of the past through the I&DeA report, this Governance paper is a call to the imagination, which if acted upon will allow us to vision the future, allocate resources, take tangible first steps, deal with blocks and major difficulties yet still inspire people to work and deliver for Belfast.

The key ingredient that cannot be derived from reports is leadership. To lead change in the organisation requires a change in oneself and without sufficient Members and Officers committed, there will be hesitancy, the chance to draw back and continual ineffectiveness.

Professor Rick Wilford
School of Politics,
International Studies & Philosophy
Queens University Belfast

Introduction

I would like, first, to thank the Committee for inviting me to submit written evidence to the inquiry and, secondly, for giving me the opportunity to supplement it via an oral evidence session.

My interest in the inquiry arises most immediately from the role I play as co-coordinator of the Northern Ireland Devolution Monitoring project, overseen by the Constitution Unit, University College London. The project, which encompasses Scotland and Wales in addition to Northern Ireland, has run continuously since 1999, has been funded by among others the Economic and Social Research Council and the Leverhulme Foundation and is scheduled to run until the end of 2008. Between 1999 and 2005, the project produced quarterly reports on devolution/direct rule: since 2006, the reports have appeared every four months the most recent in September 2007. Each of the reports is freely available at the Constitution Units website, www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/

My particular responsibility in relation to the project is the NI Assembly, including its committees. This continues a research interest in Parliamentary committees that began with the creation of the territorial select committees at Westminster in the late 1970s, ie with the Welsh Affairs and Scottish Affairs Select Committees and, subsequently, the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee established in the mid-1990s.

That prior research interest was of some help in approaching the study of the Assemblys Committees. However, the model provided by Westminsters select committees supplies only a partial guide to the roles discharged by the Assemblys Committees, more particularly its Statutory Committees. Judged by a Westminster standard, Statutory Committees are hybrids of its select and standing committees since they enjoy a remit that encompasses both a scrutiny and a legislative function: at Westminster those functions are divided, respectively, between select and standing committees. Furthermore, as set out in paragraph 9 of the Strand One section of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, the Statutory Committees perform other functions and have a role in the initiation of legislationa significant power that, while as yet not exercised by them, is denied to select committees.

The committees of the Irish Parliament are different in structure, comprising Standing, Select, Joint and Special Committees and, while the Select Committees (Standing Order 83 (4)) have the power to draft recommendations for legislative change and for new legislation, the exercise of that power is at the discretion of the Dail, whereas the Committees of both the NI Assembly and the Scottish Parliament (Mandatory and Subject Committees) enjoy a right to initiate legislation. Indeed, the committees of the NI Assembly and the Scottish Parliament are the closest parallels in terms of powers and, given their novelty and near contemporaneous creation, each engaged in rather steep learning curves as they evolved. (Outwith the UK & the RoI, the subject select committees of the New Zealand Parliament do bear some resemblance to NIs Statutory Committees.)

Audit or Enhancement?

The inquiry into committee systems and structures cannot avoid a review or an audit of the experiences of the committees during the (interrupted) 1999-2002 period. As the Committee will be aware, the Assembly Secretariat conducted its own Review of the Effectiveness of Committees prior to the restoration of devolution while the original Procedure Committee did consider some matters of interest to the current inquiry in its Review of the Legislative Process. Clearly, the Committee will wish to draw on each report where material is relevant to the current inquiry.

Rather than revisit those two reports in particular, it may be useful if, via the terms of reference of the inquiry, I focus on possible means of enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the Committees by drawing on observations made during the production of the monitoring reports and a series of interviews I conducted in 2006 with a number of former committee chairs.

Committee Number/Size/Multiple Memberships

If one includes the Assembly Commission and the Business Committee, there was a total of 184 Statutory and Standing Committee places to fill following the restoration of devolution in May 2007. Given the ineligibility of the Speaker, the Executive, including the two junior ministers, coupled with the decision of two Members to decline Committee places, there were 91 MLAs available to fill these places, yielding a crude average of approximately two committee places per member. However, the constraint of proportionality in terms of committee memberships, ie the need for the committees to reflect, broadly, relative party strengths in the chamber, the requirement to establish a Statutory Committee for each Department, plus the uniform size of the Statutory Committees, meant that such a neat division of labour was precluded. The consequence was, and is, that multiple committee memberships is a hallmark of the current Assembly, as it was between 1999-2002.

Following the restoration of devolution in 2007, the initial allocation of all committee places (including Chairs and Deputy Chairs) yielded the following outcomes:

One member sat on five committees (more than any member in the first Assembly);
19 members sat on three committees;
52 members sat on two committees;
19 members sat on one committee.

Whilst there has been some reallocation in the intervening period (for instance, the MLA with five memberships now sits on four committees), the norm is dual membership: more than half of eligible MLAs hold two committee memberships, one of whom holds the deputy chairmanship of two committees and was, initially, a member of a third committee. Of course, the demands associated with the Committees are not equally borne and will vary over time: those associated with, for instance, the (Standing) Audit Committee are significantly less exacting than those associated with a Statutory Committee or, indeed, certain of the other Standing Committees.

Equally, given the role allocated to the Statutory Committees in the legislative process, the demands made upon them will vary according to the legislative activism of their associated Departments. Thus, among Statutory Committees there will be variations in their workloads governed, in part, by the legislative agendas of their associated Departments and the consequential and differential demands arising from the committee stages of Bills. The broad point is that multiple memberships may be more or less manageable given the variations in workload between and among committees.

A not entirely unrelated matter is that the issue of multiple mandates may complicate the manageability of multiple committee memberships. The issue is, of course, currently being explored by the Assembly & Executive Review Committee following the agreement of the Preparation of Government Committee in August 2006 to phase out multiple mandates. (The Procedure Committee may care to note that in the current Scottish Parliament, only one MSP is also in the House of Lords and one other also sits in the House of Commons and intends to resign his seat at the next General Election. In addition, only a handful of MSPs (4) are also local councillors.

Constraints

Ideally, perhaps, one could argue that eligible MLAs should be restricted to membership of one Statutory Committee which would enable them to specialize in its work. However, this is precluded given the size of the Executive and the provisions in the relevant Standing Orders (respectively, 47:1 and 47:3) that each such Committee shall contain 11 members and be inclusive of the parties in the Assembly. In addition, SO 46:3 provides the requirement that all eligible members are offered at least one Statutory Committee place. The Procedure Committee will be aware that without a change in those SOsand in the size of the Executivesuch an ideal outcome is unachievable.

However, and while this runs counter to any proposal to limit multiple memberships, there is a perhaps stronger case for Statutory Committee Chairs to be excused from the memberships of other Statutory Committees and perhaps certain of the Standing Committees. If implemented this would mean that any such vacancies would necessarily have to be filled by other members, thereby increasing the incidence of multiple membership, albeit only marginally. Currently, six Statutory Committee Chairs sit on other committees: one on two (a Statutory and a Standing Committee) and the remainder on one: two of whom sit on Standing Committees and three on Statutory Committees. (In the Scottish Parliament, none of the Convenors of either the Mandatory or Subject Committees sit on another committee, other than the Committee Convenors Group.)

The proposal to limit Committee Chairs to that single role would enable them to become expert in its performance, without the distractions occasioned by serving elsewhere. However, during interviews conducted with a number of former Chairs, it was clear that each took the view that their effective participation in other Committees was severely curtailed if not precluded by the demands of Chairmanship. As one put it, I was just going through the motions (in attending another Committee), while another stated I was there to make up the numbers. If that is a common attitude among Chairs, it suggests that they do not feel themselves to be over-extended by their membership of another committee(s). Moreover, it diminishes the potential of the relevant Committees if such members adopt a mechanistic approach to its activities.

Workload Reduction

The remit enjoyed by each of the Statutory Committees is extensive, although in one key respect they have not taken full advantage of it, namely the opportunity to initiate legislation. Only one (Standing) Committee (Standards and Privileges) has thus far brought a Bill to legislative fruition. (Between 1999-2007 there were four Committee Bills tabled in the Scottish Parliament, each of which was enacted.)

The near total absence of Committee legislation is not in itself a symptom of failure, of course. Statutory Committees have, in my view, been rather overloaded by the demands that arise from the extensive repertoire of roles they perform which themselves constitute a further constraint. Their role in the legislative process, together with the policy consultation and scrutiny roles and the opportunity to embark on their own inquiries, together have tended to narrow the opportunity to bring forward their own legislative proposals. These heavy demands make it all the more remarkable that, for a variety of reasonssome more persuasive than othersStatutory Committees have been reluctant to employ administrative devices to spread the load, most particularly through the creation of sub-committees (SO 58:1). I can find only three instances of sub-committees being established between 1999-2002.

Given the flexibility afforded in establishing a sub-committeeits membership is required to reflect party strengths in the Assembly as far as is practicable (SO 58:6) rather than as far as possible which is the case for parent Statutory Committeestheir rarity is, perhaps, somewhat surprising especially since they operate on a very short leash, unable for instance to take a decision on behalf of the relevant parent committee (SO 58:4). Whether it is because members lack trust in one another or, more positively, wish to be involved in all aspects of a Committees activities, it seems short-sighted for them not to exploit that means of dividing up the Committees labours in order to spread the workload.

Though not provided for in the existing SOs, the Procedure Committee may wish to explore the use of rapporteurs as a means of further spreading the load: they were employed, on an experimental basis, for the conferencing approach adopted by the ETI Committee during its tourism inquiry as a supplement to more orthodox oral evidence sessions. Similarly, Committees could adopt Scottish practice and formally adopt the use of substitutes (SO 6:3A) where a member is unavailable and/or as a means of induction into committee work, particularly if the radical decision was made to rotate the membership of Committees.

The greater use of sub-committees (and perhaps the more routine use of rapporteurs) are administrative means of promoting greater efficiencies in the operation of the Statutory Committees. In addition, consideration may be given to the methods and criteria by which they choose topics for their own inquiries. During the Assemblys first mandate, Statutory Committees displayed a tendency to opt for lengthy inquiries rather than a sequence of relatively short, topical inquiries. Whilst such an apparent preference may be explicable in terms of the perceived need to build consensus and a certain esprit in fledgling Committees, I suspect that the impacts of the resulting reports may have been lessened by the duration of the inquiries themselves.

Given that less than half (n48) of the MLAs in the current Assembly sat in the first, there is a relatively shallow pool of committee expertise to draw on. This may mean that the experience of 1999-2002 could be repeated: ie, lengthy, even protracted, inquiries may become the norm in the early phase of the new Assembly. However, if there is a greater readiness to employ sub-committees and, perhaps, if Committee Clerks can themselves encourage MLAs to consider the relative merits of short versus long inquiries any such tendency may be ameliorated.

More Autonomy?

Such a prospective pattern of work and organisation may also enable Committees to define their own space to a greater extent. During the first mandate it became increasingly clear that the agendas of the Committees were structured largely by those of their associated Departments, especially where those Departments were legislatively active. This of course is unavoidable and entirely appropriate: the scrutiny of legislation, draft budgets, policy proposals and administration provide an essential set of tasks that require to be discharged. However, this tended to produce a patron-client relationship between Departments and Committees, with the latter heavily dependent on the weight and volume of departmental business. It meant that the limited autonomy available to Committees was further constrained, perhaps frustrating the opportunities for them to become constructive and critical partners of Departments.

The readiness to adopt such a role is not only contingent upon any structural/administrative/operational changes adopted by Committees: it also relies heavily on the behavioural disposition of members. On a number of occasions during the first mandate, albeit relatively few, some members identified with and voted for their Minister when a Committee report was pressed to a vote in the chamber even though the report had been agreed by the relevant Committee. Though somewhat rare, any such tendency to act as a party animal rather than as a committee creature does diminish an essential resource or characteristic of parliamentary committees: namely, the achievement and maintenance of consensus. A divided committee, especially where such a division occurs along party lines, is a boon to a Minister who may exploit such a division to his/her advantage.

Clearly, members cannot jettison entirely their ideological values and beliefs at a committee door (nor should they) but, nevertheless, there should be a disposition towards the internalisation of a committee identity: among other things, that means that members need to be confident enough to assert their (relative) independence, even at the expense of upsetting respective party whips.

Committee System

One of the features of the Statutory Committees during the first mandate was the extent to which they operated on a joined-up basis. Indeed, one might argue that there was rather more evidence of joined-up scrutiny among them than there was of joined-up government within the Executive.

Such joined-upness is actively promoted by SO 59:1 and, more especially, by SO 59:2. That latter provision, plus the role of the Finance and Personnel Committee in collating and reporting on the views of each Statutory Committee in respect of draft budgetary proposals and the (very) occasional/rare practice whereby two Statutory Committees combined to take evidence, each demonstrated the readiness to adopt a more joined-up approach. In addition, the decision to establish an informal Liaison Group was symptomatic of the felt need to evolve a more concerted and systematic approach to the fulfilment of committee roles.

One key advantage that the Statutory Committees possess (certainly over their Westminster and Dail counterparts) is that their reports are tabled on the floor of the House, thereby integrating them more fully into the life of the Assembly.

Outreach

The Assemblys Committees, especially its Statutory Committees, in discharging their functions can and to some extent do offer the opportunity for enhancing public engagement with the legislature which, as I understand it, was one of the themes underlying the recent Capability Review. This is most evident in relation to the pursuit of their freely chosen inquiries and their role in relation to policy development. In that respect, they are an important means of reaching out to the wider community. However, the Committees have been somewhat sedentary in their approach, certainly in taking evidence. Whilst a more peripatetic approach (especially on non-plenary days) would be a rather obvious means of creating more opportunities for public engagement, the deployment of sub-committees and/or rapporteurs could be explored as additional means of reaching out to wider publics and would be a resource efficient means of so doing, albeit that they would require administrative support.

TV coverage of Committee meetings is currently restricted to those held in the Senate Chamber, so the opportunity for exploiting that means of outreach is severely limited. However, perhaps Committees need to be somewhat smarter in attracting media interest to particular evidence sessions or to the tabling of reports as a means of stimulating wider public interest. Committees may also wish to institutionalise conferencing as additional means of involving wider public participation and, potentially, of stimulating media interest. Although they have become something of a fad, Committees may also wish to experiment with focus groups as a further means to the same ends. Again, this could be a task assigned to either a sub-committee or a rapporteur not least as a way of informing the conduct of a particular inquiry for which oral, evidence taking in a more interrogative style should be the norm.

(The Committee may also note the innovative Public Petitions Committee adopted in Scotland as a means of stimulating public engagement with its Parliament.)

Conclusions and Recommendations

In reflecting on the experience of the first Assembly mandate, the record of the Statutory Committees was one of measured success, which was all the more impressive given the instability of the wider political environment. In no small measure this represented the general willingness of members to adapt quickly to the demands placed upon them and by the ability of the Secretariat, especially early on, to ensure that the Committees were adequately staffed, even though resources were severely stretched.

That experience can be drawn upon in order to supply lessons, both positive and negative, for the future. In order to improve the performance of Committees, my own views can be summarized as follows.

1. There is a case for reducing the number of members on Statutory Committees. Though this may have detrimental effects on, particularly, the smaller parties in the Assembly, and thereby the inclusionary and proportional nature of the consociational thinking that underpins the design of our devolved institutions, this may be ameliorated by efficiency gains and a readiness to provide for turnover in Committee membership during the life of an Assembly. There is no magic number, of course, but the Committee may be impressed by the size of equivalent Committees in the Scottish Parliament which are mostly eight-strong. The risk of creating a division between those members who are committee members and those who are not could be avoided by the adoption of a substitute system or, more radically, of rotating membership within party groups. That said, the Committee would need to weigh up the need for members to become expert in relation to their associated Departments: this could be jeopardized by the adoption of a rotational system, though such a potential risk would be reduced if substitution became the norm.
2. The reduction in size would also help to avoid or even eliminate the need for multiple committee memberships and enable the quorum to be reduced (in Scotland the quorum is three, including the Convenor or Deputy Convenor).
3. All other things being equal the Chairs (and perhaps Deputy Chairs) normally should remain in place for the life of an Assembly. This would provide continuity and be a signal of commitment to the work of the Committees.
4. Committees should be positively encouraged to employ sub-committees on a routine basis and their administrative support should be enhanced for that purpose.
5. Committees should also consider the appointment of rapporteurs as a means of expediting their business.
6. Related to the above, Committees should consider supplementary means of gathering information through the use of conferencing, informal visits and focus groups. These would not be a substitute for the more orthodox practice of oral witness sessions during which interrogative lines of questioning can be pursued effectively.
7. Smart government is joined-up government: equally, smart scrutiny is joined-up scrutiny and needs to be evidence- rather than opinion-based. To that end, the introduction of a standing order to allow for joint committees would be a welcome development, albeit it would entail that the Committees would need to plan their agendas carefully. In addition, the Committee might like to consider a supplementary standing order providing for joint sub-committees.
8. For the most part the scrutiny function is a reactive one, responding to legislative, policy, expenditure and administrative proposals from the Executive. But in developing their profiles, Statutory Committees have to be efficient in choosing their own inquiries. They have the opportunity to steer their own course and should try to avoid the temptation to be drawn in to long-term inquiries. Relatively short inquiries, together with political luck and good timing, can help to maximise their influence.
9. To consolidate the (relative) autonomy of Statutory Committees, consideration might be given to the introduction of a standing order guaranteeing them a certain amount of time to undertake their own freely chosen activities. This would help to reduce the extent to which they become perceived largely as the clients of their associated Departments. To work effectively, this would require that the Executive gives an early indication of its planned legislative programme, especially important given the role of the Committees in the legislative process.
10. To promote joined-upness and further cement the Statutory and Standing Committees into the fabric of the Assembly, consideration might be given to the placing of the Liaison Group on a formal footing, able to report on an annual basis. Moreover, it could adopt the practice of the Scottish Parliaments Convenors Group and publish a Legacy Report at the end of an Assembly term signalling areas where in its opinion future reforms are considered necessary. I would envisage a close working relationship between such a Group and the Procedure Committee.
11. In relation to voting in Committees, the adoption of a simple majority system (SO 47:9) seems to have worked well and there does not appear to be a compelling reason for change other than importing into them the provisions for weighted voting on key issues as provided for in the Assembly. However, the extension of parallel consent or weighted majority procedures would be consistent with those adopted on the floor of the chamber. On another matter, given the current inquiry into electronic voting, there may be a case for enabling electronic voting to take place in committee.
12. Where possible, Committees should avoid meeting during plenary sessions of the Assembly, and certainly during Oral Questions to Ministers, which ordinarily restricts them to three days per week (or perhaps two, given the tendency of members to concentrate on constituency activities on Fridays. However, to date the Education Committee has met routinely on Fridays). It is noticeable that none of the five Statutory Committees chaired by an MP meets on a Wednesday, presumably because of the press of demands at Westminster. The Procedure Committee may wish to reflect on the appropriateness of Statutory Committees having an MP as a Chair. Given the volume of business with which they have to deal, consideration may be given to evening meetings. If, however, the Procedure Committee is minded to recommend the institutionalization of both sub-committees and rapporteursthereby spreading the workloadsuch meetings would likely be unnecessary.

A Note on Committee Memberships in the Scottish Parliament

There are two main types of Committee in the Scottish Parliament, Mandatory and Subject Committees, broadly equivalent to the Assemblys Standing and Statutory Committees. The Committees have a minimum membership of five and a maximum of 15 members. Most Committees have a membership of eight, including all seven Subject Committees. There are seven Mandatory Committees, three with eight members each, three with seven each and one with nine members.

With a total of 115 mandatory and subject committee places to fill, only 12 MSPs hold two places, the remainder hold one each. No Convener (equivalent to a Committee Chair in the NI Assembly) serves on another Committee (save that of the Convenors themselves), and only two Deputy Conveners serve on one other Mandatory or Subject Committee.

Members may wish to consult the 2003 publication, Scrutiny under Devolution: committees in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, by Mark Sandford and Lucinda Maer of the Constitution Unit, University College London.

Appendix 4

Research Papers

Research Paper

17 October 2007

Committee Systems in the
Devolved Administrations,
Westminster and Ireland

Vincent Gribbin, Research Officer

The aim of this paper is to facilitate the Committee on Procedures with its
inquiry into the Committee Structures and Systems in the Northern Ireland Assembly, specifically examining how such structures and systems could be improved. The paper provides background information about the Committee Systems used in Northern Ireland and in Westminster, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland and how they differ in respect of size, membership,
organisation and procedures. In conclusion, it raises potential issues for consideration and identifies some learning from other Parliaments which could be options for implementation in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

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

• There are 180 Committee places in the Northern Ireland Assembly and 94 eligible MLAs to fill these 180 places.
• One MLA sits on five Committees, 13 sit on 3 Committees and 58 MLAs sit on 2 Committees.
• Changing the size of committees or the number of committees would decrease the number of committee places.
• The House of Commons has more members than it has committee places.
• The quorum for committees in the Northern Ireland Assembly is 5 in most cases in comparison to the usual figure of 3 in the other Parliaments.

Comparative information on the five Committee Systems.

*Number of MPs sitting on Select Committees

Contents

Part One Introduction

Part Two Comparative Systems and Structures

Part Three Membership and Meetings

Part Four Structures and Procedures

Part Five Issues and Options

Part One: Introduction

The aim of this paper is to facilitate the Committee on Procedures with its inquiry into the Committee Structures and Systems in the Northern Ireland Assembly, specifically examining how such structures and systems could be improved. The paper provides background information about the Committee Systems used in Northern Ireland and in Westminster, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland and how they differ in respect of size, membership, organisation and procedures. In conclusion, it raises potential issues for consideration and identifies some learning from other Parliaments which could be options for implementation in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The Terms of Reference of the Inquiry are to:

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

The committee system is meant to be of strategic help in carrying out the overall functions of the parliament. In considering possible improvements to the structure and procedure of committees this must be held in mind what lessons can the Procedures Committee learn from the committee systems of other jurisdictions in delivering on the work of the Assembly?

This report is a comparative analysis of the systems and structures of committees in operation within the four regions of the UK, plus that of the Republic of Ireland. The report is in five parts including this introduction; part two is a brief description of each of the five parliamentary committee systems; part three is a short analysis of the membership of committees and the procedures for and frequency of meetings; part four looks at examples of how different committee systems utilise such practicalities as:

• Substitutes,
• Reporters,
• Joint committees, and
• Voting.

The fifth and last part of the report assesses the options open to the Northern Ireland Assembly to improve the operation of committees, while relying on the experience of the other parliaments.

Part two: Comparative Systems and Structures

The committee system within a parliament is established to take the burden off the full meeting of the House:

The need for parliamentary committee arises from several factors such as review of administrative actions and examination of complicated legislative proposals by experts, which is not possible in plenary sessions attended by large number of members. The workload of modern parliaments is enormous and as such there is little time for detailed investigations or discussion on every matter in the floor. But in the calmer and non-partisan atmosphere of the committees it is possible to get things done, accommodating different views and applying the give-and-take principle. Moreover, there, back benchers can also effectively participate. Committees act as valuable learning grounds for ministers and presiding officers. It also provides useful forum for the utilisation of experience and ability that would otherwise not be available.[1]

Of particular importance in the Northern Ireland Assembly is that the Statutory Committees scrutinise the work of Government in the absence of a formal Government opposition. This part of the report gives a brief description of the committee systems and structures of the parliaments in Northern Ireland, Westminster, Scotland, Wales and in the Republic of Ireland. It describes the relevant legislative basis for the committee systems and details some of their roles, remits and powers.

2.0 Northern Ireland Assembly

The role and remit of committees within the Northern Ireland Assembly are set out in four key documents: the Belfast Agreement;[2] the Northern Ireland Act 1998;[3] The Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006;[4] and in Standing Orders.[5] The committee system in the Northern Ireland Assembly consists of both statutory and non-statutory committees.

Statutory Committees

The Belfast Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 prescribe the setting up of a group of committees to:

advise and assist each Northern Ireland minister in the formulation of policy with respect to matters within his/her responsibilities as a Minister[6].

The Belfast Agreement states that there will be a committee for each of the 'main executive functions of the Northern Ireland Administration'[7]. The NI Assembly Standing Orders state that these Statutory Committees may carry out their functions of advising and assisting in the formulation of policy, in relation to one or more Ministerial Portfolio.

Paragraph 9 in Strand 1 of the Belfast Agreement states that Statutory Committees will have a scrutiny, policy development, and consultation role with respect to the Department with which each is associated and will have a role in initiation of legislation. They will have the powers 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 relevant primary legislation;
• call for persons and papers;
• initiate enquiries and make reports;
• consider and advise on matters brought to the committee by its Minister.[8]

This legislation has translated into the establishment of 11 Statutory Committees directly covering the remits of the 11 departments. These Statutory Committees are often referred to as the Departmental Committees (Table 1, Appendix A).

Section 44 (1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 empowers the Assembly to require any person to:

(a) to attend its proceedings for the purpose of giving evidence; or

(b) to produce documents in his custody or under his control, relating to any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2).[9]

Non-statutory committees

There are two types of non-statutory committee in the Northern Ireland Assembly: Standing Committees and Ad hoc Committees.

Standing Committees

Standing Committees are permanent committees of the Assembly with their remits and functions described in Standing Orders (SO 48). There are six Standing Committees (Table 1, Appendix A), which, like the Statutory Committees have memberships in line with party strengths in the Assembly (Standing Order 48(4)).

Ad-hoc Committees

Ad Hoc Committees can be established from time to time to deal with specific time-bounded terms of reference that the Assembly may set. Currently there are no ad-hoc committees in existence. However under the first mandate there were four established to examine and comment upon legislation relating to reserved matters.

2.1 House of Commons

The three main types of committees in the House of Commons are:

• Select Committees
• General Committees (including Public Bill Committees)
• Joint Committees

Prior to the 2006-2007 parliamentary session, General Committees were called Standing Committees. These changes were instigated after recommendations from the report by the Modernisation Select Committee, The Legislative Process [10], in July 2006 which recommended changes to Standing Committees as they existed in the House of Commons.

Select Committees

Select Committees check and report on areas ranging from the work of government departments to economic affairs. The results of these inquiries are public and many require a response from the government.

There is a Select Committee for each government department, examining the three aspects of; spending, policies and administration (Table 3, Appendix A).

These departmental committees decide upon a line of inquiry and then gather written and oral evidence. Findings are reported to the House of Commons and are printed and published.

Some Select Committees have a cross-departmental remit such as Public Accounts or Environmental Audit. Depending on the issue under consideration these cross-departmental committees can look at any or all of the government departments.

Other Commons Committees are involved in a range of on-going investigations, like the administration of the House itself, or allegations about the conduct of individual MPs. These non-departmental committees are called domestic committees concerning themselves with the domestic issues affecting MPs and the House of Commons. (Table 2 in Appendix A contains a list of all current Select Committees.)

General Committees

The main role of General Committees is to consider proposed legislation, mostly Public Bills, in detail. This committee system allows faster processing of Bills. The committees reflect the proportional political makeup of the House.

Committees on Bills

A Public or Private Bill Committee is appointed for each Bill that goes through Parliament. Depending on its complexity, the consideration of a Bill can take a few minutes to a few months.

Other General Committees

Additional General Committees exist to debate matters in specific areas. These exist to debate matters referred to them by the House. They do not take evidence or make substantial reports of any kind. Normally, the matters referred to them are of special interest to limited groups of Members.

Joint Committees

Joint Committees are committees consisting of MPs and Lords and have similar powers to Select Committees. Some are set up on a permanent basis, like the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Other appointments are for specific purposes, such as examining draft proposals for Bills on subjects ranging from gambling to stem-cell research.

In Joint Committees, Members from both Houses meet and work as one committee and appoint a single chairman from either house.

2.2 Scottish Parliament

The role and remit of committees within the Scottish Parliament is set out in four documents: the Scotland Act 1998;[11] the Consultative Steering Groups proposals for committees;[12] the Scottish Parliaments Standing Orders;[13] and the document entitled Guidance for the Operation of Committees.[14]

It is the Scottish Parliaments Standing Orders which prescribe the establishment and operation of committees. Standing Orders have instituted a committee system which consists of mandatory committees and subject committees.

The Scottish Parliaments Standing Orders state that committees can examine any matters within their remit and conduct inquiries. In doing so both mandatory and subject committees may:

• consider the policy and administration of the Scottish Administration;
• consider any proposals for legislation whether before the Scottish Parliament or the United Kingdom Parliament;
• consider any European Communities legislation or any international conventions or agreements or any drafts which relate;
• consider the need for the reform of the law;
• initiate bills; and
• consider the financial proposals and financial administration of the Scottish Administration.

Mandatory Committees

Mandatory Committees are equivalent to the Standing Committees of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Standing Orders allows for the establishment of any committees that Parliament sees fit but prescribes the establishment of eight specific committees (Table 4. Appendix A).

Subject Committees

Committees which are established by the Scottish Parliament to deal with a particular subject are referred to as Subject Committees. The Subject Committees also deal with legislation relevant to their remit. As from June 2007 there are 8 Subject Committees in operation which follow the remit of the government departments: however there is no procedural limit to the number of subject committees created (Table 4, Appendix A).

2.3 National Assembly for Wales

The Government of Wales Act 1998 [15] and the Standing Orders of the National Assembly for Wales [16] set the parameters for the committee system in the National Assembly for Wales (NAfW).

The Government of Wales Act 1998 prescribes the establishment of the following committees and groups of committees:

• an executive committee;
• Subject Committees (with responsibilities in the fields in which the NAfW has functions);
• a subordinate legislation scrutiny committee;
• an audit committee; and
• Regional Committees.

The NAfW also has the power to establish any other committees which it considers appropriate. A number of committees, including the Business Committee and the Standards of Conduct Committee, have been established using this power.

Subject Committees

Subject Committees have a role in policy development and scrutiny of the NAfW. At present there are four Subject Committees in operation. Standing Orders require each Subject Committee to maintain a rolling programme of work covering periods of at least 12 months (Table 5, Appendix A).

Statutory Committees

In addition there are eight Statutory Committees that are detailed in Standing Orders (Table 5, Appendix A).

Regional Committees

The four Regional Committees represent the needs and interests of their localities and convey issues of local concern to the full NAfW and to the Subject Committees. They are made up of members from the relevant constituency and electoral region.

2.4 Dail Eireann, Republic of Ireland

Each House of the Oireachtas has power under its Standing Orders to form Committees for specific purposes. There are four types of Committees Standing, Select, Joint and Special.[17]

The Dail decides on the terms of reference, membership and powers of its Committees. The membership of committees is to be proportionally representative of the House. Committee Reports are published and it is for the House to decide on any follow up action (Standing Orders 82)[18].

Standing Committees

The Dail has three Standing Committees, these are the:

• Committee on Procedure and Privileges;
• Committee of Public Accounts; and
• Committee on Members Interests of Eireann.

Select Committees

The Select Committees of the Dail have the same membership from the Dail as in the Joint Committees and the committees have the same names. The difference being that they sit without their Senate Colleagues. They have responsibility for dealing with the Committee stages of Bills referred to them by the Dail and with the Estimates for Public Services (essentially the annual expenditure proposals) for Government Departments and international agreements involving a charge on public funds[19]. Table 6 in Appendix A contains a list of Dail Eireann Standing and Select Committees.

The powers of committees depend on their orders of reference and include or relate to:

• Power to send for persons, papers and records;
• Power to receive submissions and hear evidence from interested parties or groups;
• Power to discuss and draft proposals for legislative change;
• Power to print and publish minutes of evidence and related documents;
• Power to require attendance of Ministers to discuss current policies;
• Power to require attendance of Ministers to discuss proposals for legislation; and
• Power to require attendance of principal office holders in bodies in the State which are wholly or partly funded by the State.

Joint Committees

The Joint Committees in full session are the main committees of Scrutiny of Government Departments, including:

• public affairs administered by the Department, including bodies under the aegis of the Department in respect of Government policy;
• matters of policy for which the Minister is responsible;
• related policy issues concerning bodies, which are partly or wholly funded by the State;
• proposals for EU legislation and related policy issues as may be referred to it from time to time;
• the Strategy Statement of the Department as laid before the Houses;
• certain Annual Reports (and Accounts) of bodies under the aegis of Departments (does not apply to the Joint Committee on European Affairs); and
• such other matters as may be referred to the Committee from time to time.

Part Three: Membership And Meetings

This section of the report looks at the structure of committees in the five parliaments and some of the procedures around when and how they meet. Standing Orders govern the membership of committees in all five regions, including the numbers in each committee, the party make up of committees and the size of committee quorums. This section draws out the differences between the five parliaments and how they deal with their individual circumstances.

3.0 Northern Ireland Assembly

Membership

All 11 Statutory Committees have 11 members[20], including a Chair and Deputy Chair. Standing Orders entitle members not holding ministerial office to be offered at least one place on a Statutory Committee. In total there are 121 places available on Statutory Committees. In addition to the Statutory Committees, there are six Standing Committees. Of the six Standing Committees, 4 have a membership of 11, one has a membership of 5 (Audit Committee) and the Business Committee has a membership of 10 (but this can be up to a maximum of 13 members if need be[21]), making the number of places available on Standing Committees as 59. Therefore there are a total number of 180 places available on the committees. (Table 1, Appendix A).

Parties are notified about how many committee places they have been designated and it is up to them to distribute those places among their MLAs. Committee places for each party are mainly allocated proportionally based on d'Hondt (the Business committee has 2 members from each party which holds over 15 Assembly seats and one place to any other party with two or more seats).

The allocation of committee places, based on Assembly seats, does not take account of the number of ministerial posts held by members of the party. These members, by taking up ministerial office, are ineligible to sit on committees[22]. For instance, the DUP have 36 MLAs, which translates into 59 Committee places: however, they have 6 MLAs in ministerial posts, therefore 30 of their members are able to take up these places.

In reality, instead of 108 MLAs taking up the 180 committee places, there are 94 MLAs able to do so. The situation as it stands is that MLAs sit on different numbers of committees, as the table below illustrates.

Quorums

Standing Orders set the size of a quorum for Statutory Committees at five members[23]. Under Standing Order 48 (4), this holds true for the Non-Statutory Committees other than the Audit Committee, which has a quorum of two. Standing Orders also state that the Committee will be suspended if at any time a quorum is not in attendance.

Meetings

Committees currently sit once a week while the Assembly is in session. In addition, there is no obstacle to committees meeting while the Assembly is sitting, so long as they adjourn if there is a vote in the chamber[24].

At present committees meet in the three committee rooms. This allows for three committees to meet at any one time.

3.1 House of Commons

Membership

There are 19 Departmental Select Committees in the House of Commons. 11 of the 19 have 11 members, 6 have 14 members, Environmental Audit has 16 and Northern Ireland Affairs has 13 members. The party composition of Select Committees reflects that of the House, and membership is controlled by Standing Orders. The 19 departmental committees are appended in Appendix A, Table 3.

There are 234 places on the 19 Departmental Select Committees. However when the other Select Committees are included, the total number of Select Committees is 39 (including Joint Committees) and the total number of MPs sitting on these committees is 382[25]. A report by the University of Essex, for the Modernisation Committee of the House of Commons in 2001 found that almost 60% of MPs serve on a committee during a session[26].

The House of Commons, by contrast, fails to make anything like the same demand on MPs. Select Committee places in the Commons require at any point in time only 40 per cent of the total membership of the House, though the turnover in membership means that nearly 60 per cent of MPs serve on a committee during a session. (Of course, ad-hoc Standing Committees and business committees make extra demands.)

Indeed, a poll for the Hansard Society in June 2000 cited in the University of Essex report illustrated that an MPs priority is their constituency. This stated that:

However, in practice, the culture of scrutiny is poorly developed in the House of Commons. MPs give priority to dealing with constituents complaints (53.1 per cent) over holding government to account (52 per cent) when asked what was their most important role; and while just 23.5 per cent of MPs did more than five hours work weekly on Select Committees, some 77.1 per cent of MPs gave more than five hours to dealing with constituency casework . These figures point to the well-known fact that personal priorities for most MPs are party loyalty and constituency affairs.[27]

An outworking of this was that recruitment of members to some committees is difficult. This led the Modernisation Committee in the Commons to recommend:

Conversely there are some Select Committees on which it is difficult to find Members to serve and even more difficult to secure their attendance. For example the Modernisation Committee heard from one of our number, Mr Peter Pike, of his difficulty in securing a quorum at meetings of the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee, which has a membership of seventeen. We see no merit in retaining a committee size that is greater than Members are prepared and willing to fill. We recommend a reduction in size of the membership and of the quorum of Select Committees where there has been a persistent problem securing attendance.[28]

Quorum

Under Standing Order 124, a Select Committee cannot proceed unless a quorum of its members is present. Unlike most Standing Committees, there is not a fixed rule for calculating the quorum as a proportion of total membership: it will be specified either in the relevant Standing Order or in the Order establishing the committee. The quorum of most Select Committees in the House of Commons is three or a quarter of the number of its members, whichever is the greatest[29]. The Modernisation Committee is one of the exceptions: it has a membership of 15 and a quorum of 5.

Meetings

Select Committees may meet on any day of their choice (whether the House is sitting or not) and may meet anywhere in the UK. Departmental Select Committees usually meet at least once a week when Parliament is sitting, more if necessary. They can also sit when the House is adjourned. The other Select Committees usually sit less often than once per week.

3.2 Scottish Parliament

Membership

Between the Mandatory and Subject Committees in the Scottish Parliament there are 121 committee places (Table 4, Appendix A). Given that there are 129 members of the Scottish Parliament, there is little problem for members to cover committee places.

Each Mandatory and Subject Committee must have at least five, but not more than fifteen members, under Rule 6.3.2 of the Standing Orders[30]. In considering members for committees, the Parliamentary Bureau needs to ensure party balance and the specific interests of members:

In proposing membership, the Parliamentary Bureau must have regard to the balance of the parties within the Parliament and to the qualifications and experience of any member expressing an interest in a particular committee (Rule 6.3.4)[31].

Quorum

The Quorum needed for committees in the Scottish Parliament is three[32]:

A committee shall not commence consideration of any business or vote if the number of committee members present (including the convener) is fewer than three

The effect of this is that, if attendance falls below three members during the course of a meeting, the committee can conclude the item of business under consideration. However the committee cannot then vote on that item and cannot commence another item of business.

A member may also be deemed to be present at a committee meeting and count towards the quorum and participate fully by means of video conferencing.

Meetings

Committee meetings are normally held on Tuesday mornings, Tuesday afternoons and Wednesday mornings in the six specially designed committee rooms in the Scottish Parliament building. However, committees can meet on any day, whether a sitting day or not. One limitation stipulated in Standing Orders is that committee meetings shall not normally be held in the Parliamentary recesses (Rule 12.3.3). In practice, it is extremely unusual for committee meetings to be held during Parliamentary recesses.

Committees are also prohibited, in Standing Orders, from meeting when the Parliament is sitting; although they can meet when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended or has been adjourned. This means that committees are able to meet while the Parliament has been suspended for a lunch break.

Meeting schedules are drawn up in advance of the session, but it is expected that committees will normally meet every week of fortnight.

3.3 National Assembly for Wales

Membership

After elections in May 2007, the new committee structures were organised over the summer months. Up until the 2007 recess there were a total of 12 committees plus the Assembly Commission; of these, eight had nine members on each: the Audit Committee had 10 members, the Petitions Committee had 4 members and the Business Committee had 5. Of the 60 members of the Welsh Assembly, 46 were eligible to take up the 95 committee places (Table 5, Appendix A).

With 95 committee places and only 46 eligible members, the Welsh Assembly committee system requires members to sit on multiple committees. All eligible members sit on at least one committee, with many sitting on two or three and one member sitting on four committees.

Quorum

Standing Orders require that 3 members or a third of the committee, which ever is higher, are needed for a quorum. In addition, if at the beginning of a committee meeting, the members present are all from a single party, then the committee will be deemed inquorate (Standing Orders 10.29 10.31)[33].

Meetings

Committees sit on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings and all day Thursday, while the Chamber is in session. Although they can get permission from the Presiding Officer to meet in a week when the Chamber will not be in session (Standing Orders 10.41)[34]. In general each committee meets once a fortnight. The Regional Committees usually hold two meetings per parliamentary session.

3.4 Dail Eireann

Membership

There are 166 Deputies (Members) in the Dail Eireann. A Deputy will often be a member of more than one Committee. Of the Standing and Dail committees listed, there are 178 committee places (Table 6, Appendix A). These places are taken up by 126 Deputies. Of the 125 Deputies sitting on committees, 75 sit on one committee, 47 sit on two committees and 3 sit on three committees.

Quorum

Standing Order 82 (1) states that the Dail on setting up a Select Committee will, in setting the committees terms of reference also agree the size of the quorum. For the three Standing Committees, the size of the quorum is set down in Standing Orders which instruct that; the Committee of Public Accounts has a quorum of 4, the Committee on Members Interests has a quorum of 3, and that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges has a quorum of 8.

Meetings

With the exception of the month of August, Committees meet throughout the year. Committees usually sit once a week. The Select Committees of the Dail sit as the Joint Committee and have extra meetings of only the Deputies if they need to discuss legislation.

Part Four: Structures and Procedures

The terms of reference for the Procedures Committee Inquiry identify certain procedural issues to be considered. These procedural issues are the following:

• Substitutes: "assess the use of substitutes in committees",
• Reporters: "consider the possibility of the use of rapporteurs in committees",
• Joint committees: "assess the possibility of introducing Standing Orders to allow for joint committees", and
• Voting: "consider the procedures for voting in committees".

This section looks at each of these in turn and describes the approaches taken by Northern Ireland and by the other four parliaments.

4.0 Substitutes

The main role of the committee substitute is to stand in for a committee member of the same party if that member is unavailable for a committee meeting. In all five committee systems, substitutes were acceptable, but with varying procedures to define their use.

Northern Ireland Assembly

The Northern Ireland Assembly has no specific provision in Standing Orders to allow for the use of substitutes except in Standing Order 50 (5) regarding the Business Committee in which all members of the Committee can appoint a substitute who will have full voting rights. However, Standing Orders allow Standing Committees to determine their own procedures and therefore substitutes could be utilised.

House of Commons

Substitutes are permitted, but only in the case of illness or ministerial appointment or change.

Scottish Parliament

A political party represented by 5 or more members of the Parliament may nominate a member of that party to be a substitute for the members of that party on a particular committee[35]. However a substitute can not be nominated for a Private Bill Committee.

As well as standing in for a member unable to attend because of illness, Committee substitutes may also stand in where there is a temporary gap in the membership of a committee (for example, where a member has died or resigned, and a replacement member has not yet been appointed).

A committee substitute may only attend if the specified reason arises. It does not give a party the right to decide who it sends to a committee meeting, the actual members or the substitute. When a committee substitute attends a meeting, he or she assumes the full rights of an ordinary member of the committee.

In 2002 the Scottish Parliament carried out a review of the use of substitutes in their committees. A copy of the report is appended (Appendix A) and the reports findings are as follows:

Summary of Recommendations
11. At its 14th Meeting 2001, and 1st Meeting 2002, the Committee considered and agreed the following recommendations:

• substitution would be appropriate only in the following identifiable circumstances:
  • personal illness of a member
  • family circumstances
  • adverse weather conditions
  • urgent constituency business
  • the unavoidable clash of Parliamentary business
• substitutes for the Parliamentary Committees would be chosen by the Parliament on a motion of the Parliamentary Bureau.
• there should be one Party substitute for each Parliamentary Committee.
• substitution should not be permitted on Private Bill Committees.
• substitutes should not act as conveners, deputy conveners, temporary conveners or Parliamentary Committee reporters.
• excepting the roles noted in the immediately preceding point, substitutes on Parliamentary Committees should be able to take part in the full range of business as the permanent members for whom they are substituting.
• substitutes on Parliamentary Committees should dispose of one vote only on any question.
• substitutes for members of single member parties and individual members should not be permitted.
• substitutes should be permitted only for the whole of a Committee meeting.[36]

Assembly for Wales

Substitutes are allowed in the Welsh committee system if prior notice is given. Again, a substitute sitting on a committee has the same rights as other committee members. The Standing Orders state that:

A committee member who has given advance notice to the chair may be represented at a meeting, or a part of a meeting, by another Member from the same political group who has been identified in advance. The nominated representative may participate in the meeting of the committee in all respects as if he or she were a member of it. No Member may represent more than one committee member at a meeting.[37]

Dail Eireann

The Dail too allows for substitutes in Committees. However the Standing Orders refer to Select and Special Committees but not Standing Committees, stating:

In the absence of a member nominated to serve on a Select or Special Committee, a substitute may be nominated to take part in the proceedings in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph and shall be entitled to vote in the absent members stead and to move motions and amendments in his or her own name:

(a) where the absent member is a member of a Government party, that party may nominate a substitute from any Government party,

(b) where the absent member is a member of an Opposition party or group (within the meaning of Standing Order 116), that party or group may nominate a substitute from any Opposition party or group,

(c) where the absent member is not a member of a party or group (within the meaning of Standing Order 116), that member may nominate another member who is not a member of a party or group.[38]

4.1 Reporters

Reporters or Rapporteurs are usually initiated to reduce the workloads of committees. A Reporter would be charged with a specific task on behalf of a committee, such as drafting an inquiry report. Not all of the five parliaments use reporters, the ones that do are the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Dail Eireann. The House of Commons Modernisation Committee, when making recommendations for a more efficient and effective committee system, recommended the use of reporters:

We recognise that this is an ambitious work programme. it may not always be possible for all Members to be fully involved in every investigation across such a broad range. We recommend that Select Committees should experiment with appointing one of their number as a rapporteur on a specific task, such as for example financial scrutiny.[39]

Scottish Parliament

A distinctive element of the workings of the committee system in Scotland is the use of committee members as reporters. The guidance document for the operation of committees in the Scottish Parliament states that:

A committee may consider the appointment of one or more of its members as reporters. A reporter may report to a committee on any competent matter, within a time limit set by the committee.

Reporters might fulfil a number of roles, including taking responsibility for researching, investigating an issue, or the drafting of a committee report on a particular subject over a set period of time. This does not necessarily mean that the reporter will carry out these duties but he or she may be responsible for commissioning and monitoring the work to the committees instruction. Alternatively, a reporter may act as a link person with another committee (e.g. the European Committee) or outside body. It will be for the committee to decide the role of each reporter. The remit of each reporter should normally be agreed at the time of their appointment.

There is no formal process for the appointment of reporters set out in Standing Orders. The nature of the post, which is not a formal office of the committee, and the fact that the duration of the appointment is limited by the committee at the outset, may suggest that an informal approach is desirable. However, this is ultimately a matter for committees to determine.[40]

4.2 Joint Committees

The term Joint Committee usually refers to committees that exist in bicameral parliaments such as Westminster and the Dail Eireann and are established by members of both chambers to come together to sit in committee with a common remit. However in the Northern Ireland context, and for Scotland and Wales also, it refers to, usually two committees, but feasibly more, coming together to meet in a joint sitting where they are discussing a topic which overlaps with a number of committees remits.

These joint meetings of committees are dealt with differently by the different parliaments.

The National Assembly for Wales

The National Assembly for Wales states in its Standing Orders that: Committees may meet concurrently with other committees of the Assembly.[41]

In practice there is a wide range of consultation between committees taking place at various levels. Subject Committees may hold joint meetings on matters of common interest. They may also hold joint meetings with regional committees.

Where appropriate, committees may produce papers which are considered by other committees. This is especially the case when considering cross-cutting issues such as equal opportunities or sustainable development. Committee members also sometimes attend meetings of other committees informally.

In order to facilitate coordination of activities, each committee produces a strategic forward work programme for the year ahead. In addition, the chairs of Subject Committees constitute a Panel of Chairs, which can consider issues relating to the operation of Subject Committees.

Scottish Parliament

The Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament give more detail about cooperation between committees than the Welsh Assembly, allowing for the more formal establishment of such cross-committee working:

Rule 6.14

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

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

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

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

In Scotland some committees hold joint meetings. In some cases, 2 or more committees will take evidence on different aspects of an issue. Certain committees perform a sifting function and decide whether further action should be undertaken by one of the Parliaments Subject Committees.

Subordinate legislation will be considered by both the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the appropriate lead committee. The lead committee will be designated by the Parliamentary Bureau.

Bills are often examined by more than one committee. If their subject matter falls within the remit of several committees, the Parliamentary Bureau may name one committee as the lead and the other(s) feed the results of their inquiries to it.

House of Commons

In the House of Commons, the Standing Orders expand this conversation between committees to include sub-committees, and even committees in devolved administrations.

137A.(1) Any Select Committee or sub-committee with power to send for persons, papers and records shall have power(a) to communicate its evidence to any other Select Committee or sub-committee of either House of Parliament or to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly or to any of their committees; provided that evidence from the National Audit Office shall first have been agreed between that Office and the government department or departments concerned; (b) to meet concurrently with any committee or sub-committee of either House of Parliament for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence; (c) to meet concurrently with any other Select Committee of this House for the purpose of considering a draft report; and (d) to agree in the choice of a chairman for any concurrent meetings.

(2) Where two or more Select Committees have agreed reports to the House in identical terms, those reports may be published as a joint report.

(3) The Welsh Affairs Committee may invite members of any specified committee of the National Assembly for Wales to attend and participate in its proceedings (but not to vote).[42]

4.3 Voting

Across the various parliaments the practice of voting in committees differs slightly in procedure or in terminology. In Scotland it is for the convenor (Chair) to decide the time at which members will take a decision on any item of business except in connection with amendments to Bills where the convener is obliged to put the question immediately after the amendment is debated (Standing Order Rules 11.8.1 & 11.8.2).

In the Scottish Parliament, when there is consensus in committee, decisions are made without formal division. Where there is no consensus found, rather than having a formal division, members vote by show of hands unless a member has requested a roll call vote and the convener has agreed to that request (Standing Orders Rule 11.8.3). The procedure for the vote is as follows:

In the event of a division

• only members of the committee (including substitutes) can vote;
• members can only vote once on any question;
• members may vote yes, no, or abstain, although they do not have to vote;
• the convener may vote as an individual and must also exercise a casting vote in the event of a tie.[43]

The convenor has an individual vote and a casting vote for those occasions when there is a tie, in which cases they are required to use it.

Northern Ireland Assembly

In the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Standing Orders simply state the following:

47 (9) All questions at a Statutory Committee shall be decided by a simple majority. Voting shall be by show of hands unless otherwise requested by a Member of the Committee.[44]

Standing Order 48 (5) states that this also applies to Standing Committees.

National Assembly for Wales

Standing Orders for the National Assembly for Wales states that voting is by hand and votes are recorded in the minutes if requested by a member. A vote is not valid if less than a third of the committee vote. If this happens, the Chair must adjourn the item of business[45].

Part Five: Issues And Options

The major issues of concern regarding the committee system in the Northern Ireland Assembly are how efficiently is it operating and whether it allows MLAs to effectively contribute to committees, while continuing to conduct their work in the chamber and in their constituencies.

The specifics of this concern are that:

• some members sit on a number of committees and these committees may clash in the timetable;
• committee members wish to be available to attend to constituency business on certain days;
• the parallel running of plenary sessions and committees causes disruption, especially when there is a vote in the chamber; and
• the heavy workload of committee business.

Further to the information collated in the previous sections of this report, this section considers the options for change that are available, which would enable the Assembly committee system to effectively and efficiently meet its future challenges (a paper on the Evaluation of Parliamentary Committees is attached at appendix B).

The items discussed below are:

• General Observations
• Numbers in committees
• Numbers of committees
• Size of quorums
• Numbers of meetings
• Use of substitutes
• Use of reporters
• Other possibilities

5.0 General Observations

It is recognised that a well-structured committee system can greatly aid the efficiency and effectiveness of a parliament, for instance the Scottish Parliament committee system has been described as:

...one of the innovative aspects of the new devolution settlement... intended to merge the functions of the standing and Select Committees at Westminster and operate as the Scottish Parliaments revising chamber: to consider and revise government legislative proposals in the absence of a second chamber.[46]

In addition, in the Dail the expansion in the number and range of committees in recent years has enabled both Houses to deal with an ever-increasing volume of parliamentary business, while providing Members with additional opportunities to participate in all aspects of the work of Parliament. While in the House of Commons the need to make better use of committees was identified in the report of the Modernisation Committee.

5.1 Numbers in Committees

A committee system with 180 committee places and only 94 members able to cover them puts a definite pressure on the workload of those members. However it is possible, as in Scotland and Wales, to have smaller committees. The following table shows the effect on the number of committee places of decreasing the size of committees. To decrease the size of Statutory Committees would mean changing Standing Order 47 (1). Statutory Committees can only be dropped to 9 members in each, as Standing Orders state that each member must be offered a place on a Statutory Committee[47]. However the membership of Standing Committees can be reduced except for the Audit Committee which must have a membership of 5[48].

The table below shows the effect of reducing the size of Statutory Committees to 9; reducing the number of Committee places to 158.

An earlier briefing paper to the Committee on Procedures[49] detailed the issues surrounding reducing the size of committees and highlighted the advantages and disadvantages:

Arguments for reducing size of committees:

• 6 of 7 Chairs interviewed and 6 of 8 Clerks in favour of reduction.
• Would provide opportunity for more Members to serve on Ad hoc committees to deal with specific issues.
• Members more likely to attend meetings (knowing there are less of them) and may be more committed to/knowledgeable about its remit.
• There are only 108 Members in the Assembly - too few for the large number of Committees that exist.
• More suitable for Members who currently sit on more than one committee - allows greater flexibility.
• Would allow for a smaller quorum, therefore less likelihood of meetings being inquorate.
• Would bring about uniformity across all committees.
• Reduced workload/less papers for Committee staff to prepare and issue.
• Less intimidating for public/witnesses attending the meeting.

Arguments against reducing the size of Committees:

• Possibility of same party quorum therefore decisions not representative.
• Potential lack of representation, e.g. members present could be all male, all nationalist etc.
• Does not present a positive image to the public, who may feel MLAs are not doing enough work and in fact ALL Members should attend meetings.
• In line with other legislatures, where size of committees varies.

5.2 Numbers of Committees

One way that the Welsh Assembly has managed its committee structure to allow for the fact that it has only 46 eligible members is by decreasing the number of committees. The National Assembly for Wales has decreased the number of committees dealing with departmental issues to four. In its first Assembly (1999-2003), it had 10 committees dealing with departmental issues. In the second Assembly (2003-2007), this fell to 7 committees; and in the latest Assembly from May 2007, there are only four. This has been accomplished by the amalgamation of the remits of committees.

In the Northern Ireland Assembly, committees meet once per week while in session. Members deal with the fact that there are only three committee chambers and also try to avoid sitting on Fridays and during sittings of the chamber.

Members may wish to consider the possibility of using a fourth room for committee meetings. Another room would allow more committees to meet during limited time slots: however, it would cause timetabling issues given the number of MLAs sitting on multiple committees.

5.3 Size of Quorums

Having the size of the quorum set at 5 for the majority of committees may be a contributory factor in stretching members too thinly. It may also prevent committees from conducting their work without recurrent adjournments due to becoming inquorate. In the other parliaments the usual size of a quorum is three.

If this were introduced into the Northern Ireland Assembly it would allow committees to continue discussion below the current threshold. Also as happens in Scotland, the Northern Ireland Assembly could allow committees to complete the agenda item under discussion even if the committee is inquorate as long as it does not conduct a vote or start any new business. The 2002 briefing paper to the committee stated some options to the Procedures Committee and the arguments for and against implementing these stated:

a) No change
b) Reduce quorum
c) Allow meeting to continue when quorum is lost.

Arguments for reducing quorum:

• More meetings would take place, and cover full agenda.
• Allows for Members to attend to other commitments, e.g. sit on an Ad hoc committee to deal with a specific issue.
• Majority of respondents to survey believed that if no vote is taken, there is no need to maintain current quorum.
• Present practice inconsistent with practice in Plenary.
• Present practice places Clerk in difficult position.
• Chairpersons Liaison Group favour reduction of quorum (to 4).

Arguments against reducing quorum:

• Reduces Party representation, i.e. if quorum is 3, all 3 present could be from one political Party.
• May discourage Members from attending meeting, assuming quorum has been met.
• Negative image to public, who may feel that in fact ALL members should attend meetings.

Arguments for allowing meeting to continue when quorum lost:

• Greater flexibility for members.
• Ensures Committees agenda is completed and business continues as timetabled in workplan i.e. no disruption of committee business.
• Reduces workload for Clerk/Committee staff, who would otherwise have to schedule another meeting.

Arguments against allowing meeting to continue when quorum lost:

• May not be able to make decisions/take votes without quorum.
• Could encourage Members to leave early.
• Reduces credibility of committees influence/importance in public perception i.e. negative image.
• Could result in a lack of representation, i.e. with less members, could be all male, all nationalist etc.

5.4 Numbers of meetings

The Departmental Committees in the Northern Ireland Assembly meet once per week while the Assembly is sitting. This is not the case in Wales where committees usually meet once every fortnight. A meeting once a fortnight would cut the number of committee meetings in half, and possibly free up committee staff to carry out other duties on behalf of the committee, rather than preparing for weekly meetings.

5.5 Use of substitutes

The wider use of substitutes in the Northern Ireland Assembly committee system could help avoid adjournment due to a lack of quorum. It also would allow for the full work of the committee to be continued including voting. The use of substitutes, although not explicitly dealt with in the Standing Orders for the Assembly, would be permitted through Standing Orders allowing Statutory and Standing Committees to set their own procedures (SO 46). Substitutes are used in a number of the other parliaments without any specific problems. The briefing for the committee, carried out in 2002[50], identified some options regarding introducing substitutes to committees, and listed the arguments for and against as:

a) Permit one substitute per committee Member, but not allowed to vote.
b) Permit one substitute per Party, but not allowed to vote.
c) Permit one substitute per committee Member and allowed to vote.
d) Permit one substitute per Party and allowed to vote.
e) Permit one substitute per committee Member, but not allowed to vote.

Arguments for:

• Ensures quorum in cases where usual Members unable to attend meeting.
• Committee agenda can be completed as planned, therefore ensuring workplan is adhered to.
• Ensures full party representation in Committee decisions.
• In line with practice in other legislatures.
• Less work for Clerks/Committee Staff who would otherwise have to arrange another meeting.

Arguments against:

• Substitute may not have continuity of knowledge of issues on agenda.
• Possible abuse of system, with substitute attending more often than Committee Member.
• Potential problems if substitute unable to attend due to other commitments.
• Possible negative image to the public - especially the committee members constituents.
• Upsets committee dynamic

b) Permit one substitute per Party, but not allowed to vote.
Arguments for:

• Ensures quorum in cases where usual Members unable to attend meeting.
• Committee agenda can be completed as planned, therefore ensuring workplan is adhered to.
• Ensures full party representation in Committee decisions.
• In line with practice in other legislatures.
• Less work for Clerks/Committee Staff who would otherwise have to arrange another meeting.

Arguments against:

• Substitute may not have continuity of knowledge of issues on agenda.
• Possible abuse of system, with substitute attending more often than Committee Member.
• Potential problems if substitute unable to attend due to other commitments.
• Possible negative image to the public - especially the committee members constituents.
• Upsets committee dynamic

c) Permit one substitute per committee Member and allowed to vote.

Arguments for:

• Ensures quorum in cases where usual Members unable to attend meeting.
• Committee agenda can be completed as planned, therefore ensuring workplan is adhered to.
• Ensures full party representation in Committee decisions.
• In line with practice in other legislatures.
• Less work for Clerks/Committee Staff who would otherwise have to
• arrange another meeting.

Arguments against:

• Substitute may not have continuity of knowledge of issues on agenda.
• Possible abuse of system, with substitute attending more often than Committee Member.
• Potential problems if substitute unable to attend due to other commitments.
• Possible negative image to the public - especially the committee
• members constituents.
• Upsets committee dynamic

d) Permit one substitute per Party and allowed to vote.
Arguments for:

• Ensures quorum in cases where usual Members unable to attend meeting.
• Committee agenda can be completed as planned, therefore ensuring workplan is adhered to.
• Ensures full party representation in Committee decisions.
• In line with practice in other legislatures.
• Less work for Clerks/Committee Staff who would otherwise have to arrange another meeting.

Arguments against:

• Substitute may not have continuity of knowledge of issues on agenda.
• Possible abuse of system, with substitute attending more often than Committee Member.
• Potential problems if substitute unable to attend due to other commitments.
• Possible negative image to the public - especially the committee members constituents.
• Upsets committee dynamic.

5.6 Use of reporters

The use of reporters could cut down on the formality, and expense of initiating a sub-committee to look at a specific aspect of an issue under the scrutiny of a committee. A reporter once appointed and given a brief would work separately from the committee and report back to the committee. For the volunteering reporter, a House of Commons research briefing pointed out that:

This does not necessarily mean that the reporter will carry out these duties but he or she may be responsible for commissioning and monitoring the work to the committees instruction.[51]

The briefing for the Procedures Committee, carried out in 2002[52], stated a number of options which are:

Options

a) No change
b) Introduce reporters into Committee system.

Arguments for use of reporters:

• Reduces workload of committee office.
• Could appoint a reporter instead of formally establishing a sub-committee.
• Presents a positive image to the public that MLAs are committed to their work.
• 6 of 8 members serving on 3 or more committees felt reporters would be beneficial.
• 50% of respondents believed reporters would be beneficial to committees.

Arguments against use of reporters:

• Members may be reluctant to act as a reporter, e.g. due to other commitments.
• Costs

5.7 Other Possibilities

There are a number of other options available that could be considered to help increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the committee system. The main option is the use of sub-committees to carry out specific work for the committee.

Under Standing Orders of the Northern Ireland Assembly (Section 58 (1) & (2)), committees have the right, subject to the approval of the Business Committee and the Assembly, to establish of sub-committees. These sub-committees may report only to the relevant committee of which they are part and shall have terms of reference which lie within the terms of reference of the parent committee. To date no committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly has established a sub-committee.

All the other committee systems considered allow for the appointment of sub-committees:

Scottish Parliament

Committees of the Scottish Parliament may establish one or more sub-committees with the approval of the Parliament on a motion of the Assembly Bureau. In general the rules of procedure that apply to committees apply to sub-committees. Sub-committees report to parent committees and sub-committee reports can only be published with approval of the parent committee.

National Assembly for Wales

Standing Orders of the NAfW state that on a motion proposed by a member of the committee any committee may resolve to establish one or more sub-committees.

Dail Eireann

The orders of reference of some Committees also allow for the appointment of substitute members or indeed the attendance of members of the Houses who are not formal members.

The appointment of sub-committees would mean that full committees could meet less frequently and work could continue without being hostage to reaching a quorum of five.

5.8 Conclusion

There are a number of options which could be introduced to ensure an effective and efficient committee system. However, what measures should be taken, if any, is dependant on how MLAs see as the future role of committees and their functions within them and how MLAs wish to divide their time between the work of committees and their other work. Nonetheless, from the details of other parliaments, it is evident that, as it stands, the committee system is a substantial demand on MLAs time.