Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Moutray): I invite Michael Potter to give his first presentation, after which members will have an opportunity to ask questions. Thank you, Michael.

Mr Michael Potter (Research and Information Service): This paper is on training and support measures for bringing more women into politics. It summarises some programmes that have been used to support women in politics and encourage them into politics in the context of the resolution by the Assembly on 10 March this year calling for the introduction of a training and support programme to encourage more female candidates to stand for election.

Before going into specifics, two points emerge from the research as key themes. The first is that training and support are seen as only one set of measures among many that are necessary to increase the participation of women in politics. As such, they should be seen as an enabling mechanism and not a solution. The second theme is that capacity-building for women to overcome barriers to participation assume women to be the problem, when, in fact, according to the research, it is the exclusive environment that is in need of change. Indeed, men may well also need training to create an environment that is more conducive to the participation of women.

Programmes supporting the participation of women tend to operate on three main levels. First, they provide practical assistance for the candidacy of women already involved in politics or, indeed, for them as elected representatives, to help address some of the barriers they face. Secondly, they help women who may be considering entering politics but need encouragement and capacity-building to take the first step. Thirdly, they raise awareness among women and girls generally that politics is a career not just for men but equally for women. Indeed, the programmes educate men that women should equally participate as well.

In the paper, I use three examples. The first is the DemocraShe programme that was used in Northern Ireland to work with women in political parties to build capacity to compete for electoral representation on an equal footing with men. The second is the Women in Local Councils initiative, which worked on a range of levels in Northern Ireland to build a framework for inclusion, develop and support female staff and elected representatives in local councils and connect with community-based initiatives to encourage women's participation. The third is Women for Election, which works in the Republic of Ireland on the three levels of political representatives, potential candidates and young women in general to promote the participation of women in politics.

I will speak briefly about the content of each of the programmes, but all the detail is in the paper.

DemocraShe was essentially a training and development programme that dealt with developing skills and confidence in areas such as electioneering and campaigns, fundraising, public speaking, media training, doorstepping, press release writing skills and the use of scenarios and role playing to embed those skills in women taking part.

Broadly, the Women in Local Councils initiative was much wider. It created a framework at local council level that included a declaration of equality principles and the promotion of a culture in which women feel able to participate fully; change champions in each council and in political parties to act as a focus for this work; gender action plans to offer concrete steps to increase women's participation; awareness-raising events to encourage participation, and direct training, mentoring or job shadowing.

Finally, the Women for Election initiative has four main programmes to operate at different points along the pipeline to promote more women to participate in politics. The INFORM programme works in universities to engage young women to participate in politics. INSPIRE is a programme to develop the capacity of women with an interest in politics. EQUIP is a programme that provides practical training for female candidates, providing core campaigning skills, and, more recently, ENGAGE comprises events designed to encourage political debate more widely in the population.

Key to the pipeline to political participation is the supply side from the community and, over the years, there has been a range of community-based initiatives generated through women's organisations locally in Northern Ireland. Currently, for example, there is the LEAD programme, which works on three levels from raising awareness to building political leadership skills and capacity building for participation. That has been developed as a partnership between women's organisations in the community here.

That is a brief overview, Chair. Do you want me to take questions on the papers individually or at the end?

The Chairperson (Mr Moutray): I am happy that you take questions individually.

Ms Ruane: I think that this is a fantastic paper. There is nothing more off-putting to women than when a discussion comes up and someone says, "Oh, but the women do not want to do it", or "They do not have the confidence". You made a very profound point about training. I would argue that men need training more than women, or maybe a different type of training; so, I think that that is very good.

I was interested in your last points, on confidence and demystification. Before coming here — and I am sure that Paula will know this as well — you had the idea that this was an amazing place where fantastic ideas were talked about all the time, and they are, but we need to demystify, and that is very important. It is also about sustaining the pipeline, so that it is not just about lack of confidence.

I do not have a question, but I thought that it was a really good paper and one of the best that I have seen on this.

Mr McCartney: Is the DemocraShe programme still in place?

Mr Potter: The individuals involved in DemocraShe are still around and are involved in other programmes. The actual programme fell due to lack of funding, but all the stuff is there and is ready to go.

Mr McCartney: Is the Women in Local Councils initiative of 2006 still in place?

Mr Potter: Elements of it are still in place, because the framework was the main groundwork for that. They were put in place in the councils and are still there. They have events every International Women's Day to raise awareness, so it is still kind of there.

Mr McCartney: I ask this out of ignorance: was any particular form of training given to women who wanted to participate in politics with the formation of the new super-councils? Was there any particular programme?

Mr Potter: I do not know that.

The Chairperson (Mr Moutray): Can any comparison be made between DemocraShe, which has been around since 2000 and Women for Election, which was formed in 2011 in the Irish Republic, on how successful they have been?

Mr Potter: The evaluations that I have seen from the participants have been very positive. I have not heard anything negative about either programme. With regard to the content of the programmes, DemocraShe, because of its limited resources, was aimed directly at election cycles, and when the funding went, it went. Women for Election works at a multitude of levels; it gets funding, but it also charges for some of its programmes, so its sustainability is more secure.

Ms P Bradley: My question is along the same lines as yours, Chair. I am one of the DemocraShe students from 2000, and it gave me a lot of inspiration, as it did for many women. I know that quite a few women in the Chamber went through the programme at that time. It really explained the ins and outs of politics — voting, elections and all of those things, which we all know about in this country because we are brought up on them. However, it was good to get down to the nuts and bolts of how everything worked, and it certainly inspired me.

If we look at our numbers in the Chamber here, we see that all of the training programmes we have had over the years have not worked to the extent that they should have worked, because many women went through many, many training programmes on politics and were inspired to become politicians, but did not do so. They stopped dead. So, something more needs to be done. Training is important, and it is fantastic. As Caitríona said, men need to be doing this as well. We come to a brick wall, at which all of these inspired and wonderful women, who are more than capable, stop. It is about getting through that barrier. Looking at all these aspects, and at the Chamber, it has not worked, which is sad.

Mr Beggs: Thank you for your presentation. It is a useful briefing paper. What investment was there in each of the programmes? You mentioned that Women in Local Councils is still an annual event. Is any investment still happening, other than an annual flag-day-type thing? I am just trying to get a picture of what investment there has been and what there might need to be in the future.

Mr Potter: I do not know the exact costs of the programmes themselves. DemocraShe received a lot of money from the United States, and when that money dried up, it was really problematic for the continuation of the programme itself. For Women in Local Councils, much, initially, was about laying the frameworks. So, it was about putting gender action plans in place and having gender champions, who then became change champions for all kinds of diversity. As those things are now in place, it is really about continuing some of those processes in the day-to-day work of the councils, as I understand it, rather than actual outlay to extend it.

The Women for Election programme receives funding from a range of organisations, but it charges a nominal fee for all participants, and people are very happy to pay that.

Mr Beggs: You said that it gets funding from a range of organisations. Ultimately, is that money coming from public funds? Where does it come from?

Mr Potter: No, it is generally from private charities. They are all on the website. I can get a list for you, but there is a link that goes to the website and everyone who has funded them is listed there.

The Chairperson (Mr Moutray): Thank you, Michael. Do you want to move on to your second presentation, which is on job-sharing in political representation?

Mr Potter: Job-sharing in political office has been raised before in this Committee as a possible measure to promote the participation of women in politics. This paper summarises how the idea of job-sharing in politics has been approached elsewhere.

No current examples of job-sharing in politics were found during the research. However, there have been attempts to introduce the concept in Scotland and Westminster. Research carried out in 2013 to gauge public opinion on job-sharing found no great support for it, but, then again, no great opposition either. Generally, people did not have a view on whether it was a good or bad idea.

In the 1999 election in Scotland, two candidates stood on the same ticket for the Highlands and Islands Alliance, which was a community-based alliance at the time. In the event, they were unsuccessful, but the returning officer stated that he would recognise only the first named candidate, not both. An employment tribunal found that the case could be included under sex discrimination provisions, but an appeal tribunal found that it did not have the jurisdiction to rule on the decision of a returning officer. So, the issue remains unresolved.

A private Member's Bill for job-sharing was introduced in the House of Commons by John McDonnell MP in 2012 but fell due to lack of time. Appendix 1 in my paper has the exact wording of that Bill as a kind of model. At this year's spring conference, the Liberal Democrats expressed a commitment to introduce legislation for job-sharing at Westminster in the next Parliament. They did not mention whether they would be in government at the time, but that is what they said.

Briefly, here are some arguments for and against job-sharing that have been made during debates. There have been various debates regarding the issue, most recently resulting from the Scottish example, the initial debate in the House of Commons for the private Member's Bill, and in the media, following the announcement by the Liberal Democrats of their intentions this year. What has been problematic is that the arguments for and against are tempered by specific arrangements under which job-sharing might operate rather than the principle itself.

Much hinges on the exact agreement between the two Members in question and, significantly, on how a party selects and regulates such partnerships.

There are broad arguments against job-sharing. They include that, where a week is split, job-sharing may be difficult where a constituency is far away because constituents there may be confused or end up going to both representatives. Also, it would be unfair to have two representatives in some constituencies and one in others. For example, would there be two sets of parliamentary questions, or could both people speak in the same debate? Politics requires full-time commitment, and politicians have to remain on top of issues on a full-time basis. The representatives may not agree, not argue points or not vote consistently. Job-sharing may attract representatives from professions where people want to pursue their own career and do politics part time, rather than provide for excluded groups, which would be the intention of introducing it. Representatives may not follow business consistently, for example if they share a seat on a Committee. What would happen if one of them changed parties or resigned? Also, would both be entitled to expenses and resources? For example, sharing a week would entail two sets of travel expenses.

All those points have been challenged, primarily through the nature of the arrangement that could exist. Rather than split the week, representatives could go week about. Rather than being confused, constituents could have more opportunity to speak to a representative, and the benefit of having two for the price of one has been stated. Rather than doubling up in the Chamber, an agreement could be reached on who would attend which debates, and, by extension, they may take a Committee each. Specific processes might be introduced to adjudicate on disagreements between the two people involved in the arrangement. Agreements could also be made regarding other eventualities, such as both stepping down when one resigns or changes parties. There could be stipulations about one set of expenses and resources being shared between the two. It is all about the arrangement rather than the principle.

Added to those defences against critics is the principle that job-sharing may attract people who, due to circumstances, cannot work on a full-time basis. As such, job-sharing has gained the support of organisations promoting women's participation and disability advocacy organisations. More detailed arguments for and against were presented in the House of Commons debate on John McDonnell's Bill and they are in appendix 2 of the paper. That is about it, Deputy Chair.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): Thank you Michael.

Mr Beggs: I seek clarification on where any such decision on this matter would be determined. I am conscious that when we talked about electoral issues in the past, we made representations on legislation that was happening at Westminster. Will you clarify whether this issue is in the gift of the Northern Ireland Assembly or is determined by UK national electoral law at Westminster?

Mr Potter: It is an excepted matter under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, so representation to change it would have to be made to Westminster.

Ms Ruane: Presumably, there would be nothing to stop our Committee recommending it, if that were to be the agreement of the Committee. I do not know our party position on this because it is a discussion that we have yet to have. Instinctively, I think that there are some very interesting points in this about mentoring, gender, diversity and whatever. You will always find reasons to go for or against something and, as I think your paper states, there are procedural arrangements that can be made. Some of the questions in appendix 2 on the arguments around John McDonnell's Bill — he obviously supports job-sharing — are more relevant to the first-past-the-post system. Our electoral system is a bit different. Will you talk briefly about how it may or may not be easier to do this in our system?

Mr Potter: Do you mean in terms of having six Members in —

Ms Ruane: Well, six Members, but also the way that we co-opt. In England, it is first past the post, and if someone resigns or dies in post there is an election, whereas here there can be co-option, which obviously makes things like job-sharing easier.

Mr Potter: I would not like to shoot from the hip on that one. There has been no research and no debate on it in the context of Northern Ireland or, indeed, a context like Northern Ireland's. The closest was Scotland, and there was some discussion on how it would happen there. So, I do not feel equipped to answer that point yet but I can look into it.

Ms Ruane: Yes, but do you see the point?

Mr Potter: Yes, absolutely.

Mr McCartney: I have just one question. Is there any example where it is currently in place?

Mr Potter: Not that I found, no.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): Michael, you have a third paper, I believe, on sitting times in the Swedish Riksdag. The floor is yours.

Mr Potter: Apologies for the delay on this one; I was waiting for a reply from the Swedish Parliament on some details.

A question was asked, when I was presenting the paper on the Swedish elections, about the exact sitting times for Sweden, as it is held up as an example of family-friendly policies. During the meeting on 7 October, I was asked for the sitting dates and times of the Swedish Riksdag as those are considered to be family-friendly. The Riksdag sits two days a week, as we do here, but the agenda is set as far in advance as possible and votes generally take place at a set time of 4.00 pm on each sitting day to allow for planning for things like travel and family care.

Recess is generally arranged for school holiday periods — Christmas, Easter and summer. We also have Halloween. In addition, there is a plenary-free week each month, which is generally aimed, where applicable, to coincide with school holidays.

In terms of sitting times, debates are not to go past 11.00 pm. That said, parliamentary business takes precedence, and, when there is a need, the provisions can be suspended. For example, in busy periods of legislation, the Riksdag might end up meeting every day of the week. Fifty-one plenaries in the last parliamentary session went beyond 6.00 pm.

I will give you a quick comparison with the arrangements in the Northern Ireland Assembly. In normal operation, both sit two days a week. The time limit here is usually 6.00 pm, but it is 11.00 pm in the Riksdag. We have an extra period of recess at Halloween, but the Riksdag has a plenary-free week every month. The Riksdag also has scheduled times for voting. That is not always adhered to but, whenever they can adhere to it they do so.

It is about planning well in advance. If you look at the calendar on the Riksdag website you will see that a lot of the debates are already scheduled for the next year, with particular voting times during the year. I know — how do they do that? At the same time, if there is a need for parliamentary business, they will change it.

In both cases, the provisions can be suspended. The table on page 3 of the paper shows that debates in the Chamber here went beyond 6.00 pm on 35 occasions in 2013. So, in broad terms, there are family-friendly provisions in both legislatures, but they are contingent on parliamentary necessity. The main difference is the plenary-free week every month in the Riksdag, the scheduling of business and, particularly, having a set time for voting.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): Thanks for that, Michael. I have just one question out of curiosity. Do they have an electronic voting system?

Mr Potter: That is a good question. I will get back to you on that one, Chair.

Mr McCartney: In the Swedish experience, are there Committee days?

Mr Potter: Yes. Committees are arranged, as far as possible, along family-friendly lines when they are organising business of individual Committees.

Mr McCartney: Are those on a Friday or a Monday or Tuesday, or are they on plenary days?

Mr Potter: I am not sure about particular Committees. I imagine that some will be just as they are here.

Mr Beggs: I want to enquire further on the electronic voting, because that could make our Assembly more family-friendly. I am conscious that, particularly when there are multiple votes, it can extend the sitting by hours, particularly when legislation is going through and lots of amendments are being considered. That issue is relevant to this subject. We have the times that the Riksdag sits to. What time does it start?

Mr Potter: It is all in Swedish unfortunately, but I checked the calendar and they start at 9.00 am. They do not seem quite as family-friendly as you might think.

Ms P Bradley: Thank you again. It is another great paper from you. I sit on the Procedures Committee, where we have already debated electronic voting and the working times of the Assembly. When we looked across the Assemblies and Parliaments, ours was one of the better ones, especially in light of starting at 9.00 am, which is fine for me who lives 15 or 20 minutes along the road but not so fine for others who have some distance to travel. When we looked at the times, the Committee business and all the things we do here, we saw that our times are actually not bad at all.

Mr Potter: Yes, with respect to the stipulations in Standing Orders, that is the case. The key message I got from the Riksdag is that, wherever they can be flexible, they are flexible, particularly on Committee sittings, planning trips, planning Committee business, and stuff like that but also in the sense of trying to plan as much in advance as they can. There is a lot in the parliamentary calendar that you cannot plan in advance. However, they have a set time for voting so that people know when they need to be there, although, again, that cannot always be adhered to.

Ms P Bradley: I agree with looking at having a set time for voting. That would assist greatly, especially, as Roy said, when we have multiple votes in a Bill's passage through the House. We all know what it is like to sit here until 1.00 am or 2.00 am, as we did recently for the Human Trafficking Bill, which involved a lot of votes. That would be beneficial, and maybe we should look at it further. In the Procedures Committee, all parties looked at everything to see how we could either move that or do this differently. Every time, we came back with the conclusion that our system is actually quite good.

Ms Ruane: There is an interesting point about school holidays. I agree with Paula. We are strongly family-friendly here, which I like. However, that does not mean that there are not ways that we can improve it, and we need to look at ways of doing that.

It would be worth putting something in our report around education and having school holidays at the same time. The problem is that, currently, each school board of governors or school system determines its own holidays. That is a nightmare for parents, especially given that we have a lot of single-sex schools. You could have one child in one school on holiday last week and another in another school on holiday this week. Added to that, we have probably one of the worst childcare systems in the whole of Europe. I would love to see a recommendation about exploring school holidays and how they are taken and maybe that we legislate for that or have a discussion with the Department of Education around how we do it. That would make a big difference.

Mr Beggs: I want to enquire further on the issue of scheduled voting times. What is the practice generally, other than in the Riksdag? I am not fully aware of the how it operates in each of the local Governments.

Mr Potter: From what I can decipher from their yearly calendar, the Riksdag has set times for particular debates. They have debating times and then they have voting times, so those can sometimes be divorced slightly. However, I have not actually seen it in process — it is all in Swedish anyway — so I am not sure exactly how it works.

Mr Beggs: I am interested as much in the situation in Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland. What happens there? Are there any difficulties in going one way or the other?

Mr Potter: I would have to look at that in detail.

Mr Sheehan: Maybe we need to go and see the Riksdag in action.

Ms Ruane: We were in Scotland with the Assembly Commission. There, they vote at the end of the day. In Iceland, they vote at a particular time.

The Assistant Committee Clerk: They have plenary meetings five days a week.

Mr McCartney: I was on the Procedures Committee in the last mandate, and we did an extensive piece of work on electronic voting. The biggest minus is the cost. I think it was going to cost something like £2 million to rearrange things, because you need to have special seating arrangements, desks and so on. While it would be a far better system, one of the big fears was about spending £2 million in the current climate to make it easier for us to vote. You can see the minuses as well.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): We would get more work done.

Mr Beggs: Technology may have moved on since then.

Ms P Bradley: As a side comment, when we were on our Committee visit to Wales, I spoke to someone in that building and asked whether they had electronic voting, which they do. I said that the Procedures Committee was looking at it at that time. The person said to me, "Well, just be warned that it can be extremely difficult with some members pressing the wrong buttons and putting in the wrong codes because they are sitting in a different chair". He said that the voting procedures end up taking three times as long as they would if you were going through a lobby. He said, "If you are looking at it, look at all of those things as well because human error is a big factor. It is not going to quicken up your voting in any way".

Mr McCartney: In Leinster House, they went for a very simple system. The issue of mistakes and reruns came up, but, rather than having a complicated system, they just went for a simple yes-and-no system, with a big screen behind the Ceann Comhairle showing the results so that you could double-check.

Ms P Bradley: Well, apparently, in Wales, there are people in the Chamber who have to go and give assistance.

Mr McCartney: Is that because they do not know how to do it?

Ms P Bradley: Yes. There are problems associated with it that we maybe do not think of.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): Finally, Michael, are there childcare facilities in the Riksdag for Members?

Mr Potter: Yes, that is the key thing. They have a kindergarten in the Riksdag, and, anyway, Sweden has a state childcare system that is more or less universal. That mitigates some of it.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): Thanks very much, Michael. That was very helpful as usual.