Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs Mason): We have the Assembly Commission with us to give oral evidence. This is an opportunity for us to put to the Commission key issues that have been raised in the written and oral evidence and to discuss any possible amendments. I welcome Trevor Clarke, Nuala McAllister, Sinéad Ennis, Colin McGrath, Lesley Hogg and Tara Caul. I advise members that the session will be recorded by Hansard.

Nuala, do you want to open up for us?

Miss Nuala McAllister (Northern Ireland Assembly): I have an opening statement to make before we take questions. Good afternoon, Deputy Chair and members. We welcome the opportunity to be here today to answer any questions that you have. I apologise on Andy Allen's behalf: he is unable to be here today.

First, when we appeared at the Committee's meeting on 20 February, we notified it of the Assembly Commission's intention to table amendments to clause 4, which deals with temporary appointments. The Assembly Commission has now issued those amendments to you, and you have noted that you received them. Hopefully, you have had time to look at those, but we appreciate that you may not have had as much time as you needed to do so. Our amendments are explained in more detail, as is what we intend on that issue. In particular, the full suite of disqualification and termination provisions in Part 1 of the 2011 Act are also applied to temporary appointments. They make clear that only one former Member could ever be a member of the board at any one time.

While the Bill still includes provision for the Assembly Commission to make an order in relation to temporary appointments, that has been retained as a precaution for unforeseen circumstances. However, the bulk of the necessary detail around the temporary appointments is now in the Bill. At our most recent appearance, the Committee asked which Committee would scrutinise any order. We have now proposed that that would be the Audit Committee, as it already has a formal role in relation to the Assembly Commission.

Secondly, we know that the Committee is considering an amendment that would insert the word "independent" into the title of the board. As you know, the Commission has been carefully guarding the independence of the board. We have been focused particularly on the detail of how that independence can be embodied in the Bill. That is why we were not keen on the suggestion from the Committee for Standards and Privileges that temporary appointments could be voted on by Members on the Floor of the Assembly. We are also reluctant to include too many provisions in the Bill in relation to the board's operation, lest that take away from allowing the board to make its own decisions and to function independently. While the Commission has been less concerned about reflecting independence in the title of the board — there are probably a number of names that would do that — we are open to taking the Committee's view on that matter.

Thirdly, we note the range of views that has been expressed to the Committee during its call for evidence. We know that you have heard from some of the bodies that have responsibility for determining the salaries of Members in other jurisdictions. We hope that you will have seen that there are different models for dealing with those issues in different places. The Assembly Commission has sought to put forward arrangements that take account of our circumstances. We know that you have received a considerable number of public responses, and it is understandable that the issues covered reflect a range of opinions.

During the debate on the Bill's Second Stage in the Assembly, we acknowledged that there was no good time to discuss issues related to politicians' salaries. However, we reiterate that the Bill does not change Members' salaries; only the independent board will decide what the level of salaries should be. It is important for us to return to the point that the Bill's purpose is to deal with matters of process and to ensure that we regularise the legal position in light of the Assembly's resolution back in June 2020.

We thank the Committee for all its work on the Bill. We are happy to take any questions that you have on the matters that I have raised or on any other issues.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs Mason): Thank you, Nuala. I will kick things off. I know that other members want to ask a couple of questions. You mentioned that the Committee has had a lot of discussion about having the word "independent" in the board's name. We heard about that in the responses that we received. You said that you were open to that, but is the Commission minded to take that forward, or is it happy for the Committee to do so?

Mr Trevor Clarke (Northern Ireland Assembly): As Nuala mentioned, we have been focused on the detail of the Bill. We believe that having the word "independent" in the title would emphasise the point, so the Assembly Commission is willing to accept the Committee's view on that. If you want to put that forward, we are content.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs Mason): OK, thanks for that. Something else came up in the presentation from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA). It told us how, when it was making determinations, those were communicated publicly. Is there any possibility that, when the board is established — I know that you do not want to get bogged down in its operation — the minutes of its meetings could be published and communicated to the general public?

Mr Clarke: The Assembly Commission has no issues with a requirement that the board's minutes be published. The publication of such minutes is standard practice in the interest of transparency. Indeed, the independent financial review panel published its minutes. We would be broadly content with that.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs Mason): You have no issue with that, OK.

There is just one last thing from me. We have heard that some Members may want a provision to enable them to opt out of receiving a higher salary if the board were to decide to offer that. What is the Commission's view on that?

Mrs Sinéad Ennis (Northern Ireland Assembly): We have heard Members allude to that as well. However, under section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act, the Assembly is required to pay Members any such salaries as are "determined". Therefore, there cannot be a provision in the Bill for Members to opt out. It is an excepted matter, so it is outside our ability to make a provision for it. It is open to Members what they choose to do with the salary or how they choose to spend any salary that they receive.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs Mason): Pádraig, you indicated that you wanted to come in.

Mr Delargy: Thank you, Deputy Chair. I thank the Commission for the presentation and the answers given. I have just two questions, and they are really on points of clarity. When we had IPSA in, one of the things that its representatives talked about was a five-year disbarment on anybody who had been an MLA from being a member of the board. I want to get a sense from you of whether the Commission has looked at that. Do you consider it relevant or important? How best would you deal with it?

Mr Colin McGrath (Northern Ireland Assembly): It is a wee bit of a head melt, if I may use that term, trying to understand and get across exactly how IPSA does this. The idea is a five-year disbarment of a Member from being a member of the board. A board member may be a former Member, but there had to be a five-year firebreak between their service as a Member and their being able to apply to be an ordinary member of the board.

Obviously, there might be a requirement that one of the members of the board be a former Member, and no time limits are set on that. The category is former Member: that is the criterion. However, it is not that there must be such a member; it is just that one of the board members could be a former Member. Therefore, there are two categories of members: those who are ordinary members; and the person who is the former Member. That five-year rule from IPSA is about those who are ordinary members so that there is a wee bit of a firebreak there.

Mr Delargy: OK. Thanks for clearing that up. My second question is about Members' expenses. That was raised quite a few times on the Citizen Space platform. I would like to understand the rationale or how that conversation developed and why that would not be included in the determination. Was there a view that that should be decided by this board or retained within the Assembly Commission? I just want clarity on that.

Mr Clarke: I am happy to take that question. It was already a resolution of the Assembly. It was the Assembly's will that the expenses should be taken back, and that has been determined. There is no view on bringing that forward again. That is why we are very clear that the Bill should be specifically about salaries only and not look at the wider aspect of business.

Miss McAllister: We also made the point that there were some matters on which the Commission could not wait any longer, whether for a panel to be reconstituted or a new panel to be set up. We spoke about that at Second Stage. One of those issues, for example, is maternity allowances and pay for staff. Also, there is a need to ensure that offices are compliant with access to disability schemes. With those things, we thought it unnecessary to wait for so many years to get the panel up and running. Decisions were made by the previous panel that did not reflect those issues or allow for them to be dealt with.

Ms Bradshaw: Some of my questions have already been asked. I want to pick up the thread on the disbarment of former MLAs. One of the issues that has come up at the Committee is the fact that this will probably come into force in the next mandate. There may be a scenario — we have seen it in Northern Ireland before — where an MLA who has lost their seat later regains it. Are there any thoughts about how you could disbar somebody from then standing? I do not say that we should, but it may be an issue in the perception of the wider public.

Mr McGrath: I will pick up on that and tease out the issues.

First, if the panel is put in place, it will make a determination in this mandate that will be relevant, initially, to the next mandate. That determination will be made before 2027.

Whether someone can stand as an MLA is an excepted matter: it is with London, and the rules and regulations on who does or does not stand are decided there. If we were to regulate on that, that would cause difficulty. We are of the general opinion that becoming part of a board, setting the wages at a higher level and deciding afterwards that you wanted to avail yourself of those wages would be a really long journey to go on to get a few extra quid. Also, the panel that sets MLA wages may not be the best springboard for getting elected as a Member. It is for people to make their own choice on that in the future. The 2011 Act, or one of the other previous Acts, details who can and who cannot stand for election. We cannot control what is on that list.

Mr Middleton: Thanks to the Commission for clarifying a number of points. I welcome your acceptance of including the word "independent". As you know, that is important in practice, but it is also important when it comes to perception. People need to know that independence is not only a perception but a practice.

I have a follow-on question from Pádraig's point. When I assessed the evidence from Citizen Space, I found that people were overwhelmingly positive about the fact that Members' salaries and pensions would be determined by an independent panel or board rather than by the Commission. That is widely accepted, I think. There are more differing views when it comes to the question of whether the Assembly Commission or a panel should look after Members' office cost allowances. There is a bit of a lack of awareness in the public domain about exactly what the office costs are and about the fact that Members do not personally get that money. It is important to go back and clarify why the Commission feels that that is appropriate. I take your point, Trevor, that the Assembly already made a decision on that, but I think that it is important to clarify why that view was taken and that there was a downside to what happened previously in relation to the service provided to the general public as a result of some of the determinations that were made.

Mr Clarke: I will kick off, and maybe somebody else will want to pick up from me. You answered your own question. The previous determination left various matters out. Nuala referred to that. Each of us wants to be accessible to the public, but there was even the bizarre situation whereby we were not allowed to have our address or phone number on our signs, making it difficult for members of the public to contact us. Bear in mind that a good number in society work, so they could drive past our offices and see our names but not our numbers. That was a bizarre situation that could have been resolved simply by the independent panel.

Nuala also mentioned disability access. That is up there as an issue. Andy Allen would be strong on that issue, if he were here, given his disability. He knows exactly what it is like. That was not considered by the previous panel, and, as Nuala said, neither was maternity leave. All those things had to be done in a timely manner. The time when we did that was the only opportunity that we had to do it. It went through by resolution of the Assembly and was accepted by it at that stage.

Mr McGrath: There were so many expense streams that it took the previous body a long time to come to the determinations, and, when it did, many things were so far off the mark that they had to be rectified. In a number of instances, the previous determination also built in almost a cost-of-living increase, meaning that, unless there is a massive problem, we will not have to go back to examine those.

There is a cost if a panel meets every day and suddenly has to start looking down into the detail of whether we can have phone numbers on signs, what size those signs are and at disability access. Will they discuss how wide and how high that is? There ends up being a cost that comes from that as well. The Commission tidied that up well after the 2016 determination. It is set, and no massive changes need to be made to it. To pass that to an independent panel could bog that panel down with work, which would cost a lot of money to the public purse.

Mr Middleton: That is useful, thank you.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs Mason): Do any other members want to come in?

Mr Stewart: No, Chair, most things have been covered. I thank the members of the Commission, the Clerks and the staff for everything that they have done and for the engagement that they have carried out. As Gary said, the notion of independence is critical. You highlighted the reasons for that, but you also rightly articulated why we need the changes that are there. Thank you for everything that you have done so far; I appreciate it.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs Mason): To assist us in thinking about carrying out our formal clause-by-clause consideration, can you tell us when the Commission will lay its amendment? Do you know when that will be?

Ms Ennis: We will probably need to have a meeting to discuss that and figure out the wording. We have not done that yet, but I assume that we will do so imminently.

Mr Clarke: I do not think that it would be outside the realms of possibility to have that for the Business Committee on Tuesday of next week. That would still leave us with a week.

Miss McAllister: That might be tight timing for drafting.

Mr McGrath: It would not need to be laid as an amendment, would it? Maybe we could ask for some guidance from our guys. Lesley, is that —?

Mrs Lesley Hogg (Northern Ireland Assembly): We will have a look. Of course, we will try to lay the amendment as quickly as we can. We have it drafted and ready to go, so we will sort out the process for doing that.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs Mason): Thank you very much.