1. Welcome
2. Minutes of Previous Meeting
3. Matters Arising
4. Legislative Review - Discussion with the Speaker
5. Any Other Business
6. Date, Time and Venue of Next Meeting

In attendance:
Mr J Crozier
Mr J Gillespie

1. WELCOME

The Convenor welcomed Mr Morrow to the first meeting since he rejoined the Committee.

The minutes of the previous meeting of the sub-Committee were agreed subject to the inclusion of an apology from Mr Maginness.

3. MATTERS ARISING

The Convenor advised members that transcripts of the oral evidence sessions held on 24 October, 7 November and 14 November had been issued. Any member wishing to make comments should do so as soon as possible before the next meeting.

4. LEGISLATIVE REVIEW - DISCUSSION WITH THE SPEAKER

The Convenor advised the members that the meeting with the Speaker would be informal and suggested that he start by bringing the Speaker up-to-date with the progress of the Inquiry, after which he would ask the Clerk to give the background to each of the recommendations contained in pages 13 and 14 of the report before asking the Speaker to give his views, with members being free to ask questions at any point. The members concurred with this approach.

The Speaker offered the following views;

The Speaker agreed strongly with the recommendation and had some months ago spoken to Permanent Secretaries of Departments about this. He agreed that if this recommendation were implemented then many of the concerns, which the Executive had about unnecessary delay, would be addressed. He raised two further points:

1. Departments appeared reluctant in bringing forward draft Bills as part of the pre-consultation process and seemed slow to make use of the opportunity to make amendments at a later date; and
2. There was a strong argument that as part of the pre-introduction consultation, not only with the committee but also the wider public, a draft Bill should often be published to assist that that consultation.

The recommendation did not require a change in Standing Orders, but a change in approach by OFM/DFM. He suggested that this issue should be referred to the Chairpersons Liaison Committee, which was in the process of drafting a Memorandum of Understanding for agreement with the Executive. This was an issue, which could be incorporated into this Memorandum.

The Speaker was not convinced of the benefit of a committee reporting on the general principles of a Bill before Second Stage, since the committee would be formulating and presenting a view on the overall Bill before the Plenary had had an opportunity to consider it.

The Speaker agreed with the recommendation.

The Speaker was cautious about committees making amendments, as committee proceedings did not have the same safeguards as were available in plenary (e.g. petition of concern to require across community vote). There was also the difficulty that an amendment could be voted through at Committee Stage, perhaps by a small number of members who were not representative of the Assembly as a whole, and that it would be difficult for the Assembly to undo the amendment at Consideration Stage.

He recommended that if the Committee proposed to review this issue in the future it would perhaps be appropriate to wait until the next Assembly mandate.

The Speaker accepted that there might be benefit in removing the 5-day rule between Second and Committee Stage in that it would allow committees to begin consideration of a Bill earlier, but they would need to have Hansard available from the Second Stage debate to assist in their consideration.

He was not in favour of any proposal that would reduce the 5-day minimum between any other stage in the legislative process. He suggested that any reduction would have an adverse impact on members' ability to table amendments. He drew comparison with other legislatures such as Scotland where in general there was a minimum 2-week period between stages. In general discussion on amendments he was of the view that more opportunity should be used of probing amendments. He said this was an important tool in ensuring that Ministers gave a full account of particular provisions of a Bill. He would welcome an increase in the use of such amendments.

The Speaker was cautious about these recommendations, as he did not see how they improved the current procedures. He contended that the existing procedures were very useful in that they allowed a member to speak at Further Consideration stage to the motion that "a Clause stand part.". These recommendations would remove that flexibility.

The Speaker agreed with the recommendation.

The Speaker agreed with the recommendation.

He also drew attention to the recent report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules in which a criticism was laid at Departments for failing to abide by the 21-day rule. The Speaker was concerned that this could signify the start of an unwelcome trend by Departments

The Speaker did not see merit in this recommendation. He did not consider it appropriate for him to forward submissions received (after First Reading) from the NIHRC, to the relevant committee as this could give conflicting messages about the compliance of a Bill with human rights standards. As Speaker he had to satisfy himself on the competence of a bill and its compliance with EHCR which was different from the responsibilities of The NIHRC. He had already advised the Commission that where it had concerns about a Bill it would be appropriate for it to write directly to the Statutory Committee through the Chairperson and the Clerk or if it wished to all members directly.

In discussion on the issue of creating a Standing Human Rights Committee, the Speaker thought this might be useful and was very positive about it. However he did not see that committee as having a role in the Committee Stage of legislation.

The Speaker agreed with the recommendation.

He suggested that the emphasis on any new procedures would be on the allocation of funding for members in taking forward Private Members' Bills.

The Speaker agreed with the recommendation.

In discussion on this issue, the Speaker raised concerns about parity legislation, including its definition. His view was that on occasions a Bill was described as Parity when in fact it was not. There were therefore difficulties about granting such legislation automatic Accelerated Passage. He suggested that this was an issue, which would require more detailed consideration at a later date and recommended that the Committee undertook such an exercise.

This issue was currently being taken forward by the Assembly Commission.

5. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

The sub-Committee agreed that it would be useful to have background information on the nature of Parity legislation and instructed the Clerk to prepare a paper.

6. DATE, TIME AND VENUE OF NEXT MEETING

It was agreed that the next meeting of the sub-Committee would be held on Tuesday 27 November 2001 in Room 135 Parliament Buildings at 10.30 pm. It would be entirely devoted to discussion of the recommendations of the Inquiry.

The meeting adjourned at 1.55 pm.