Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): We are here to receive oral evidence from the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission. You are all very welcome. In particular, I welcome Andy Allen. Congratulations on your achievement, Andy; you did yourself and all of us very proud. We are joined by Andy Allen MLA, Ulster Unionist Party; Trevor Clarke MLA, DUP; Sinéad Ennis MLA, Sinn Féin; Nuala McAllister MLA, Alliance Party; Colin McGrath MLA, SDLP; and Lesley Hogg, Clerk/Chief Executive to the Assembly. In addition — I apologise, I cannot quite read your nameplate — we are joined by —.

The Committee Clerk: Tara Caul.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): You are very welcome as well. We are delighted to have you all, and I am happy to hand over to you to make an opening statement.

Mrs Sinéad Ennis (Northern Ireland Assembly): Thank you, Chair, for inviting us here today. If you do not mind, I will make some opening remarks and then I will hand back to you for comments or questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Yes, please.

Ms Ennis: We are pleased to represent the Assembly Commission today to assist the scrutiny of the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill. The Second Stage debate took place in the Assembly on Tuesday, and you have received our briefing paper for today's session. Therefore, I will make a few general points rather than go through the detail of the Bill.

I will begin by acknowledging that none of us on the Assembly Commission or, I suspect, any member of this Ad Hoc Committee is particularly keen to be spending time discussing issues that are related to Members' salaries. We will come on to the legal reasons why it is necessary to address these matters, but it is important for us to keep returning to the point that what the Assembly Commission has brought to the Assembly is largely a technical Bill that is focused on issues of process. The Bill does not deal with what salaries should or, potentially, will be.

The discussions around the development of the Bill began 10 years ago, long before any of the current Assembly Commission members had taken up office. We place on record the thanks of the Assembly Commission to all the Assembly officials who gave of their expertise to assist the Commission in its review of options for the reform of the system of financial support for Members and in the development of the legislation over that 10-year period.

I will not go back over all that history for you, but you will know that, on 30 June 2020, the Assembly passed a resolution to give the Assembly Commission the power to make determinations on Members' allowances. At the same time, it agreed that decisions on salaries and pensions should be made by an independent body. Therefore, that has been the settled, practical position in law of the Assembly for some five years. While that resolution conferred functions on the Assembly Commission, the Commission made it clear at the time that further legislation would be needed because, technically, the independent financial review panel (IFRP) retained power to make determinations and allowances for Members' offices under the Act passed in 2011.

The Assembly Commission first brought the Remuneration Board Bill to the Assembly in December 2020 but did not take it further, recognising that the Assembly had other priorities, including the pandemic. However, we have been advised throughout that the legal position needs to be regularised. Therefore, the Bill has two core objectives. First, it regularises the legal position by reflecting in law the position that the Assembly resolved in June 2020 and, again, earlier this month. Secondly, the Bill establishes the remuneration board to maintain an independent body to determine Members' salaries and pensions.

The explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) to the Bill sets out the process that was undertaken to develop the Bill, including the different options considered. It is worth noting that, among the legislatures on these islands, there is no set way of dealing with those issues. In Scotland, the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body, which is the equivalent of the Assembly Commission, continues to take decisions on the level of salaries and allowances available to Members. In Westminster and Wales, decisions on those matters are taken entirely by independent bodies. Even within those arrangements, there are differences. For example, at Westminster, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) is legally required to appoint a former MP to its board. Therefore, the Assembly Commission proposes a hybrid model in the Bill, which includes elements of different arrangements elsewhere that it considers best meet the needs of the Assembly.

The Assembly Commission conducts its business by consensus as far as possible. The fact that we are all here today underlines the fact that, after years of discussion, the five parties represented on the Assembly Commission have reached consensus on the approach laid out in the Bill as being the best way forward.

Over the past couple of weeks, there has been a certain degree of misinformation regarding the Bill. Therefore, it is appropriate for me to end by making it absolutely clear that the core principle of the Bill for the Assembly Commission is that the salaries and pensions of Members should be decided completely independently. At no time has the Assembly Commission discussed or sought to agree what the salary of a Member should be, nor will it. We are whole-heartedly agreed that an independent body alone should decide what that is, and that is what the Bill provides for.

We look forward to assisting the Committee over the next few weeks and months. Together, we will seek to answer any questions that the Committee might ask.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Thank you for making that comment on behalf of colleagues represented here today. We will turn to the Bill itself. Clause 1 is pretty self-explanatory and routine, so I do not have any questions on that. Do Members? No, OK.

On clause 2 — you outlined this in your opening remarks, Sinéad — it is already the settled will of the Assembly, confirmed on a number of occasions, that determinations on Members' staff and office running costs are done by the Commission. That is already the case. You have already outlined the dangers of our not passing the Bill, with two bodies being able to set determinations simultaneously. Is that correct?

Ms Ennis: That is correct.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Perfect. Obviously, I am a newer MLA; some of you are more experienced than I am. However, it is worth putting on record some of the concerns that were raised by Members from all parties in relation to the previous determination by the independent panel. I was not an elected Member, but I worked for an MLA, and, in particular, the issues around the contracts that staff were issued were in no way comparable to those in other parts of the public sector.

Will you make some comments as MLAs on the restrictions that were imposed, such as not being allowed to advertise the phone number of your office or your email address, which constituents would need in order to contact you? It is worth putting MLAs' views on record and noting the contact that the Commission had from MLAs who were concerned about the previous determination.

Mr Trevor Clarke (Northern Ireland Assembly): Chair, you have outlined two of the most concerning restrictions for Members. It seemed irrational for a previous panel to decide that you can put a name on a sign but not a number. All of us who come into public life want to be accessible. It was concerning for a former panel to decide that we cannot advertise a phone number for the public to contact us on, particularly for those who drive past our offices at night, for whom it would be easier to pick up a number on which to contact the offices during the day. A good change has been to the maternity leave restriction. Some Members, including, I think, one of my party colleagues, were affected by that at the time. That inhibited her time at home, unlike what was happening anywhere else in the public sector. She had to cut her maternity leave short. Those are two good examples of the problems with the previous determination.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Does any member want to add anything? Colin, you probably operated under the previous regime.

Mr Colin McGrath (Northern Ireland Assembly): No, I did not. I came in just at the start of the next one. Whilst that point is, in some respects, historical, the Bill is not about allowances but simply about establishing an independent body to set the wages. The history is that, at one point, the two types of allowances had to be separated because of the reasons that have been outlined.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): That is formalised in clause 2, which removes the function of setting allowances from the independent panel.

Ms Ennis: Chair, the Assembly Commission — before my time, obviously — recognised that there were problems with the barriers that the previous determination had created for Members, so it sought to address some of those problems. That is why the Assembly Commission retained some of those powers. All Members will know that the new determination was issued earlier this month and sought to address some of the problems and issues that Members had previously faced.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Has the Commission received any complaints from any MLAs about the changes that were made?

Ms Ennis: Not that I am aware of.

Mr Clarke: On the contrary, Chair. Something came to mind while you were talking. Given that the determination on allowances for offices was made in 2016 and that heating and energy costs were rising, the restricted amount of money that offices had to survive on had become problematic. Some Members were footing some of those bills themselves. No Members in any other legislature would foot the bills to allow their constituency office to function. As you know, some of your colleagues raised that matter regularly in our party meetings, and other parties had to contribute their own finances to keep their offices open. From 2016 until now, no additional allowances were made for running costs, which, again, speaks to how poor the previous determinations were.

Miss Nuala McAllister (Northern Ireland Assembly): Trevor mentioned maternity leave. For any organisation or public body not to have maternity allowances or permit appropriate maternity leave for its staff is simply not acceptable. That would not be accepted in any other workplace. That change should be massively welcomed.

Another issue on which we have received positive feedback is disability access to constituency offices, not just for staff but for constituents. The change will allow MLAs to ensure that their offices are accessible in every way, whether through software, through their communication with constituents or by making provision for any of their staff who require it. We have had feedback that that has been welcomed.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): If there are no other comments on that, I will move to clause 3, on consideration of salaries in other legislatures. The public commentary has probably been different from the factual basis of the Bill. Clause 3 states that the board's determinations "must have regard to" salaries in other parts of these islands. Nowhere does the Bill say that salaries "must be the same as" or "must be a percentage of" other salaries. That goes back to the Commission's opening point, which was that you have not had any discussions about what the salaries should be or what you would like them to be. Your view is that that would be done independently. Is the Bill making provision simply for benchmarking exercises that would be carried out on salaries and other matters of public-sector pay?

Mr Clarke: It is reasonable to assume that anyone looking at any form of employment would benchmark against something comparable. I am not sure why we would ask them to take regard of any form of employment other than the line of work that we are all in.

People listening to the Committee need to remember that the wording of the Bill is "have regard to"; it does not say, "You must follow". We are just asking that the panel looks at what is being done in those other legislatures — at what is comparable — and considers the salaries in those legislatures in relation to their function. It would be bizarre if we were to suggest that the panel should take due regard of some other form of employment, and to do so would leave us open to criticism. That is important, and I am sure that the process is similar in other places.

Mr Middleton: I want to seek clarification on that point, Chair, if you do not mind. It is important to outline that the fact that that is in the Bill does not tie the hands of the independent board. It says "have regard to". The reality, effectively, is that the independent board will decide what it should be. The Bill's mentioning those other legislatures does not mean that the panel would have to take them into account. It has to have regard to them, but that does not mean that it is tied to doing what is done those places.

Mr Clarke: That is a very interesting point. If one were to look at the previous determinations and some of the criticism of those determinations, one would see that the panel took due regard of another place and compared our salaries with the salaries there, but suggesting that ours be 65% of that figure. The previous panel already took regard of another place, so it is reasonable for the Commission to assume that the next panel should also take regard of that. Whatever conclusion it lands on is up to the panel; we have no say in that.

Ms Ennis: While the Bill requires that the board give regard to those salaries, it does not prevent it from taking into consideration any other circumstances or factors that it feels are relevant to making the decision on salaries.

Miss McAllister: I will also come in on that, because there are concerns publicly. We are not discussing salaries, but we must face up to the reality that this will be comparative in nature. We have a different population size and different constituency sizes than those other places. All those things will rightly be taken into account when the panel makes its comparisons.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Clause 5 deals with membership. My understanding is that, contrary to some public commentary, there is no guarantee that there will be a former MLA on the panel. Former MLAs will have the same right as any other member of the public to apply to be on the board, but there is no guaranteed outcome. What is the Commission's view on the merits and demerits of clause 5?

Miss McAllister: That is something that we talked about. I am relatively new to the Commission, having joined in the past year, but I know, from the previous Commission, that there was a lot of discussion on this and that the best option was to remove the disqualification whilst not making it compulsory that someone who previously was an MLA would sit on the board.

When the previous independent panel sat, it made a number of references, both explicit and implied, to IPSA being the gold standard in how to apply information around Members' salaries. If we are to take that into account, we must look at what IPSA does. It legally requires that a former Member be on the panel. We did not think that it was necessary to do that. That would probably be a step too far, particularly given the nature and the size of the Assembly. We did, however, feel that, if a former Member wanted to apply, we should not disqualify them.

It is also honest to say that a former MLA will have insights into the role. We previously discussed the issue of MLAs not being allowed to have a phone number on their office signs. Had a former MLA been sitting on that board, they would have said, "Come on, that's nonsense. How is the public supposed to contact you if you are not allowed to advertise your phone number?" That puts a bit of realism into that aspect. It is important that insights are given, but it is not a requirement to have a former Member on the panel. It may be that no former Members apply, but should multiple former Members apply, they would not necessarily get the position.

While we are talking about this, I will address something that might also come up. The Assembly Commission will have no role in drafting the criteria for the open appointment process. It is very important that we set that out.

Since the Bill was introduced, there has been a meeting of the Assembly Commission at which we noticed that we might like to make an amendment to the Bill around whether we need to make provisions for a temporary appointment to the board. The current legislation allows for a temporary appointment to be made while disregarding the element of not being allowed to have an MLA or a former MLA on it. You could, technically, have two, but we are going to remove that temporary provision requirement so that it stands to the same guidance and to the aim that we want to have. We do not have the wording of that yet, but we have discussed it. We want to remove any loophole that changes it significantly.

Mr Clarke: It is worth adding, to remove any ambiguity — Nuala has correctly outlined the situation on whether a former MLA applies — that people need to bear in mind that the former MLA would be one of three. The former MLA would not have any more control than the other members. Indeed, he or she, if they apply, would only be a third of the panel. It is important that people listening recognise that the former Member, who would bring the experience that Nuala outlined, would be only a third of the panel. The former MLA would not hold the balance.

Mrs Mason: On the point that Nuala made about temporary positions, is there anything that could prevent a former Member from sitting on the board and then standing as a candidate in the following Assembly election?

Mr Clarke: Possibly not. I suppose that that could be amended if it were a concern. However, I go back to the point that, if a former Member applies and is appointed, they carry only a third of the vote, because there are three members on the panel. I am not sure whether you would want to exclude someone on that basis. If a former Member applies, it is because, although they have retired from politics, they have an interest in being here and have knowledge of how the place works.

Mrs Mason: Nuala's point was about a temporary appointment, rather than the appointment of an MLA. Why was the provision for temporary appointments in clause 4 not in the original 2011 Act? What was the basis of that change?

Miss McAllister: I was not here back in 2011, so I do not understand why it was not done then. Trevor, were you here then?

Mr Clarke: I was, but I cannot remember that far back.

Mrs Mason: Do you know what the basis was for including it now?

Ms Tara Caul (Northern Ireland Assembly): I think that it was to allow for a temporary appointment to be made because that made sense and was a reasonable thing to do. That was not in the previous legislation. That was the basis of the policy decision; it is a reasonable and sensible thing to do if you need a temporary appointment to be made. It is an additional enhancement of the previous arrangements.

Miss McAllister: The intention of the Commission is to remove a power that might be seen as an abuse or used as a way in which to get around the rules. We discussed it in the Commission after the Bill was introduced, so we will be seeking to amend it. I know that I can speak for all Commission members here: your point about MLAs and former Members and their wanting to stand again is something that we would be willing to look at in regards to an amendment.

Mrs Lesley Hogg (Northern Ireland Assembly): Since the previous legislation was drafted, we have become aware of other bodies on which vacancies have arisen but the legislation has not enabled a temporary appointment to be made. When we considered the amendments to the Bill, we decided to put in place further, robust measures in a number of areas. We are aware of problems that have been caused in other areas because there was no provision for temporary appointments. We have tried to make the 2011 Act a bit more robust in that area.

Ms Bradshaw: Nuala said that the Assembly Commission will have no role in the appointments process. Will you outline how the criteria will be set?

Mr Clarke: When the process is finished — if it gets finished — and after the Ad Hoc Committee finishes its work, as was said in the Chamber earlier this week, it will be handed over to the Clerk/Chief Executive and other professionals to appoint that body. The Commission will have no part to play in that selection process.

Ms Bradshaw: Will you outline how it will go forward from there?

Mrs Hogg: I have not done anything at this stage because, obviously, we are just progressing the Bill, but it would be up to me to establish a panel of suitably qualified individuals. I would then sit down with those panel members and establish the criteria.

There are no criteria in the Bill or the Act about specific individuals or types of individuals who must be on the panel. I would work on that with panel members. That is normally how we progress any recruitment competition. The panel establishes the criteria for the appointment.

Mr Clarke: It is important that it is done that way, Paula.

Ms Bradshaw: No, I am just asking—.

Mr Clarke: If we set the criteria, there is an inference that we got involved in the process. As Commission members, we want no part in the process. That is why we are doing it in the way that we are doing it. If the legislation passes, the Chief Executive is best placed to do that. There can then be no accusations that Members were involved in setting the criteria to appoint those individuals.

Mr Middleton: If the Bill passes, there is nothing to prevent a former Member from being on the panel. If a former Member did apply, and we should never assume that they would or what their views would be because we would not know, that does not guarantee that there will be at least one former MLA on the panel. The point is that if there were 10 applicants, and two former MLAs were among them, that does not mean that there will be a former MLA on the panel. My point is that there could be no former MLA appointed even though they applied.

Miss McAllister: It just allows them to apply. It is supposed to be completely on merit.

Mr McGrath: That has been accepted practice in Westminster for a long time. They legally require that one member of their panel must be a former MP. They went through their process just two weeks ago, as they always do. We all have MPs — Sinn Féin, DUP, SDLP, Alliance, UUP and TUV — and none of those elected representatives said that they felt that that process was carried out inappropriately because a former Member was on the board. There has been discussion about that, but it is not the worst practice for us to try to replicate here what works well in one place and has public support.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Sinéad, you said in the Chamber this week that one of the concerns raised was that, if a former MLA was appointed, they could change their pension. Will you make it clear that there are no retrospective changes to pension entitlement?

Ms Ennis: That is my understanding. The Bill deals with pensions going forward. Pensions accrued by previous Members are what they are. My understanding — correct me if I am wrong — is that that cannot be changed. We are looking at future-proofing, so it is for Members now and their future pension entitlement.

Mr Clarke: I declare for the record that I am a pension trustee. There is nothing to say that there will be changes on the back of all this. We are working on the assumption that there are changes, even to the pensions. There is nothing to say that there will be, but it is clear, as Sinéad said, that they would not be retrospective.

Ms Caul: For the sake of completeness, it is important to note that, at any one time, no more than one board member can be a former Member of the Assembly. It is important to note that that has been incorporated.

Mr Delargy: Apologies if I missed this, but will the panel clarify the appointment process for a temporary employee? With your permission, Chair, I have few questions about clause 6.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): That is fair enough. No problem.

Mrs Hogg: Temporary appointments would follow the same process as permanent appointments. That would be up to me to consider.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): With no role for the Commission?

Mrs Hogg: No role for the Commission.

Mr Delargy: Thanks for that clarification.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Do you want to move on to clause 6, then?

Mr Delargy: Is that OK?

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Of course.

Mr Delargy: What was the thought process behind having a board of three? Would there be disadvantages to having more members? Why was that number decided on?

Mr Clarke: Previously, there were three on the panel. Whilst some of us were critical of some of the decisions, sometimes such panels become big and are probably more difficult to manage. Three worked in that it gave independence and a broad spectrum of people. As the Clerk/Chief Executive said, part of the criteria will be that panel members be professional people. That expertise, I think, is sufficient, and that is why we landed at three.

Mr McGrath: The three who were on the former board looked at wages, pensions and allowances. The new panel is simply looking at wages, so it has less of a role and has the same number of people as previously. I think that we are all under pressure to make sure that any public boards are as suitably sized as possible so that we are not spending more than we have to. There were three members previously and there are three this time, and it has a smaller task to do. It would have seemed weird to have gone for a bigger board in this instance.

Mr Delargy: That is fair enough. One of the questions that I had around that was about breadth of experience and knowledge, but, as you mentioned, it is for a specific, targeted aim and objective, so that allows it to be more concise. Thanks for your clarification on that.

Ms Bradshaw: New sections 6A(7) and 6A(8) to the 2011 Act, in clause 4 of the Bill, allow for the Commission, by order, to make provision about appointments and for those orders not to be made unless laid before and approved by resolution of the Assembly. Can you confirm which Committee will scrutinise that statutory rule?

Mr Clarke: We are looking to Tara to answer that.

Ms Caul: I do not think that it has been confirmed which Committee that will be, but it will go on to be by affirmative resolution and go before the Assembly.

Ms Bradshaw: Looking to the future a bit, have we, as a Committee, put out a call for evidence?

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Yes, it went out today.

Ms Bradshaw: Some of the public narrative around this in recent weeks has been about the lack of consultation. Can members talk to how this will be consulted on? Where will the greater public get an input to the future?

Mr McGrath: It is right and proper that the public be consulted on matters that are of importance, but, if we look back at the narrative over the past number of weeks, we see that it has been about how much MLAs will get and what the pay scales should be. The Bill is simply a very technical piece of legislation to regularise a previous decision that was made. As we sit, we have the potential for two separate authorities to be making decisions about our allowances. There is the old panel and there are the existing powers that are given to the Commission, so, to regularise that, we are separating out the roles and leaving simply an independent panel that, in its own way, will consult on and look at any of the increases to wages in the future. Our role with the Bill is simply about putting that board in place.

That board will make decisions that currently will impact on 90 people. Through the structures of the Assembly, we have consulted with the 90 people who will be impacted on. No member of the public will be impacted on by this. Once the board is appointed, if it decides that it wants to increase or decrease or hold static the wages of MLAs, that may have an impact on the public purse, and it may want to go out and consult with the public. This very technical piece of legislation, which is simply regularising what was there, does not impact on, in a sense, people. Therefore, to go out and consult with them would not provide any help or assistance to them or to us and would just cost money. The Bill is to get the panel in place and to allow it to be populated. It then goes and makes its determination, and, if that impacts on the public purse, it will want to go out and consult with the public, and it can do that.

Mr Clarke: Of course, there is the draft report. I presume that, at the time when that is published, there will be consultation, as opposed to before that.

Mrs Hogg: This was one of the measures that I talked about earlier where we tried to make the 2011 Act more robust. Previously, there was not a requirement for formal consultation in that, whereas, now, we have inserted the clause to make sure that there must be formal consultation by the panel.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): It may be worth giving some thought to where that SR is scrutinised if there is a temporary appointment. There is no guarantee that there will be a temporary appointment. Obviously, it will be done by affirmative resolution, so it will be debated and voted on in the Assembly. It may be worth giving that some thought if there are temporary appointments. Does the Ad Hoc Committee scrutinise the SR, or is there a better body to do that?

Mrs Hogg: The Bill, as it stands, would enable the Commission to make temporary appointments. If we wanted to apply additional criteria or make further provision for that, we would need to bring forward an order, but, currently, the Bill would give the Commission power to make temporary appointments.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Perfect.

I will pick up on the requirement in clause 6(2) for the determination to be made at least six months before the date of the poll. I am keen to have your commentary on that. Is that to enable potential candidates to be informed before running for election? What is the thinking?

Ms Ennis: That is exactly it, Chair. The purpose of the Bill is to enable anybody who is considering putting their name forward for election to know what salary they can expect if they are elected. Anybody who prospectively looks at the salary as it is now might think, "It's not really attractive to me", or they might think the opposite; maybe it is fine as it is. Underlying all that is the fact that people need to know what they are signing up for when they put their name down for election. That is what we wanted to achieve.

Mr Clarke: The same subclause was used in the previous Bill — not less than six months before. That is not to say that it could not come sooner, but that is the deadline for it, for the reasons that Sinéad outlined. It is similar to the past legislation.

Mrs Hogg: You asked at the start of the meeting about issues with the previous determination. The issue was that it came out very late in the day and very close to the date of the election. That is one area on which we have tried to make the Bill more robust, so that the determinations are produced in a suitable advance period before the election, and, as Sinéad said, candidates know what the remuneration is likely to be.

Mrs Mason: I have a more general question about timing. Why is this coming before us now? It has been going on for a while. Why are we looking at it now?

Mr Clarke: It started, as Sinéad said, in June 2020. Everybody knows what happened at that time: we came back here, and there was COVID. This was put on the back-burner. If we had continued then, without the Assembly being down and all the other problems that we had in that period, this would have been in place and would not have been part of today's discussion. That is why it is on the table now. It is a good question in the sense that the public need to be aware that it was introduced in June 2020.

Mr McGrath: In essence, we are five years too late with this. We are playing not just a wee bit but a significant amount of catch-up. It should have been done at that time, but, as Trevor said, COVID and other things got in the way. People did not want those discussions when conversations of a different nature were needed in order to help people. This is the time that has come around for us to be able to do it.

Mrs Mason: This is the first available time, more or less.

Mr McGrath: Yes.

Mrs Mason: OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): You may already have covered my final question on clause 6, which would give the board the freedom to consult whomever it deems appropriate. The Bill does not tie the hands of the board. It could engage in whatever consultation it believed to be appropriate. Is it important that that clause gives the board that ability rather than it being for Members to specify how it carries out its work?

Miss McAllister: Yes. It would not be independent otherwise, so it is really important. The other option, if we do not go down the independent route, is MLAs having a say in their salaries. That is not appropriate. We should not, at any stage, dictate whom the board consults.

Ms Ennis: I am sure that Lesley will put in place a robust recruitment and selection process. We want the best people to help establish the system and look at these matters. We are leaving that entirely in the hands of the board, as Nuala said, which will be completely independent, so that is not for us to dictate. Whatever it deems fit in a consultation is what will happen.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): That relates to both scope and timescale.

Mr McGrath: It is important to note that, in meetings of the Commission, with us as representatives of the five parties, the word "independent" is said so many times. We do not want to set the wages of MLAs; that is not a task for us. The public do not want us to do that; we do not want to do it. If we have an independent panel that can move our wages up or down or keep them the same, we want it to go and talk to whomever it wants in order to get the best evidence. This is nothing to do with us. We do not want to be setting it. That is why it is going to an independent panel.

Ms Bradshaw: How were MLAs' salaries determined in the 2016 determination? Was there a range of options, or was a figure just put forward? Do you envisage a figure being put forward this time, or will there be a range of options for consideration?

Mr Clarke: On the issue of a figure coming forward, if I remember right, there was an interim process for that as well. There was a draft, and the panel went and spoke to Members. As a Member at that time, I do not believe that the panel listened to some of our concerns. We had concerns more so about our allowances than our salaries, but it did not listen to those concerns and went on ahead. There is nothing to prevent that from happening again on salaries. The previous process was lengthy, but the panel's work was lengthier and wider in scope.

Ms Bradshaw: Do we know how they settled on £50,500 or whatever it was at that time?

Mr Clarke: No, they came with a figure; there was no rationale given. When I listened to the radio, I think, last week, I heard one of the panel members talk about it being 65% of the wages at Westminster, so they had regard for Westminster salaries.

Ms Bradshaw: OK.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Does anyone else have a question on clause 6? No.

Clause 7 deals with minor and consequential amendments. Clauses 8, 9 and 10 deal respectively with continuity of the law, interpretation and commencement, which are legally required for any Bill. I have nothing on any of those.

Andy, is there anything that you want to add at this stage?

Mr Andy Allen (Northern Ireland Assembly): No, Chair. Others have covered everything.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): No problem at all. Does any other member have anything that they wish to add at this stage?

Ms Ennis: Just to say thanks, Chair. We are available at the Committee's behest throughout your process of scrutinising the Bill.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Obviously, we are nowhere near that stage yet, but, if the Bill is passed, given that Standing Order 43 requires that every statutory rule that is laid before the Assembly is referred to the appropriate Committee, we should maybe give some thought to what the appropriate Committee is. At least we will then be able to answer any questions on that.

Thank you so much for your time and for the work that you as a Commission do. You ensure the smooth operation of the Assembly. It is a thankless task on some occasions, but it is greatly appreciated, so thank you very much indeed.