COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURES

OFFICIAL REPORT
(HANSARD)

Ministerial Statements

27 June 2007

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

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 O’Loan
Mr Ken Robinson

Witnesses:
Mrs Rosalie Flanagan OFMDFM
Mr Neill Jackson OFMDFM
Mr Alan Rogers OFMDFM

The Chairperson (Lord Morrow):
I welcome from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister Mrs Rosalie Flanagan, director of executive services directorate; Mr Neill Jackson, head of machinery of government division; and Mr Alan Rogers, head of Assembly section in that division. We look forward to your 10-minute presentation. After that, members of the Committee may wish to ask some questions by way of further explanation. Are you content with that?

Mrs Rosalie Flanagan (Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM)):
Thank you for inviting us today. We are happy to explain some of the thinking behind the proposal from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister that the Assembly should consider the introduction of a facility for Ministers to make written statements to the Assembly. My colleagues Neill Jackson and Alan Rogers are here to support me.

Last week we made a written submission to the Committee on Procedures outlining the proposals. I assure the Committee that the proposal — and its intention — is not in any way to be used to circumvent the current arrangements for Ministers to make oral statements; to appear in the Chamber; and to answer questions — as they did several times during the previous period of devolution, and have done since 8 May 2007.

At their first meeting the Executive were very clear — and it was clearly agreed around the table — that they wanted to give the Assembly its proper place and, as far as possible, to advise the Assembly of decisions before they were made public.

In thinking about how to put that commitment into practice, we considered the potential of written ministerial statements. For example, at the Executive’s first meeting on 10 May 2007, they took the significant decision not to impose water charges this year. There was a high level of public interest in the decision, and it would not have been possible to defer the announcement because the media had gathered outside to hear it.

However, the Executive recognised the importance of giving the Assembly its place. In the absence of any other system of communication at that time, a letter was written to the Speaker and copied to all Members and to the Chairpersons of the Regional Development Committee and the Finance and Personnel Committee. That was the best that the Executive could do to give the Assembly its place.

On further consideration, we thought that there was a broader issue and that Ministers might want to advise the Assembly directly on other categories of information, perhaps in situations in which it would be inappropriate and unnecessary to have the level of questions and answers usual after oral statements. Rather, written ministerial statements would simply provide information to the Assembly.

To summarise, written ministerial statements would allow Ministers to provide information to the Assembly without delaying until they can make an oral statement at the next plenary sitting. That applies particularly to meetings of the Executive, which are currently held on Thursday afternoons. From time to time the gap between the Executive making decisions on a Thursday and the next plenary sitting the following Monday may be an issue. A written ministerial statement might also be used to publish documents, such as departmental or agency reports, corporate business plans, the announcement of public appointments or Ministers’ intentions to visit other countries.

Some of the thinking in the machinery of Government division has been informed by considering what happens elsewhere. At Westminster, there is no regular, or general, provision for oral statements, although some are made about major issues, such as the war in Iraq. However, there is a provision for written ministerial statements, which Ministers use extensively to inform MPs and peers in both Houses of important announcements and which are published in the daily volumes of Hansard — the Official Report.

The Welsh Assembly has provision for oral and written statements, both of which are published in its Record of Proceedings. The Scottish Parliament uses a different system of inspired parliamentary questions. The Northern Ireland Assembly could adopt such a system, but we did not go down that route because we considered the written ministerial statement to be more open, transparent and upfront. It also has the merit that it can be made without any delay, unlike an inspired parliamentary question, which requires a delay between tabling and response.

At Westminster, there is no Standing Order that deals with written ministerial statements. It is simply an administrative procedure through which Ministers submit their written statements for publication in Hansard. We understand that that system could be introduced in the Assembly through an amendment to Standing Orders.

At the Committee’s request — and with some temerity — our written submission includes possible wording for a Standing Order to cover that. However, further consideration will be required once discussions on the handling of the ministerial statements have been concluded.

The important feature of the written ministerial statement would be that it would appear in Hansard, the Official Report of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That would notify the Assembly of its contents and put the matter into the public domain. However, in these days of electronic communication, we should also consider email as a way of getting information directly and quickly to Members. OFMDFM will be happy to work with the Committee on that issue.

We quite understand that people may think that a written ministerial statement is a way of trying to circumvent or avoid oral statements in the Assembly; however, I assure the Committee that that is not the rationale behind the proposal. Ministers are keen to make oral statements on appropriate matters to the Assembly, and to answer questions and be accountable to the Assembly as they have been up to now. The Executive are seized of the situation. It is early days yet; it is just seven weeks since devolution, and there have been several oral statements in the House. Government policy is still under development. After recess, I expect that more regular oral statements will be made on a range of matters.

Our main purpose is to be helpful. We are happy to discuss, in any level of detail, how written ministerial statements would be handled in practice. I shall be happy to bring back to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Executive any queries or thoughts on which the Committee would like further clarification or elucidation.

The Chairperson:
Mrs Flanagan, you mentioned the gap between Executive meetings on Thursdays and Assembly sittings on Mondays. I am concerned that that leaves a three-day period during which the press can have plenty of fun, but Members will not have received the communication. It would not be healthy to have a situation where Members have to read newspapers in order to find out what is going on. We need a cast iron guarantee that that will not happen.

You also mentioned that there is not a facility for inspired questions.

Mrs Flanagan:
I did not say that exactly. Inspired questions are a traditional way of describing a method that some other legislatures and Administrations use to get information into the public domain. Presumably, it is possible for any question to be put down by a Member.

The Chairperson:
So that facility exists.

Mrs Flanagan:
Yes, it does.

The Chairperson:
I do not want to misunderstand or misquote you. Did you say that there is a facility for inspired questions or that there is not a facility?

Mrs Flanagan:
I do not think that I said either. Inspired questions are one method for a Minister to get information into the Assembly and, hence, the public domain. However, we think that the method of written ministerial statement is preferable. It is more direct and immediate; it is more open and transparent. When a question for written answer is submitted to a Minister, an answer goes to the Member who asked the question and, not so immediately, to other Members. A written ministerial statement would ensure a faster response.

The Chairperson:
Have you any ideas as to the mechanism that would trigger that?

Do you envisage that certain statements from the Executive would not be made in that way?

Mrs Flanagan:
Not released as written ministerial statements?

The Chairperson:
Yes.

Mrs Flanagan:
Oral statements will continue to be made. On Monday of this week, the Minister of Finance and Personnel made a statement on the outcome of the June monitoring round, which was followed by questions. Any statement that is made orally under current Standing Orders will continue to be made in that way. The proposed procedure offers a facility for making additional or immediate statements and might be used when the Assembly is not sitting in plenary session.

By way of example, when the flooding emergency occurred a couple of weeks ago, certain decisions were taken, including one to make up to £5 million of additional funding available to help people whose households were damaged and who were in hardship. A further decision was taken to introduce an emergency scheme allowing households in those circumstances a payment of £1,000. Both of those decisions were taken in response to an emergency situation.

I have not discussed this with Ministers or with the Executive — but had the facility for written statements then existed, I imagine that the Assembly could have been notified of those decisions on Thursday, Friday or over that weekend. As it happened, the Minister for Regional Development made an oral statement to the Assembly on behalf of all the relevant Ministers the following Monday. That was the first opportunity that he and other Ministers had to inform the Assembly of those decisions, and he answered questions and dealt with the issues in more detail. That illustrates one set of circumstances in which the procedure might be followed.

Mr Storey:
I welcome the delegation. I also wish to ask about the mechanics and trigger mechanisms of the procedure. How does one determine whether a matter is sufficiently weighty to merit a written statement, as opposed to an oral one? Would an initial written statement lead to a subsequent oral one, as in the case that has been outlined?

In the examples of the flooding emergency and the announcement of the terms of reference for the review of the domestic rating system, each was the subject of an oral statement in the House. It may not be a question of choosing between a written statement and an oral one; a combination of both might be necessary.

I am also uncertain about how the timing of statements would be determined. The Executive meets on Thursdays, so how would Members of the Assembly receive notification? How would such a statement be laid before the House? Would it be put before the Speaker, and then issued? Other communications that are made over the weekend are placed in Members’ pigeonholes, and there they stay until Monday morning. By that time, the world and its granny probably knows what is taking place.

Mrs Flanagan:
You are quite right; I had intended to make that point. I envisage that a developing situation might necessitate a written statement to release certain information at an appropriate time. That would have to be followed by an oral statement, made when the issue had received adequate consideration and certain decisions had been taken or proposals made. The flooding emergency was such an issue. In other circumstances, issues might develop over a longer period.

The Executive have not yet considered in detail the precise demarcation between what should be dealt with by written statement and what should be dealt with by oral statement. At present, the plan for written statements is a proposal for the Assembly. We will have to consider what guidance should be given on the detail of that. There is no suggestion that the procedure is designed to avoid oral statements being made in appropriate circumstances.

In relation to the second point, it is not the intention of the Executive that every decision taken would be immediately notified to the Assembly on Thursday evening or Friday morning by written statement. It would be a facility that would be there for matters that were inevitably going to become public, perhaps because of high media or public interest, because of an emergency, or in response to a crisis or criticism. For example, the review of domestic rates and the outcome of the June monitoring round were considered by the Executive, but were not discussed with the press, and were not in the public domain until a public oral statement was made in the Assembly. Therefore, this facility would be a safeguard, to fall back on when it might be difficult to keep an issue out of the public domain over the weekend.

We have considered the issue of how information reaches Members. Email is one possibility. The method of passing information to Members is a matter for the Assembly to decide. However, we are happy to facilitate anything that is thought to be helpful.

Mr O’Loan:
It is important to reiterate that the single biggest issue is the concern that any new method of communication not be used as a substitute for oral statements, when there is the opportunity for Members to ask questions. I should be very surprised if all Members did not share that view.

Is it envisaged that these written statements would come only at short notice, or would there be notice of them on the Order Paper? It might be thought that I am going off at a tangent, but I do not fully understand the procedures. It was known for several days that the Minister of Finance and Personnel would be making a statement on Monday, but it did not appear on the Order Paper. As a Member, I should find it helpful if notice of the intention to make such a statement were to appear on the Order Paper.

Is it envisaged that such statements would be made only at short notice? If so, they could not appear on the Order Paper. Is there an intention to continue to issue the written statements during recess? How then would they be communicated to Members?

The Chairperson:
Before you answer that, Mrs Flanagan, I ask that all Members ensure that their mobiles are switched off, as it interferes with the transmission for Hansard. Thank you.

Mrs Flanagan:
Whether notice is given of the statement depends on the nature of the subject. If a matter has arisen recently and must be commented on quickly, then there is no possibility of giving notice. On the other hand, we can consider putting a process in place that would allow notice to be given of a written statement making a routine announcement to the Assembly, for example, on something such as the publication of a consultation document.

In cases where we knew before the Thursday deadline that an oral statement would be made, we would advise accordingly and it could appear on the Order Paper if the Assembly wished. However, if it is a decision taken by the Executive late on Thursday afternoon, the timing does not mesh together, and that is why they cannot appear on the Order Paper. It is not a matter of principle that a decision is taken not to include oral statements on the Order Paper.

What would happen during recess is an issue that we need to consider. We are mindful of the point about sending information to Members when they might not be here, but that is an issue at the moment anyway because there is currently no opportunity, whether by oral statement or otherwise, to notify Members of anything during recess. It is certainly possible that written statements could be used during recess to fill the gap that currently exists. I am sure that Ministers and the Executive will be happy to consider that issue, but they have not discussed it so far.

The Chairperson:
That is a salient and important point.

Mrs Flanagan:
There is a gap at the moment.

Mr McQuillan:
As far as I know, Ministers were not able to issue written statements during the previous Assembly mandate. What is so different about this Assembly that we now require such a procedure, which was not required before?

The Chairperson:
I will answer that. The previous Executive released statements to the public before they were released to the Assembly. To say that that caused a row would be an understatement.

Mrs Flanagan:
Written statements were not released during the previous Assembly because there was no provision for it in Standing Orders. The only route was to make an oral statement on a Monday or Tuesday when the Assembly was in plenary session.

As the Chairperson said, Ministers sometimes made statements to the press before they were made to the Assembly. However, that is almost a separate issue from the matter of whether we should publish written statements, because the kind of business to which we are referring — I cannot think of an example at the moment — would probably more properly have been discussed as part of an oral statement.

An example of something that could best be announced in a written statement is the Executive’s first decision, which was the decision not to impose water charges this year. We did the best that we could to get that information to Assembly Members by placing letters in their pigeonholes and by sending letters to the Speaker and the relevant Committee Chairpersons. The Executive are trying to fill a gap that they have recognised. We almost had to make up a procedure to fill that gap on the evening of 10 May.

The Chairperson:
Can you research what happened during the previous Assembly mandate? I am clear that the previous Executive made statements to the public before they were ever made to the House, and that Members heard them in the public domain before they were made aware of them in the Assembly. I have no doubt about that. Can you carry out research to bring to our attention the number of times that that happened during the previous Assembly?

Mrs Flanagan:
I suppose that the matter is a bit subjective. If such issues are recorded in particular aspects of Assembly business, we could certainly look that up. I am not trying to avoid the question, and I am loath to speak on Ministers’ behalf without having consulted them, but if Ministers were here, I think that they would say that this is a new Executive that has taken a clear stand on the issue. I think that the intention is to give the Assembly its place. The letter that the Executive issued to Members on 10 May made that point clearly.

I am happy to look back at what happened previously if the Committee thinks that helpful, but I think that Ministers would probably prefer to look forward.

The Chairperson:
It is good to draw on the experience of history, too.

Mr K Robinson:
Given that some of our current Ministers were Ministers in the previous Administration, and might have slipped into bad habits during that period, it is vital that we have a clear definition of how Ministers should approach the issue. I think that all Members suspect that, given the opportunity, Ministers will try to outflank them. That is the way of human nature.

Given the previous experience to which the Chairperson referred, and given that some of the same personnel are involved, some Ministers might — I will not say that they will slip into their bad old ways — be tempted to repeat their previous approach to such statements. It is vital that we quantify the matter now and lay down a firm framework, in the interests both of Ministers and of the Assembly. We want to streamline the business, but we all want the primacy of the Assembly to be protected.
Mrs Flanagan:
I am very happy to bring that point to the attention of the Executive. I shall get back to the Committee in due course.

Mr McCartney:
My point follows Ken’s point about ministerial statements. To address Members’ fears about sleight of hand — or whatever one wants to call it — might a safeguard mechanism be introduced to ensure that a written statement could be followed by an oral statement? In other words, if the Assembly felt that a written statement was not appropriate, it could reserve the right to call a Minister to make an oral statement to the House on the same matter. Can that be considered?

Mrs Flanagan:
If the Assembly wants to adopt such a mechanism, I am sure that Ministers will be content to respond to it. I will certainly communicate that suggestion to the Executive.

Mr Storey:
That is a valid argument. If a written statement does not mention that a Minister also intends to make an oral statement on the issue, the Assembly should have some mechanism whereby it can get further clarity on the issue.

The Committee may have other questions on this matter. Will it able to forward them to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for consideration?

The Chairperson:
I will answer that question: the answer is yes, it will. With all due respect to everyone, I suspect that we will not make a decision on this matter today. Members have reservations about this issue. They are nervous about it, and they will want to think it over. The real fear is that procedure could be abused — I can use no other word. The issue will become a matter of who will make the call on whether a statement is issued in written form, delivered orally to the House or released directly to the press. That takes control away from Assembly Members and relegates them to second-class status.

Mr Storey:
Can the Committee have confirmation of the current procedure for releasing information after the Executive meetings that are held on Thursdays? What is the standard protocol? I know that Members received a letter following the announcement on water charges. I do not think that there will be an Executive meeting this Thursday.

Mrs Flanagan:
Not this week; Executive meetings are held every other week.

Mr Storey:
Of course — unless the meeting is to be held in Washington. What is the current protocol for statements detailing what has been discussed at Executive meetings?

Mrs Flanagan:
The Executive have decided that they will not issue press statements as a matter of course after every Executive meeting. The decision to issue statements will be taken on a meeting-by-meeting basis. In contrast, the previous Executive followed a procedure whereby a statement was issued after every meeting. The present Executive’s approach recognises that they may have discussed matters that they do not want to put into the public domain until a statement has been made in the Assembly at the following week’s plenary meeting.

After two of the four Executive meetings thus far, a letter has been sent to the Speaker providing information about some decisions that had been taken. That reflects the fact that there is no alternative route for relaying that information to the Assembly. We recognise that that procedure is not in accordance with any formal procedures that the Assembly has agreed; it is simply the Executive making the effort to do the best that they can to meet protocol requirements.

The Chairperson:
That ends the question-and-answer session. I thank the witnesses for appearing before the Committee.