Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Chambers): Good morning, Lesley and Steven. You are welcome to the meeting. I invite you to make opening comments before we move to questions.

Mrs Lesley Hogg (Northern Ireland Assembly): Thank you very much, Chair, and I thank the Committee for the important work that it does in scrutinising the Assembly Commission's budget.

Before I get into the detail of the budget, it might be helpful for me to recap on the Assembly's structure and work. The Assembly Commission is unlike any other body in the Assembly. It is a corporate body and not a Committee, and it is responsible for providing the property, staff and services to support the Assembly's work. The Assembly itself does not have a legal personality, and, therefore, it is the Assembly Commission that has the legal ability as a corporate body to appoint staff and create contracts to provide services and other functions. The Assembly Commission has delegated its functions, including responsibility for the management of staff, to me, subject to some conditions and exceptions, such as approval of the annual budget, staff salaries and pensions and expenditure that is in excess of certain limits.

The organisation is structured into three directorates. Corporate Services is responsible for the Assembly Commission's main corporate functions of finance, human resources, building services and usher services. Legal, Governance and Research Services, which provides in-house legal advice to the Speaker, Assembly Commission and Committees, is responsible for the Examiner of Statutory Rules, the Research and Information Service (RaISe), procurement, information standards and governance. Parliamentary Services has responsibility for meetings of the Assembly and its Committees, the development of private Members' Bills and scrutiny of legislation, Hansard, and the Assembly's IT, communications, education and public engagement services. We also have the Corporate Support Unit, which supports the Speaker's Office, the Assembly Commission and the Clerk/Chief Executive's Office.

I have provided a detailed paper to the Committee that sets out the various categories of expenditure, along with an overview of what is required in each. I will therefore seek to highlight the most salient points in the budget and how it differs from the 2024-25 budget, as agreed by the Committee earlier this year.

Earlier this morning, we were copied in on the Department of Finance's view of the Assembly Commission's budget. While that was extremely late, I will endeavour to address the Department's remarks in my submission.

The budget required to support the work of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee has been separately itemised in our submission, as those costs are funded centrally from HM Treasury in a separate allocation.

Following delivery of the Chancellor's Budget on 30 October, the rate of employers' National Insurance will increase from 1 April 2025, and the threshold over which National Insurance is payable will reduce. That will result in an estimated increase of £555,000 in 2025-26, which will be split across staff salaries, Member salaries, support staff costs, Members' travel costs and income. The Department has confirmed that the Chancellor will provide additional funding to the public sector to support it with the additional costs associated with those changes and that the funding will come directly from Treasury. However, given that the Assembly Commission is presenting its budget today, the Department has advised that we should incorporate those additional costs in our budget — they have been incorporated into our submission — because that will avoid the need for a further allocation during the year.

Now to the numbers. I will start with income. The only thing to highlight is that, substantially, all the income that the Assembly Commission receives is a result of the recovery of ministerial salaries. That is only the salary paid to each Minister over and above that which they receive by virtue of being a Member, and it includes employers' National Insurance and pension costs. A small amount of additional income will be generated from a contribution towards the cost of running the knowledge exchange seminar series (KESS) programme, along with a small amount of money that is earned through the post office. We do not expect to have any staff secondments this year. Therefore, there is no provision for the recovery of any staff salary costs.

I will move on to Members' salaries and expenses. As the Committee will be aware, previously, all expenditure associated with Members was payable under the Assembly Members (Salaries and Expenses) Determination (Northern Ireland) 2016 as amended by the Assembly Members (Salaries and Expenses) (Amendment) Determination (Northern Ireland) 2020. On 1 October, the Assembly Commission agreed a new 2024 determination. However, a publication date has yet to be agreed, so the budget for 2025-26 is based on the new draft determination.

I will move on to Members' salaries. The increase in the budget requirement for those is primarily due to the annual uplift of £500 per Member, if the consumer price index (CPI) in September of the previous year is greater than 1%. Members' salaries have not been reviewed since 2016. The increase also includes the additional National Insurance contribution rates that are due from April next year. That means that Members' salaries will increase and be around £53,000 from 1 April 2025, which is £19,000 less than the 2024-25 salaries payable to a Member of the Senedd (MS) in Wales or an MSP in Scotland. There is no provision in the budget for any increases that the independent remuneration board might make to Members' salaries, and the budget does not seek to anticipate any determination that the remuneration board might make when it is established. If, at such time, there is a new determination, that will be notified to the Department of Finance, and the appropriate funding will be sought.

I will move on to constituency costs. That covers all the costs associated with running a Member's office, including support staff salary costs and winding-up costs.

It is important to note that the Assembly Commission's budget for 2024-25 was based on the assumption that the Commission would publish a new Members' expenses determination during the year. At its meeting on 1 October, the Assembly Commission agreed a new determination, but a date for publication is still to be agreed. The 2025-26 budget is, however, based on the provisions of the new draft 2024 determination.

The majority of the additional budget requirement is entirely a result of the cumulative impact of the pay award for Members' staff that will be made in 2025-26. Members' support staff costs also include provision for additional resources, should a Member have to take an extended period of leave following the birth or adoption of a baby.

For constituency office rent, an increase in the annual allowance has been incorporated into the draft 2024 determination, which has resulted in increases of about £45,000 for rent and £22,000 for rates. As Members' leases expire at different times, the 2025-26 budget assumes that all existing leases will, until their expiry, continue at the current rate and that any new leases awarded will now be awarded at the new rate. The increased budget requirement for constituency office operating costs relates to an inflationary increase plus a further £300 per Member to enable Members to procure their own print capability following the expiry of the Assembly Commission's centralised printer contract.

In addition to that allowance, provision was made for an increase from £2,000 to £2,500 per Member for staff health, welfare, training and recruitment.

Members' travel costs provide for the amounts to be paid to Members as their Assembly and constituency travel allowance, as set by the 2024 determination, with an inflationary uplift included. A small provision has also been made for claims by Members for the cost of overnight accommodation in Belfast, should they be working after 10.00 pm on parliamentary matters. That is a new provision in the new draft 2024 determination.

Members' other costs include provision for items such as disability costs, ill health retirement costs and the resettlement allowance. The new draft 2024 determination will extend the provision under disability costs to allow Members to recover the costs incurred in making reasonable adjustments to their constituency office where such costs are not included in their lease. Reasonable adjustments will be made either for their staff or to facilitate members of the public.

An amount of £4,000 per Member was included in the 2024-25 budget for the provision of security measures at constituency offices and/or a Member's private dwelling, as that was anticipated to be a provision in the new 2024 determination. That is a per mandate allowance, and, given that the new 2024 determination has yet to be published, it is not anticipated that Members will be able to utilise the full allowance during the current year. Some of the costs have therefore been deferred until 2025-26.

Staff costs relate to the salary costs for Assembly Commission staff. The increase in staff costs consists of a budgeted pay award for staff, the increase in employers' National Insurance that I mentioned and a number of new posts. The pay award for staff is based on the Department of Finance's planning assumption of a 3% pay increase. Nineteen new posts have been included in the budget, and those are offset by the removal of three posts that were supporting the corporate systems review project. The new posts are important and are primarily required to support Members in their role of scrutinising legislation, both from a legal and parliamentary services perspective. The need for the posts arises as a result of recommendations made by the renewable heat incentive (RHI) inquiry and systematic weaknesses identified in the Mediahuis judgement. The posts will also enable better organisational resilience in the Bill Office, the Business Office and clerking teams and expand in-house communications and broadcast production capability to assist the Assembly Commission and Committees in communicating their work to the public through the increased use of social media.

The Assembly Commission's administration costs cover a wide range of expenditure, including Committee travel and expenses, building costs, rates, utilities, third-party costs for supporting business-critical IT systems and recurring contractual costs for things such as broadcasting, cleaning and catering. Historically, there has been significant underinvestment in the Assembly Commission's IT infrastructure, so projects are ongoing to modernise our IT infrastructure to make it fit for purpose and to ensure that the Assembly is supported appropriately and that the network is secure from the increasing risk of cyberthreat.

The 2024-25 budget included £1·8 million of costs associated with remedial works to the roof of Parliament Buildings. There has been a revision of those costs, and the updated assessment is that they are likely to be in the region of £2·4 million, with an anticipated cost of £400,000 for legal fees. While some investigatory works have been ongoing, it is expected that only £700,000 of costs will be incurred in the current year, consisting of about half a million pounds in roof costs and £200,000 in legal fees, leaving the remainder of the costs — £1·9 million — to be transferred into 2025-26.

It had been hoped that the issue of the roof repair and the remediation works would be resolved by a mediation process initiated by the Assembly Commission whereby the architect and/or the building contractor would undertake the work at their own expense. That has not been possible, however, and the Assembly Commission commenced legal proceedings. It is hoped that the full costs will be recovered through those legal proceedings, but, in the interests of prudence, no income has been budgeted. Also as part of the 10-year maintenance plan for Parliament Buildings, a number of building maintenance projects are expected to take place during 2025, as a lot of work is required to maintain the Building in its current state.

I will move on to payments to the financial assistance for political parties (FAPP) scheme. The costs incurred in the budget reflect the new 2024 FAPP scheme, with an inflationary uplift for 2025-26.

Depreciation and impairment charges are based on the expenditure both in the preceding years and the current years and on an expected increase in the land valuation and that of Parliament Buildings.

Finally, I will make a few remarks on capital investment. The Assembly Commission has identified the need to deliver a range of capital projects during 2025-26. A number of those projects are carried forward from earlier years, and that is down to movement in the timing of projects. Moreover, a number of new projects have been identified.

The most significant cost is to install a partial electronic access security system. That is a project that we have been attempting to progress over the past few years, but it is now progressing following engagement with Construction and Procurement Delivery (CPD). Although the initial costs were included in market sounding at that time, they have now substantially increased.

Other costs include a project to replace specialised legislative drafting software, which is coming to the end of its useful life. That software is used to produce all the legislative documents for plenary sittings to the required format and standard. A number of other IT costs have been identified, primarily to replace or upgrade the Assembly's IT network and to deliver a new Assembly website.

It is also planned that the ongoing programme of upgrading and improving accommodation and facilities in the Building will continue during 2025-26, with projects such as the Members' Lounge refurbishment, upgrading lifts and the replacement of automatic fire detection systems. The programme for capital projects is ambitious, but the Assembly Commission believes that it is achievable.

Before I finish and move on to the queries submitted by the Department of Finance, I record my thanks to the Assembly Commission staff.

The period since the resumption of normal business has been extremely challenging, as we sought to rebuild teams and recruit to a significant number of vacant positions. Throughout that time, staff have continued to demonstrate their dedication and professionalism and to support the Assembly and its Committees with all their requirements. I therefore record my thanks to all members of staff for the work that they do day in, day out.

If you are content, Chair and if it would be helpful, I will go through the queries that the Department of Finance has submitted.

The Chairperson (Mr Chambers): Yes, please.

Mrs Hogg: The first query that the Department submitted concerned the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee costs. It said that the Audit Committee should not agree those as part of our budget, as they will be funded separately. The Committee will note that, in our budget submission, we identified them separately, but we did include them, really for completeness and transparency. The figures are there separately, however, so they do not need to be approved by the Audit Committee.

There was a query about the 3% pay award assumption for staff that has been included in the budget. The Assembly Commission does not have a multi-year pay deal in place. The pay award for next year will therefore have to be negotiated in-year. We follow the Department of Finance's planning assumption, which recommended the use of a 3% planning assumption, and that is what the Assembly did in previous years. On the basis that we do not have a multi-year pay deal in place, we believe that that is the most appropriate planning assumption at this time.

The Department of Finance raised the need for the additional posts. In our submission, we put in some level of detail about the range of posts required. As I stated in my submission, the posts are to address weaknesses that were identified through the RHI inquiry and the recent Mediahuis judgement. The Department queried whether we had taken a vacancy factor into account for those posts, and we had. We include a vacancy factor in our budget submission, and that includes the new posts.

The Department seemed to be content with the IT costs that we included and with the costs associated with the roof. There was a query about the expected income from the knowledge exchange seminar series and whether it represented full cost recovery. The knowledge exchange seminar series is a partnership between the Assembly Commission's Research and Information Service and university partners. The arrangement is formalised through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that also deals with the allocation of costs. Under the MOU, all partners agree to share a percentage of the costs incurred in running the programme. Under that arrangement, RaISe pays one fifth of the costs, with the remaining four fifths being recovered from the other partners.

The Department queried whether the completion of projects was realistic. We and the Assembly Commission believe that completion of those projects is realistic at this point in time. There are processes to go through, such as public procurement, so we can never say with absolute certainty whether the projects will be deliverable in-year. We will certainly endeavour to deliver them in-year, however. We therefore believe that it is appropriate to include them in the budget for this year.

Hopefully, that addresses all the queries raised by the Department. We are happy to take any questions or to go back over anything to do with the Department's queries.

The Chairperson (Mr Chambers): Thank you. Sorry, but I owe you an apology: I omitted to name the delegation at the start. For the record, it is Mrs Lesley Hogg, Chief Executive and Clerk to the Assembly, and Mr Steven Baxter, Director of Corporate Services.

Lesley, you put on record your appreciation for the staff: I concur with that. I am sure that I speak for all the members of the Committee when I say that we really appreciate how smoothly the operation in the Building runs daily. Thank you very much.

I will move on to questions. I have a couple to ask before I open up the meeting to members.

How will the Commission ensure that the proposed increase in the staff complement will result in enhanced scrutiny?

Mrs Hogg: We have put in quite a bit of work looking at the recommendations from the RHI inquiry report and from the Mediahuis judgement, as well as on pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny. We therefore believe that the posts will provide real and practical day-to-day support to Members to assist them with their scrutiny function. We do not plan to allocate the posts specifically to individual Committees, but we want to keep them flexible so they can be utilised in Committees, as and when appropriate, depending on individual Committees' workload. We anticipate that the posts will bring real additional support to Committee members to enable them to complete their scrutiny function.

The Chairperson (Mr Chambers): The Building and the estate are beautiful, and it is great to see that they are so open to members of the public for them to experience. It is clear, however, that Parliament Buildings is very expensive to run and maintain. Does the Commission have a long-term plan to lower costs or, alternatively, to raise revenue to help with those costs?

Mrs Hogg: We have a detailed plan for the Building's sustainability. I will ask Steven to comment a bit further on that. We monitor costs very closely and seek to reduce and minimise them as much as possible. I will address the income issue and ask Steven to talk about sustainability and how we seek to minimise costs.

You asked about revenue generation. We previously hosted weddings and certain other functions. That brought in some additional funding to the Commission, but the Building is primarily for the use of Members and the Assembly, and the additional income generated through those events was not significant. A significant amount of additional work was associated with functions, and, at the end of the day, the Commission did not feel that Parliament Buildings should be seen as, for example, a wedding venue. Its preference was that the Building be made available for Members' use, to promote the work of the Assembly and for the Assembly to engage with the public. We therefore do not envisage doing anything further in that area. Steven will now speak about the Building.

Mr Steven Baxter (Northern Ireland Assembly): To finish Lesley's point, we encourage the public to attend Parliament Buildings, experience the restaurant and take a tour of the Building. We are keen for that to happen, as it is part of our corporate strategy that we engage with the public.

For environmental management, we are accredited against ISO 14001, which is a set of standards or best practices for organisations to follow to minimise their environmental footprint. We were fully accredited in September of this year against that standard, with no minor or major recommendations. We continue to monitor our environmental footprint, and we are looking to produce a new sustainability strategy next year that will look at making further improvements.

The Chairperson (Mr Chambers): Members have commented about the extensive scaffolding at the back of the Building. I understand why it is there, and people have asked, "There is not much work going on at the moment, so what is the need for it?". Can you explain why the scaffolding is there and the purpose that it serves?

Mrs Hogg: As you know, we are progressing litigation. We previously did considerable work with our own experts on how the issues with the roof need to be remediated. We have been working with CPD to progress the roof repairs. CPD, however, wanted to undertake further inspection works itself prior to commencing a procurement process to enable the full remediation works to be done. There are also some additional health and safety repair works being done. The additional scaffolding at this stage is there to enable the additional inspections to be done. That work will then inform the scope of the procurement process, and that will inform the actual work that needs to be undertaken. Steven, is there anything that you wish to add?

Mr Baxter: As part of her submission, Lesley outlined the fact that we are looking to spend half a million pounds in this financial year. That spending relates to the rear parapet in particular. We are looking to put that right and restore it to its former state and then remove the scaffolding at the rear of the Building, which has a significant operational impact on transport there. We hope to complete that work by March 2025.

The Chairperson (Mr Chambers): Thank you very much for that. I will now bring in members.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you very much for coming along today to discuss the Commission's draft budget. I echo your sentiments, Lesley, about thanking the Commission staff. As a new MLA, when things kicked off earlier this year, I really appreciated the support that I received from staff across the board.

I want to ask, given that so much of your budget submission relates to the 2024 determination, which, as you said, has been agreed, why it has not been published yet and when we can expect to see it.

Mrs Hogg: The Commission has agreed the outline of the determination. It is really now for the Commission to determine a date for publication. That was considered at the Commission's most recent meeting and will be considered again at its next meeting later this month. I am optimistic that publication will take place during the 2024-25 year. It is the Commission's intention that the determination then be backdated to 1 April 2024 so that Members receive the full allocation under it.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you.

Mr Blair: Thanks to Lesley and Steven. I add my voice to the gratitude that you, Chair, and Diane have expressed to Assembly staff. We are grateful and are aware of the massive amount of catch-up work that had to be done upon restoration of the Assembly, which happened this year. On that point, can Lesley or Steven or both give us some indication of the difference that restoration makes in a financial year to the budget, the filling of posts and planning ahead?

Mrs Hogg: It is challenging. When the Assembly resumed normal business, we had about 50 vacant posts. That is on the basis of prudence, in that, when the Assembly was not sitting, other than if posts were absolutely essential, there was limited justification for bringing in staff.

Following the resumption of normal business, the Assembly Commission quickly took steps to identify and make permanent appointments, where possible. Where that was not possible, we had to run additional recruitment competitions, and we have been filling posts temporarily through agency staff. We now have an accelerated programme, whereby we are conducting the rest of the permanent recruitment competitions, which will continue into next year.

It is an onerous process. Quite a bit of time is involved. There is then a lot of work done in forming Committees again, establishing teams and bringing new staff up to speed to ensure that they are fully conversant with the Committee work that they are required to do.

Mr Blair: Thank you for that.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Lesley and Steven, for a detailed and comprehensive briefing. I have two questions.

Lesley, in paragraph 49, you mention resourcing gaps in strategic planning and corporate governance and state that that issue is being assessed. Is there any further update on that? You say that you do not see there being any impact on additional provision for 2025-26, so it would be useful to get any update on what the current assessment is.

Mrs Hogg: Sorry, I missed the last part. I got the query about corporate governance, but I missed the part about next year.

Ms Ferguson: You noted that there will be no additional provision for 2025-26 to meet the resource gap, so I am seeking further clarity on that.

Mrs Hogg: OK. We are currently looking at what the best mechanism might be to fill some of the gaps, so it is a project that we are considering. Given that we had not identified what the proposed structure is likely to be, we did not feel that we could include provision in the budget submission at this time, because a bit more work needs to be done. As and when we complete that work, we will have discussions with the Assembly Commission to see whether those posts can be recruited for next year or whether we will need to seek additional budget provision for them in-year.

Ms Ferguson: My second question is about the remedial work that is being carried out on the roof. I am obviously conscious that additional work is being done now. How confident are you about getting a contractor through the CPD and having all the work completed by the end of the next financial year?

Mrs Hogg: The timing is difficult to predict. As I mentioned, we will have to go through a procurement process, after which the works will have to be undertaken. We are trying to progress that as quickly as we can. While we hope that the work will be completed during 2025-26, until we complete the procurement process, it is difficult to say that with absolute certainty. On the grounds of prudence, however, we have budgeted the full amount in 2025-26. In a similar vein to the current year, if we identify that all that work will be unable to be completed in 2025-26, we will then release and hand back any budget provision that is not required and move it into the following year.

Ms Ferguson: That is great. Thank you.

Mr Mathison: Lesley, your opening remarks were thorough in covering most of the issues that the Minister of Finance raised.

I have a couple of questions. One is about recruitment and the posts that you are looking to introduce in the next financial year. What challenges do you face in filling those posts in a timely way? Can that be difficult to do? Are you confident that those 16 posts are deliverable in the year? It feels as though they should be, but I just want to get an idea of that. I also thank the staff in the Building. Anything that enhances the scrutiny role in particular is to be welcomed.

I have a separate question on IT. It was welcome to hear that the Finance Minister felt that the Commission's requests were reasonable. IT is a critical part of the infrastructure for what we do here, particularly for cybersecurity and some of the risks involved. I will ask a slightly different question from that of the Minister: are you confident that it is enough for what we need? If the IT system goes down, there is a reputational risk, a security risk and a risk to the operation of the business of this place. I want to get a sense of that.

Mrs Hogg: I will pick up on the recruitment point first. We see the additional posts as absolutely key to supporting Committees and Members to do their work. Given that the posts effectively result from criticism in the RHI report and in the Mediahuis judgement, we believe that it is imperative that we recruit to those posts as quickly as possible. We envisage being able to do that, whether they are filled temporarily initially and then on a permanent basis. There are various options that we can take forward, but we intend to fill the posts as quickly as we can.

On the IT side, I might defer to Steven.

Mr Baxter: Thanks. Nick, you are right. I guess that you never fully mitigate the cybersecurity risk, but a recent report on the Assembly Commission's infrastructure has shown that it is legacy equipment and is at the end of its life. Significant improvements need to be made to invest in the infrastructure and move to modern technology. That is the reason for some of that investment.

We continue to test our readiness for a cybersecurity incident, and we will do that in detail tomorrow as part of a business continuity exercise. We are aware of the risk and are looking to mitigate it, but we will never fully mitigate it. I suggest that there will be a continued series of investments in our infrastructure in the following years to make sure that we are in the best possible position moving forward.

Mr Mathison: For what is deliverable in the next financial year, are you confident that the ask covers the need, as far as can be predicted?

Mr Baxter: As far as can be predicted at the moment, yes. We are working with trusted partners, such as Microsoft and other experts in the field. They are helping us with the road map and with planning that activity. We believe that what we have outlined is achievable next year, but, as I said earlier, the position is constantly evolving.

Mrs Hogg: I will come back in on that. There will be further work to do in future years, but we are really going through a radical transformation of our whole IT infrastructure. There is therefore a certain amount of capacity in our own internal capability and in the additional capacity that we are buying in or procuring, but there is really only so much that we can do in one year to do it in a planned and managed way. Works will certainly continue beyond that, however.

The Chairperson (Mr Chambers): Thank you very much. That concludes questions from members. Do you want to add anything else before you depart?

Mrs Hogg: No. Thanks very much. I will say, on behalf of the staff, that they will very much appreciate your comments. If you have any further queries, we are happy to answer them after the meeting.

The Chairperson (Mr Chambers): Thank you very much for your attendance at the Committee this morning.

Mr Baxter: Thank you very much.