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