I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Bill. As the Minister stated, the Railway Safety Bill is technical. Nonetheless, it is an important piece of legislation, and it has major safety implications for our railway network. Recent rail accidents in Great Britain, and none more so than the fatal accident at the weekend on the track at Sydenham, only serve to reinforce the need for exacting standards of railway safety in Northern Ireland.

I offer the Committee's sympathy to the bereaved family of the construction worker and wish those who were injured a speedy recovery.

Although we have a small railway infrastructure - approximately 240 miles in total - it is critical that our safety standards be as rigorous as those in Great Britain, the Republic of Ireland and the rest of Europe. The legislation is timely. We are in the middle of the public consultation process on the regional transportation strategy. It is important that we provide adequate support for the public transport system, including the railway network. The legislation helps to reinforce the message that we are committed to improving the rail network, not simply by purchasing new trains, but through rigorous safety standards in which we can all have confidence.

The Regional Development Committee is looking forward to considering the legislation and examining in detail the clauses of the Bill. It is committed to conducting a detailed scrutiny, and it intends to consult widely and take evidence from all interested parties. This is the first piece of primary legislation that the Committee will have considered.

The Minister explained that the Bill makes provision for the introduction of secondary legislation on a range of railway safety issues. That is welcome, but was consideration given to drafting a single prescriptive Bill? That approach has been adopted in the Republic of Ireland, and it might be helpful to look at that model. Irrespective of that, I welcome the Minister's commitment to introducing subordinate legislation that will include a public consultation process.

I am aware that the subordinate Regulations will be subject to negative resolution procedures, as prescribed by the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. If this is the case - and I hope that the Regional Development Committee will have the opportunity to consider this more closely during the Committee Stage of the Bill - I seek reassurance from the Minister that consultation on the Regulations will be rigorous and transparent.

I also hope that the Committee will be kept fully informed throughout each stage of the consultation process. I am sure that that will be the case, as the Department for Regional Development must be commended for the manner in which it has co-operated with, and assisted, the Committee with all secondary legislation to date.

To return to the Minister's comments, I welcome the fact that the Minister recognises the importance of ensuring that all trains, including those of Iarnród Éireann, satisfy safety standards on Northern Ireland railways, and vice versa. We expect Northern Ireland safety standards to be at least comparable to those of Iarnród Éireann. Will the Minister reassure me that that is the case, and that he will continue to monitor standards in the future?

I welcome the Minister's statement that he has no plans to change the integrated nature of the railways. In Northern Ireland we have an integrated public transport system, which ensures that we do not face the structural problems that have materialised in Great Britain following privatisation. The added difficulty of providing an integrated system when several competing operators are responsible for providing and maintaining the public transport network was particularly noticeable during the Regional Development Committee's recent visit to Europe to look at best practice in public transport.

With the regional development transportation strategy nearing completion, we have the potential to create a much more integrated public transportation network. As the Minister explained, this Bill will require each railway operator to prepare a safety case. The Regional Development Committee looks forward to examining the content and nature of those safety cases in detail.

However, I seek clarification from the Minister on one specific point. In Great Britain, that same approach is already used, but problems arose because the system was not implemented properly. Can the Minister outline how similar problems will be avoided in Northern Ireland?

I am pleased that officials from the Department for Regional Development have reached an agreement with the Health and Safety Executive whereby HM Railway Inspectorate will act as agent to scrutinise and approve each risk assessment and safety case. I seek reassurance from the Minister that that process will be totally independent and that operators will have no right of appeal to the Department. Given that the basis of this legislation is the requirement for railway operators to provide safety cases, it is important that the safety case Regulations be swiftly implemented.

I note the Minister's comments that the safety case Regulations will require Northern Ireland Railways, in particular, to undertake significant work before it prepares a detailed safety case. It is reassuring to note that the Department for Regional Development will be urging Northern Ireland Railways to complete this work as quickly as possible. However, does the Minister have any idea at this stage as to how long that preparatory work will take? Of course, the recent rail accident makes the Northern Ireland Railways safety case even more pressing, and the Regional Development Committee will lend whatever support it can to the speedy introduction of the safety case Regulations.

I welcome the Railway Safety Bill. As Members are aware, it is a result of the A D Little report and the work of the Railways Task Force, which identified several fairly serious safety issues in the railway system in Northern Ireland. I am glad that the Department is starting to address those issues.

However, I wonder why we have not taken this opportunity to completely re-examine the legislation. I understand that this Bill tinkers with the existing legislation, rather than taking a completely fresh view of it. In the Republic, the opportunity was taken to completely re-examine the relevant legislation, and some fairly new elements were introduced to it.

As I understand it, Translink has expressed concern about elements of the Bill. The Department has indicated that it will deal with those elements through Regulations. However, I suspect that when the Committee gets the opportunity to examine them in more detail, it may want to introduce proper amendments to the primary legislation as it goes through, rather than rely on Regulations to cover those points.

I too welcome the Railway Safety Bill, not only as an Assembly Member, but also as a part-time and regular commuter on the railways. It has always been a real concern for passengers, staff and management that safety has been undermined by low-grade material, both on the lines and in the rolling stock. In the light of the A D Little report, as Mr McFarland said, we hoped that legislation would be introduced to address that - hence this Bill.

We must quickly eradicate all concerns by upgrading the railways after the long years of insufficient attention. I am more than pleased that the Bill is focused on safety, but, like the Committee Chairperson, I would like more information on the secondary legislation. I am not a member of that Committee, but I am sure we will be able to have access to the information.

We are lucky that we have not had the major disasters that have happened in England and in other places. According to the explanatory and financial memorandum, safety cases serve two main purposes:

Those are both worthy and necessary.

The Bangor to Belfast railway line is one of the most successful projects. However, you would be surprised at the state of the line. Travelling at speed is unsafe, and one of the recent accidents was caused by a train travelling at speed on a deficient part of the line. The carriages are not ideal. The old carriages, which are being replaced as quickly as possible, have unsafe doors. Some of the new carriages also have unsafe doors. Although the doors are deemed to be automatic, they do not always open. The windows in the older carriages are dreadful. The issue of alighting from both types of carriage at stations must be examined. Those are small but important safety measures, and they must be addressed. It is hoped that running and enforcement costs will be met.

Our railway safety record is good, but it should not make us complacent. It is to be hoped that the general concerns will be addressed, and that health and safety at work; new trains; new rolling stock; and signs and barriers at private crossings will be upgraded to twenty- first century standards. We need to keep our railways. I, therefore, support the Bill, and I hope it will be implemented quickly.

In conclusion, I want to take this opportunity to convey my sympathy and that of my party to the family of the young construction worker who died, and to the others who were injured, during the improvement of the Belfast to Bangor railway line.

I too welcome the debate, and I commend the Minister on his recent announcement of an £80 million investment in Northern Ireland Railways to purchase modern rolling stock to replace the existing stock, some of which has been in use for the past 30 years. The Department and the Minister have made a significant start to the modernisation of the Northern Ireland rail network, as proposed in the draft regional transportation strategy. That network has suffered considerably from critical underinvestment during the 30 years of direct rule.

Rail safety is central to the modernisation of Northern Ireland's rail network, and it has an important bearing on the successful implementation of the Department's regional transportation strategy. If we are to increase the use of the railways, then the level of public confidence in the network must be raised, particularly given the prospect of the utilisation of private sector investment. People must be reassured that the network is efficient, safe and comfortable, and that all procedures are transparent. I am thankful that Northern Ireland has not experienced rail accidents on the scale of those in Britain, which involved such tragic loss of life, and which prompted the debate on rail safety. There is already a high degree of safety awareness in Northern Ireland Railways. However, the Bill provides us with the opportunity to introduce standardised safety reporting mechanisms.

The Railway Safety Bill does not address many of the safety issues. At this stage it cannot be regarded as a comprehensive piece of legislation that will safeguard passengers and Northern Ireland Railways staff with the necessary statutory safety mechanisms. Translink and Transport 2000 have reservations relating to the legislation, and they have legitimately highlighted shortcomings on key safety issues. Translink and Transport 2000 have used the A D Little report and Lord Cullen's report as benchmarks to judge the contents of the Bill, and the Assembly must do the same.

The A D Little review, with its specific focus on Northern Ireland, conducted a rigorous analysis of rail safety, separating the issue into four main components - safety management assessment, technical assessment, risk assessment and safety culture assessment.

Under these four headings, the report examined a range of competencies and practices within Northern Ireland Railways. It made eight key recommendations with regard to safety management, safety culture, operations, track, signalling, level crossings, structures and so forth, based on shortfalls in the rail network.

Some of those recommendations are reflected in the clauses of the Bill, but many are not addressed. Translink and Transport 2000 have pointed out that this piece of legislation can be viewed only as a framework that must be built on. For example, there is no mention of a safety audit, and there is no proposal for the establishment of standards and how they are to be monitored. Furthermore, the draft Bill does not outline the proposed role of HM Railway Inspectorate, nor does it address safety concerns with regard to the employment of subcontractors or licences for drivers and signalmen.

I also wish to convey my condolences to the family of the man who was killed at the weekend on the Sydenham section of the railway.

Although the Bill is a step in the right direction, there is room for further amendments that would improve the Bill and make it more comprehensive. I also urge the Department for Regional Development to examine the safety legislation in the Republic. Translink have commented on the more substantive nature of railway safety legislation in the South, which provides a regulatory code as opposed to the mere framework proposed in the Bill. The Bill should take greater account of legislation in the Republic, so that we can have, as far as possible, greater co-ordination and consistency of services between Northern Ireland Railways and Iarnród Éireann. I welcome the Minister's comments regarding this matter.

Although I appreciate the Department's intention to address those shortcomings, there is an obvious need for further consideration of the Bill's provision, so that it reflects more fully the recommendations by Lord Cullen and the A D Little report and incorporates the best elements of rail safety in Britain and the Republic. I look forward to addressing those issues during the Bill's Committee Stage, along with my Colleagues in the Committee for Regional Development.

TOP

I am grateful to Members for their constructive contributions to the debate, the brevity of which perhaps indicates the non-controversial nature of the legislation. The Assembly and members of the Committee are eager to have safety legislation of the kind that is proposed on the statute book, in order to provide a higher standard of safety for rail users.

Several Members referred to the tragic loss of a young construction worker at the weekend. I wish to express my sympathy to the family of the deceased and express my best wishes for a speedy recovery to the injured workman. I understand that the accident came about when engineering equipment, operated by the construction firm Mowlem's, collided on the track with a stationary piece of equipment owned by Northern Ireland Railways but leased to the firm. This occurred at 4.00 am on Sunday morning. The track had been handed over to Mowlem's on Friday evening to allow full access for workers at the weekend. No services operated over the weekend. Under the terms of their contract, Mowlem's is responsible for the line during the period that control is handed to the firm, and, as part of the contract, Mowlem's submitted a safety plan covering all aspects of its operation.

The accident remains under investigation, and we must await the outcome before drawing any conclusions. The investigation will focus on the cause of the accident and how it was not prevented by the safety plan that was put forward by the firm. The system is similar to that which will operate under the safety case regime. However, the Northern Ireland Railways safety case, when it is brought into operation, will not cover this type of situation directly. When external contractors are employed, it is their responsibility to operate a safety plan. I have no doubt that the Assembly, and certainly the Committee, will await the outcome of the investigation and will want to consider the matter more fully at that stage.

In his remarks the Committee Chairperson asked if the Department had considered having a single prescriptive Bill. He rightly recognises that this is an enabling Bill, which will empower the Department to introduce a series of subordinate Regulations that will set out the detailed legislative requirements. The subordinate legislation will be largely technical in nature, and none of its contents is likely to prove controversial. It is a long-standing practice that such matters are dealt with in subordinate legislation. For example, that is the approach adopted by the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978.

There is one particular reason why it is more appropriate to leave the detailed legislation to Regulations made under the Act. We obtained agreement to proceed to this draft Bill in January 2001. Due largely to the need to carry out a formal consultation process, it was not introduced to the Assembly until this month. It is by no means certain that it will be enacted by the summer. Primary legislation is a time-consuming process, and I would not like changes in the legislation that had the potential to improve railway safety to be delayed for the 18 months or so that primary legislation could take. Such amendments could arise from Lord Cullen's report on railway safety and could be introduced much more speedily by subordinate legislation.

My Department will consult on each set of subordinate Regulations, including the amending regulations as they are made. All interested parties will be consulted, and the Assembly Committee - whose role we find crucial - will be able to scrutinise the Regulations in its usual thorough way. I am not proposing a general public consultation on each set of Regulations. When consulting on this Bill, we received only about a dozen substantive responses from the 600 consultees. That showed that the general public are not that interested in the technicalities of railway safety. They are interested in being assured that rail travel is safe, and that is paramount to us all.

The Chairperson also raised the issue of cross-border enforcement. As I said in my opening remarks, it will be necessary for us to be satisfied about the safety of Irish Rail trains operating on Northern Ireland Railways track. Of course, Irish Rail will be no less eager to ensure the safety of Northern Ireland Railways trains operating on its track. That can be accomplished by mutual recognition of safety certification in accordance with EU legislation.

The Chairperson also asked about the possible timescales for legislation under the Bill. I hope that the Bill will complete its Assembly stages by June or July 2002. Following Royal Assent, it should become law by October or November. Most subordinate legislation will follow almost immediately, subject to public consultation and consultation with the Assembly Committee. The railway (safety case) Regulations will follow as soon as possible, allowing Northern Ireland Railways time to finalise its safety case and have it thoroughly examined.

The Chairperson also raised the issue of the problems encountered in Great Britain due to failure to comply fully with the implementation of the safety case requirements. The safety case system requires independent validation of a case before acceptance and annual auditing of performance. Those will be rigorously enforced. The system provides strong assurances that rail travel will be safe, though I must emphasise that no system can provide absolute certainty in such a complex area.

The Deputy Chairperson asked why we had not gone for completely new legislation. This is, of course, a completely new piece of legislation. It is a new railway regime and does not amend any existing enactment.

I recently visited Jordanstown and spoke with staff and police at the halt and looked at the crossing. The policeman in attendance opened his file to me, and it showed, in the most graphic way, what a railway accident means. That brought home to me the vital importance of safety. We are dealing with very heavy vehicles going at considerable speeds. It is easy to understand the dangers involved, particularly at crossings.

It is incumbent on all elected representatives, and on all of us with responsibility, to ensure that when legislation is introduced, proper procedures are enacted. The responsibility does not stop with me. The Committee and the House have a role. This step that we are taking will considerably add to the safety requirements and ensure that there is a proper focus on safety issues in the railway system in Northern Ireland.

I welcome the comments of Members and look forward to the continuing contact that we will have with the Committee as the legislation moves to the next stage.

Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill:
Further Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker:

No amendments to the Bill have been tabled. I therefore propose, by leave of the House, to group the eight clauses of the Bill, followed by the schedule and the long title.

That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Local Government (Best Value) Bill: Final Stage

The Minister of the Environment (Mr Nesbitt):

I beg to move

As Members will know, the Local Government (Best Value) Bill has two main objectives: first, to repeal the existing provision for compulsory competitive tendering of specified council services; and, secondly, to establish a general duty on district councils to make arrangements for continuous improvement in the delivery of their services, having regard to what is tritely called VFM (value for money), namely economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Most importantly, they will also be required to consult local people on this matter. That is the essence of the Bill.

I thank the Chairperson and members of the Environment Committee for their frank and open views, which have helped to determine the provisions of the Bill. I also extend my thanks to the Members who participated in the debate at Consideration Stage. Officials in the Department have worked closely with district councils and other local government interests to ensure that best value is implemented in a structured way. I endorse that approach and agree entirely with my predecessor, Sam Foster, that such a partnership arrangement should continue in the months ahead.

Finally, there is still much work for local government officials to do in respect of best value developments. Reviews of best value are presently under way in England and Wales. The outcome of those reviews, and the progress on best value legislation in Scotland, may help to inform the process of developing best value and guiding local government in Northern Ireland.

Budget Bill: Final Stage

Resolved (with cross-community support):

Committee Business: 

Assembly: Committee of the Centre

Resolved:

Mr Morrow's Colleagues have advised me that he has unfortunately been unable to get to the House this morning. Therefore the next motion must fall. I have no doubt that the matter will be brought back at a later stage.

TOP

Review of the Legislative Process

I beg to move

A Cheann Comhairle, as Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures I am pleased to bring the report to the Assembly's attention. This is the first report by the Committee on Procedures, and it details the Committee's findings of its inquiry into the progression of legislation, which is a fundamental function of the Assembly. I shall begin by explaining briefly why the Committee decided to undertake the inquiry, and then look at how it was conducted. I will then outline some of the key findings and recommendations.

The impetus for the review was provided by the Committee's concern that the initial procedures for the progression of legislation were not as effective as they should be. For example, Standing Orders provided only for a single amendment stage. That is considerably less than the procedures in other legislatures. The Committee decided in October 2000, therefore, to initiate a review of the procedures.

The Committee began its review by seeking evidence from a wide range of organisations and individuals. On behalf of the Committee, I extend our gratitude to those organisations and individuals who took the time to respond in detail to our request. I also thank the Assembly's legal adviser, the examiner of statutory rules and the Assembly research services for their assistance to the Committee in its deliberations. The research service provided an excellent paper, which highlighted practices in several other places. Although one has to be careful in drawing comparisons, particularly considering our unique political system, the research was extremely useful in helping the Committee get a feel for what could be introduced here.

The Committee built on that knowledge by visiting the Scottish Parliament and the Dáil. The Committee also took the innovative step of establishing a subcommittee to undertake the evidence sessions of the inquiry and to prepare a draft report for the full Committee's consideration.

I will now outline some of the key recommendations contained in the report. Before doing so it will be useful to inform Members of some of the main findings of our research, as they underpin our recommendations. My Colleagues on the Committee will address some of the other recommendations. I wish to point out that all the parties represented on the Committee agreed the recommendations in the report.

Members should note that we are in our infancy as a legislature as regards the progression of legislation, in comparison to the Oireachtas or Westminster. From devolution until the end of the 2001 session, 21 Bills progressed through the Assembly. Of those 21 Bills, 17 went through Committee Stage. What is more striking, however, is that eight of the 17 were considered by the Committee for Finance and Personnel.

This means that the majority of Committees have had limited experience of taking the Committee Stages of Bills, and a couple have yet to take one. The upshot is that Statutory Committees, in their submissions to this review, were limited in what they saw as the need for improvement.

However, the need to lengthen the Committee Stage from its present 30-calendar-day limit was common to all submissions. The Committee found that, to the end of the 2001 session, the average length of Committee Stages was nine weeks, which is substantially more than 30 days.

Another key finding of our research was that the pre-legislative consultation between Departments and Committees was not as thorough as it should have been. The Committee found that, on almost half the Bills that went through Committee Stage, there was no pre-legislative consultation, although this may be explained by the fact that a number of Bills were introduced in the immediate aftermath of devolution.

There is evidence that in most instances the level of pre-legislative scrutiny with Committees is improving. However, it is still disappointing to note that at the end of the last session no Department had submitted a draft Bill for Committee consideration as part of its pre-legislative consultation. This point about pre-legislative scrutiny is important, and I will come back to it later. It is at the core of our recommendations.

Another key finding of the Committee was in relation to human rights and legislation. The Committee found that, to the end of the last session, the Assembly had not considered it necessary to establish an Ad Hoc Committee on Conformity with Equality Requirements as provided for in Standing Order 33, nor had it found it necessary to formally refer a Bill to the Human Rights Commission.

I have outlined some of the key findings, and now I would like to turn to the recommendations. The first, and perhaps the most far-reaching, of the Committee's recommendations pertains to pre-legislative consultation. The need for pre-legislative scrutiny is emphasised in the other legislatures that we examined and in the guidance for progressing legislation issued to Departments by the Executive.

One of the key recommendations in a recent memorandum from the Modernisation Committee at Westminster was that Ministers should make greater use of draft Bills as part of their pre-legislative consultation. Our recommendation concurs fully with that. However, rather than incorporating it into Standing Orders at this stage, and in order to give the Executive time to introduce it, the Committee advises that the recommendation be incorporated into the protocol on information and evidence which is to be agreed between the Executive and the Assembly.

The Committee recommends that this practice be reviewed after 12 months. If it has not been implemented to a satisfactory level, the Committee will look at it again with a view to making it a requirement under Standing Orders. I cannot overemphasise the importance of this recommendation, because it underpins the rest of the Committee's report.

The Committee is firmly of the view that if Ministers and Committees thrash out their concerns on proposed legislation before it enters the Assembly, this is likely to lead to quicker and less contentious passage through the Assembly. While the Committee acknowledges that for a variety of reasons this will not be applicable to all types of legislation - for example, Budget Bills - it should apply to the majority of proposed legislation.

Another important recommendation centres on the minimum time between each stage of the legislative process. Currently that period is five working days. However, immediately after devolution it was seven working days; it was only later reduced to five. In its submission to the review, the Executive recommended that this should be further reduced to four working days. Their argument was that it would allow Stages of a Bill to be considered in consecutive weeks. Under current sitting arrangements, if a Consideration Stage is held on a Tuesday, then the Further Consideration Stage cannot be held until the following Monday week, which is some eight working days later. The Executive contended that this unduly delays the process.

As part of its consideration of the proposal the Committee looked at the practice in other legislatures, particularly in Scotland, where there is usually a minimum of two weeks between the Stages of a Bill. The Committee also noted that if the period between Stages were reduced, less time would be available for Members or Committees to table amendments to a Bill. The Committee believes that this is an important consideration, particularly where the Bill is complex or contentious. The Committee acknowledges that as the legislative programme increases, we may have to revisit this issue with a view to increasing the number of days, perhaps reverting to the original seven days.

However, the Committee agreed that the time period between the Second Stage and Committee Stage could be removed. At present, when a Bill passes its Second Stage it is referred to a Committee to report on it. The Committee cannot consider the Bill until five days have elapsed, yet the 30-day period within which a Committee has to report starts the day after the Second Stage is completed.

Therefore Committees have to report within 25 days. Several Committees highlighted this difficulty in their submissions and recommended that the time period be removed. The Committee on Procedures shares this view and recommends that the five-day rule be removed from Standing Orders.

It is not surprising that Committees think that the 30-day period does not allow sufficient time for adequate scrutiny of legislation. The Committee on Procedures found that the average length of the Committee Stage was nine weeks - more than twice the length of time provided for in Standing Orders. Several recommendations were made to the Committee as regards how long Committee Stage should be: some want 90 days; others want 60. The Committee again looked at practice elsewhere and noticed that time limits were generally not set for the Committee Stage of a Bill in other legislatures. The Committee found it telling that when visiting the Dáil to view the Committee Stage of a Bill there, it had been under consideration for nearly a year.

We examined what Assembly Committees were doing at Committee stage, and why that work was taking longer than the 30-day period set out in Standing Orders. The Committee noted that other time restrictions considerably shortened the period. One of these, which I have already referred to, is the five-day period between Second Stage and Committee Stage, which reduces the overall period to 25 days. Printing a report can take more than a week. The net result is a Committee period lasting about 20 days. Faced with this reality, Committees automatically feel that they need an extension of the Committee Stage. Under the arrangements for tabling motions, a request for extension has to be tabled at an early stage in the period.

Having considered the administrative arrangements alongside the views expressed in the Committees' submissions, the Committee on Procedures agreed that the length of the Committee Stage must be changed. An important consideration when determining how long the Committee Stage should be was our view that the submission of a draft Bill as part of the legislative consultation should become the norm. If that were to happen, less time would be required at Committee Stage. The Committee felt that 30 working days would be more appropriate. In effect this would give Committees six weeks to consider a Bill. When this period is set alongside the existing administrative arrangements for calculating the 30-day period, this is a more realistic timescale.

The Committee considered whether Committees should be given the power to amend a Bill. As Members know, Committees cannot amend a Bill during Committee Stage. Committees are required to report on the Bill to the Assembly. If it so wishes, a Committee can table amendments at Consideration Stage. Again, drawing from the work of other legislatures, we noted that their Committees had the power to amend Bills during Committee Stage. The legislature would then have an opportunity to consider the amended Bill at what they called "Report Stage."

The Committee on Procedures asked representatives from OFMDFM for their views on the matter. Although they advised us that the Executive had not taken a view, they thought that Committees could not legally be given power to amend a Bill. This view contrasted with advice from the Assembly legal adviser, who suggested they could. The Committee requested legal opinion from OFMDFM, but it has yet to respond.

During its discussions the Committee recognised some of the historical reasons why Committees should not be given such a power. Most notable was the concern that a Committee could amend a Bill at Committee Stage in a way which might not reflect the wishes of the Assembly, and might be difficult to undo at Consideration Stage. However, the Committee on Procedures considered it strange that Committees could initiate legislation, yet could not amend it.

There was some support from members of the Committee on Procedures who recommended that such powers be given to Statutory Committees and the Committee of the Centre. However, the overriding factor was the view of the Statutory Committees themselves: there is no demand from them to be given such authority. Given my earlier comments about the relative inexperience of Committees in this area of work, perhaps this is not surprising.

Another factor that explains why the Committee on Procedures is not recommending such a change is the recognition that any such change would have massive procedural implications, particularly for the role of the Minister at Committee Stage. It would also have knock- on effects on the purpose of Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage. Therefore the Committee recognised that before it could recommend changes to Standing Orders it would have to undertake detailed consultation with the Executive and Committees. This is an important issue and one that will come to the fore again as Committees get more experience in the legislative process.

There has been some debate about accelerated passage in the House. The current procedure that allows Bills to progress through the Assembly in 10 days is normally used for Budget Bills, and Standing Orders refer specifically to this.

At present, the requirement for accelerated passage is the leave of the House. The Executive recommended that the use of accelerated passage should be reduced. In its consideration of the matter the Committee reviewed the existing provisions of Standing Order 40, which require a Minister to explain to the House the reason for a delay and the action he or she has taken to avoid having to use accelerated passage in future. The infrequent use of the procedure convinced the Committee that it was unlikely that the accelerated passage provision would be further misused. The Committee considered that the requirement for leave was unnecessarily high when set against other major decisions of the Assembly, which have a lower threshold. Therefore the Committee recommends that the requirement be reduced from leave of the House to cross-community support.

I will now move to the Committee's consideration of the human rights aspects of the legislative process. The Human Rights Commission gave a detailed submission to the Committee and made some proposals for changes to Standing Orders. The main thrust of the Human Rights Commission's submission was that the current legislative procedures in the Assembly are not sufficiently robust with regard to human rights scrutiny. The commission recommended that a new committee on human rights and equality be established to examine and report on all human rights and equality issues coming within the competence of the Assembly. That would include compatibility with relevant human rights standards. It was proposed that the committee should replace the current Ad Hoc Special Committee on Conformity with Equality Requirements and that one of its key functions should be the scrutiny of all Bills before they proceed to Royal Assent to ensure that they comply with human rights and equality standards.

In its consideration of this, the Procedures Committee took evidence from Prof Stephen Livingstone, head of the School of Law at Queen's University, and Brice Dickson of the Human Rights Commission. The Committee also received advice from the Assembly's legal adviser.

In its analysis, the Committee broke down the key recommendations of the commission. It decided that a new committee on human rights, with a broad mandate to investigate human rights issues, would not come within the remit of an inquiry on the legislative process, so the Committee focused its consideration on a proposal for a new committee which, in simple terms, would clear all legislation before it proceeded to Royal Assent. On that, the Committee examined the existing procedures to identify the checks carried out for human rights scrutiny and was encouraged by the level of such scrutiny on proposed legislation. That information is given on page 16 of the report. We noted that at each stage of the legislative process there are checks and balances to ensure that legislation complies with human rights standard. It was clear that the Human Rights Commission was not aware of how far these checks go.

We also considered the Committees' current scrutiny role of proposed legislation. As Members will appreciate, Committees play an extremely important part in the Assembly's commitment to human rights proofing of draft legislation. That can happen at any stage of the process, but particularly at both the pre-legislative stage and at Committee Stage where questions can be raised with the Minister about the human rights implications of a Bill. Indeed, on a number of occasions, Committees have asked the Human Rights Commission to give evidence during a Committee Stage on the human rights implications of a Bill. That led the Procedures Committee to conclude that the commission had, in some way, underemphasised the important role that Committees have played in the process. The Committee also agreed that, in fulfilling the role set out in the Good Friday Agreement for scrutinising legislation, it was important that Committees should continue to consider all implications of a Bill, including their impact on human rights. The Procedures Committee was concerned that if this responsibility were passed to one Committee alone, human rights could become marginalized. It is not easy to pick out a provision of a Bill and ask that it be considered in isolation. The overall content of the Bill has to be taken into account, so there is a concern about referring a whole Bill to a human rights committee for scrutiny. In addition, with reference to the Committee's first recommendation about pre-legislative scrutiny, it would be impractical at that stage to refer matters to a new human rights committee.

It is for these reasons that the Committee does not agree with the Human Rights Commission's proposal for a separate human rights committee to consider all legislation, and a human rights committee with a general remit for inquiry is an issue for further debate in the Assembly.

I will turn now to look at the Further Consideration Stage. At present, Further Consideration Stage is a re-run of Consideration Stage. In their submission, the Executive suggested that this was unnecessary and that the plenary Assembly should not be asked to vote again on an issue that had been voted through, perhaps the previous week. While the Committee considered it important that Members should have a second opportunity to amend a Bill, it agreed that there would be benefit in refining.

The Committee agreed with the Executive that the Assembly should not be asked to vote again on clauses or schedules that have already been voted to stand part of a Bill. The Committee recommends that Standing Orders be changed to amend the Further Consideration Stage so that debate and vote at that stage would be limited only to any amendments tabled. The Assembly would not be asked to vote that clauses or schedules stand part of the Bill.

I remind Members of what I said at the start of this debate. The Assembly is in its infancy as regards progressing legislation. Therefore its procedures should be subject to continuous review. Many issues will require further consideration in the future - for example, Committees amending Bills. There are other issues, which we have not touched upon yet, such as Private Member's Bills, Committee Bills and Private Bills. As yet we have no experience to judge the efficiency of our procedures on those issues. However, I assure the Assembly that we will examine them.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>