Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): I thank Jon for attending today's session. We are running a wee bit over time. Jon, the normal procedure is that we give you an opportunity to outline your position — you have up to 10 minutes — and then go to questions and answers. Over to you.

Mr Jon Burrows (Northern Ireland Assembly): Thank you, Chair. I will start with something of an introduction. There is a general perception in the community that Stormont — our Executive and Assembly — is underperforming. It was designed to exist as opposed to excel. It was devised to get people round the table, which, in itself, was seen as a massive achievement at the time. Yes, it was, but does it deliver the optimal form of government for the people of Northern Ireland? I think that eight out of 10 people would say no, and there is opinion polling that underlines that. The challenge for me is this: how do we get it to be more efficient, effective and stable and have more scrutiny, accountability, proper and effective opposition and, ultimately, higher-quality legislation? The debate on what changes could be made gets toxic in Northern Ireland, because we still have a zero-sum game where someone thinks that, if reform is taking place, it has to be to someone's constitutional advantage and someone else's disadvantage. I do not see the reform for which I am advocating to be in that realm. I am looking at operational reform, largely, to make this place more efficient.

I will start with a headliner. It is time to change the offices of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to a "joint First Minister" title. That reflects two things. First, that is the most accurate description of the title — we know that the First Minister cannot post a letter without clearing it with the deputy First Minister. Secondly, when it comes to election time — we can all be honest about this — the narrative from whoever the biggest two parties are is one of, "Vote for us to stop the other side getting First Minister. Only we can stop that". That works for both of the largest two parties at any given time. That has a polarising effect on our politics, and it would be better to take it out of the equation.

A lot of these reforms will not be delivered by a Committee but by parties sitting down and talking. I do not have all the answers, but it is about looking at what changes are required to make sure that we cannot have an Executive collapsed again. I take the view that government is important; it is important to people's lives. It is unthinkable that Westminster would simply say, "We'll collapse; we're not going to have a Government", and we need to have the same position in Northern Ireland. On a political level, not having an effective and functioning Executive plays into the hands of those who say that Northern Ireland is a failed state — I do not believe that it is — and that it is ungovernable and unworkable. It also lets down the people of Northern Ireland, because what we do here matters, as we saw recently with the passing of the Sign Language Bill. That is about how we avoid collapse.

My third proposed reform is on the merit in looking at electing the Speaker on a two thirds majority instead of requiring a 50%-plus vote from the two sides of the community. The public will not be particularly aware of the issue, but anything that tries to normalise us somewhat is useful. In presenting those headlines, I will say that we need, broadly, to keep cross-community protections in place. We need to make sure that both sides of the community have confidence that they will have representation and fair treatment.

When I strip it down to the nuts and bolts, I observe that we spend a huge amount of time dealing with things such as non-binding motions. They are tabled by all parties, including those in the Executive — all parties have a pick. The public are sometimes unaware that we spend hour upon hour debating non-binding motions. We have a vote; the Minister's time is taken up, and Hansard staff record it. There is a cost, but there is no meaningful impact. We spend precious little time on legislation. We spend too little time legislating and too much time on debates on non-binding motions that could be held in a sixth form debating society. That needs to be fundamentally addressed.

We also need to fundamentally address the level of scrutiny of Ministers that the Assembly provides. The 45-minute Question Time is insufficient. We have 30 minutes for questions to Ministers that they get two weeks in advance. Often, by the time that the Minister answers the question, the issue has moved on, and the Member has got an answer from elsewhere. Could we tweak that? There are only 15 minutes of topical questions; could that be expanded to 30 minutes? Would that provide more scrutiny? Are there tweaks that could be made to allow more supplementary questions? In the time that a Minister spends in the Assembly, we could do more scrutiny.

This next proposed reform is very broad-brush, because it will ultimately have to be worked out by people sitting around a table: we need a proper Opposition. We have an Opposition by default. The leader of the Opposition is here. Of course, the SDLP is in Opposition because it did not get enough seats to get into the Executive. The SDLP may have opted for Opposition, but here is the reality —.

Mr O'Toole: You got one more seat than us, Jon.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): We will come to that in a minute.

Mr O'Toole: Sorry.

Mr Burrows: Here is the reality: we do not have a vigorous, well-resourced Opposition. I would like to see us be more like a normal Government. I would like us to have a shadow Health Minister and a shadow Education Minister, for example, with resources and access to information, to give the public an alternative.

Those are the reforms that I am looking at. A lot of other proposed reforms are about amending this or that, but we need to start with a blank sheet of paper. We need to acknowledge that we spend our time dealing with what is happening in Gaza, yet our infrastructure has a sewerage system that is at capacity. You cannot build homes, and businesses cannot expand, yet we spend our time debating what happens in Gaza, Venezuela and Iran. It is appalling. So much of our time is wasted. Members' statements are, basically, a soapbox; yes, they can be useful, but add to that, for example, Matters of the Day and questions for urgent oral answer. So much of our time is spent on other things, rather than on dealing with the underlying major issues of our time in this country, such as economic inactivity and regional imbalance. We need fundamental change.

We need to equalise the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister and have "joint First Ministers"; try to ensure that the Assembly cannot be collapsed; have a bit of normalisation around the election of a Speaker by doing so on a two-thirds majority, rather than that needing the support of both communities; look at operational issues when it comes to the format of the Assembly, such as the amount of time that we get to scrutinise Ministers; have an effective and fully resourced Opposition; and, finally, have far fewer talking shops on non-binding motions and all kinds of ideas and spend more time on scrutinising legislation, holding Ministers to account and dealing with the big issues of our day.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Thank you, Jon. To summarise, you would like to see a change in the titles of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to "joint First Ministers". You made no suggestions about how to avoid collapse, but you said that you were open to suggestions about how that could be achieved. You also said that the Speaker should be elected on a two-thirds majority of the Assembly, and that cross-community protections should remain in place. The second half of your presentation focused on operational plenary issues and how scrutiny is formatted, including Question Time.

The DUP secured fundamental reforms to the Belfast Agreement at St Andrews, which positively changed the nature of the institutions. Those included requiring Ministers to bring all major decisions to the Executive for approval; requiring Ministers to take a pledge to support the police; and ensuring that North/South cooperation and decisions were accountable to the Executive. Do you believe that those protections should be conceded or eroded?

Mr Burrows: It is clear that a commitment to supporting the police is absolutely essential. Thankfully, we now have at least a statement about supporting the police. We need to give some thought to the ability of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, as it stands, to veto an issue's coming to the Executive table. There is potential legislation that has not been debated in the Chamber for that reason. Those things need to be teased out.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): The central point about bringing all major decisions to the Executive for approval was to ensure that Ministers could not go on solo runs. Would you want that to continue, or should it be conceded or eroded via reform?

Mr Burrows: You have put it as a binary choice. We need to look fundamentally at how the Assembly and Executive work. There has to be a better way of doing things than the way in which we currently do them. Clearly, we do not want solo runs, but we need to develop a wider system that allows for more collective, Cabinet-like responsibility. Moving towards a functioning Opposition would mean collective, Cabinet-like responsibility and that you would not have solo runs. It sometimes feels as though individual Ministers operate in a silo within their parties. That is probably because of the nature of our government, which is mandatory coalition. I am not saying that we throw that away; I am saying that we need to take a blank sheet of paper and ask, "How can we make it a more collective, Cabinet-like responsibility? How can we have a fully effective and functioning Opposition?". One party cannot come up with the solution to those things; we need to sit down and say, "The current system is not ideal. It is suboptimal, and it needs to improve".

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Is it your position that we do not have effective opposition arrangements in the Assembly at present?

Mr Burrows: We do not. That is not a criticism of Matthew or his party. We need to attract Members to opposition, so that we have a larger number of Members in opposition. Nearly everyone is in government, except for the SDLP and the TUV, which has one Member. When it comes to the numbers game, that is not effective opposition. The Opposition's access to resources is not sufficient. We should have, for example, a shadow Justice Minister, a shadow Health Minister and a shadow Education Minister, who, as a symbol of opposition, galvanise and lead on those issues and who are there, across from the Dispatch Box, if you like, to hold those Ministers to account, rather than just having all the Back-Benchers do that. We need to look at how to emulate the stronger accountability and delivery of other Assemblies and Westminster.

You talked about solo runs. There is virtually no issue in our society that does not combine a number of Departments. Look at education. Early years, which is vital to education, sits with the Health Department. Education also goes into the area of economy, because further education, skills and apprenticeships are in the Economy Department's portfolio. Special educational needs is also part of education. That requires Health, Education and Economy to work together, but do they currently work in silos? Is that a stitched-together proposition for Government, or is it three Ministers, who will potentially be from three different parties, working in three different directions?

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): You mentioned the ineffective, soapbox-style Members statements', Matters of the Day and non-binding motions, all of which your party partakes in —

Mr Burrows: It does, 100%

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): — as it is customary for all parties to partake in them. Is your position that we should not have those mechanisms by which elected representatives can air their views on given matters or the urgent matters of that day? You mentioned that Members submit their questions for oral answer nearly two weeks in advance and that, by the time we get to Question Time, the issue could be away. You have taken the opportunity, as I have, to use Members' statements and Matters of the Day to probe on those issues and to have your view heard. Do you have a view on how that should be reformed to make it more effective?

Mr Burrows: Members' statements are useful. I probably make as many Member's statements as anyone, as you do, Chair. I am probably up there. Wherever there is a mechanism to do so, I will utilise it to have a voice. The question is whether that mechanism is the optimal use of Stormont's time and the public's time, given that it is funded by the public purse. The first half hour of the day is given to Members' statements. On Mondays, we start at — what is it? — 12.00 noon. By 12.30 pm or 12.35 pm, Members' statements are over, and there may have been a Matter of the Day before that. Sometimes, I look at my watch and see that it is 2.00 pm, and we have not actually got much done. I do not rule out having Members' statements. There is a role for them. There is a role for all those mechanisms. Taking it in the round, however, we spend a lot of time on a soapbox and not a lot of time legislating. We could crunch the numbers. I have tried to get figures from the Research and Information Service (RaISe) on how many hours have been spent, in the past two years, on non-binding motions and how many have been spent on legislation. I guarantee you that it is probably a 10:1 split, and that cannot be right.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): As is the case with every democratically elected Chamber, however, legislation, whether it is Executive Bills or private Members' Bills, often comes towards the end of a mandate, because there is the chance to prepare it and for it to go through the processes of Committee scrutiny and Assembly scrutiny. In theory, we will see the balance tip the other way as we work towards the final year of the mandate, in which, one would like to assume, the majority of Assembly time will be focused on legislative scrutiny rather than on non-binding motions. We have already started to see that change.

Mr Burrows: Yes, there is something in that, but the balance is still wrong. There is a lot of secondary legislation that could be looked at in the first part of a mandate; our non-binding motions could be more focused on the pressing issues of the day, such as those that are linked to the Programme for Government; and we could spend more time with Ministers in front of Committees and on the cross-examination of Ministers. It is about the overall balance.

I will make a final point about things that seem quite trivial. We need to attract more women to the Assembly Chamber and into politics. There are simple changes that we could make to assist with that, such as paired voting, which happens in other legislatures. There are people who have families. Not all those with caring responsibilities are women, but women carry an extra load at times. Men and women may have caring responsibilities for family members.

You sometimes find that people are sitting here at 8.00 pm or 9.00 pm during a non-binding motion when they could simply pair their vote off with someone else. That would give a bit of flexibility. I have a female deputy leader who lives in Fermanagh. A working mum who lives in Fermanagh and a 60-year-old man who lives in east Belfast will have a very different experience in the Assembly. Are there things that we can do to support and encourage more women and to support people from the west by making travel easier for them? Paired voting would help. There are things that we could do better that way.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): This is my final question. You mentioned more effective scrutiny of secondary legislation. The Committee is undertaking work on that. Do you have any suggestions or examples as to how we could ensure more effective scrutiny of secondary legislation?

Mr Burrows: When new primary legislation comes through, we should look at how we could expand the amount of time scrutinising secondary legislation. We should also have more time with Ministers in front of the Committees. The Minister has been at my Committee twice since I have been on it. That is not a criticism of the Minister. Different Ministers have different timetables. Sometimes they are not invited. By the time you get to speak to the Minister, given that there are x number of people on your Committee, you may get only three or four minutes. I can speak for three minutes on Monday and Tuesday on any matter that I choose, and I can spend five minutes twice a week speaking on a non-binding motion. However, when I want to scrutinise a Minister, I am given three minutes by the Chair to ask two questions. It just does not feel right. Those are my broad points. We could do a lot better.

Mrs Guy: Thanks, Jon. It has been good to get a sense of where your head is at on reform. You have talked a lot about the operational stuff. I am interested in the institutional side. Your party colleague the Health Minister has, quite rightly, been deeply frustrated that his proposals on minimum unit pricing for alcohol have been blocked by one party at the Executive when every other party supports the policy. In 2024, Mike Nesbitt said "devolution is a precious asset." He also said:

However, when the Alliance Party brought a motion to the House recently that argued that no single party should ever have the ability to hold decision-making in the Executive, or hold the Executive themselves, to ransom, your MLAs voted against it. In a really critical speech, one MLA dismissed it as "a political whim". Is there a split in the Ulster Unionist Party on those issues, especially preventing Executive collapse, which you have referenced this morning?

Mr Burrows: No, there is not. The question is how we do it. I think that we need to work with strategic aims and ask how we prevent the Executive collapsing so that we have normal, stable government and encourage people to invest. The question is how we do these things. We were not convinced about your motion. I absolutely agree with the Health Minister on his frustrations about minimum unit alcohol pricing, because it seems to me to be unhealthy that a First Minister or a deputy First Minister can veto something getting onto the Executive table. I agree with the Health Minister.

As a strategic objective, the Ulster Unionist Party has said for a long time that we will not collapse the Executive. That is never acceptable. I will hopefully have a platform piece coming out in a newspaper on that point. To me, taking collapse off the table is normal. Stop-start government is abnormal. Having no Executive affected our preparedness for COVID. It is about your preparations for things, and there is a lag. Our ability to deal with deep, protracted issues has been affected. Confidence in business is affected. Inward investment is affected. The ability to bring in legislation is affected. As the Chair rightly says, most of the legislation is done towards the back end of a mandate, but how many times have we worked in a compressed mandate? That affects scrutiny, and we sometimes pass laws that are not thought through.

Mrs Guy: I will ask a couple of specific questions about our proposals to get your input. Alliance has suggested that where a party declines to nominate a First Minister or a deputy First Minister, the title should go to the next eligible party. That means that there would be no unilateral vetoes over Executive formation. Would you support that?

Mr Burrows: I have concerns about that. When you work that through and run that through theoretically, are you suggesting that you could have a Sinn Féin First Minister and an SDLP deputy First Minister?

Mrs Guy: I would like you to tell me what you think of the proposal.

Mr Burrows: I am trying to understand the proposal before I give you an answer. That situation would be ludicrous. If you are saying that you simply have the First Minister and the deputy First Minister positions chosen by d’Hondt —.

Mrs Guy: I am saying that you would finish the election and parties can nominate for First Minister and deputy First Minister. We all know what the rules are for that entitlement. If a party said that they did not want to nominate, we are saying that the next eligible party — the next largest party, for example — would take that role on.

Mr Burrows: Let us use the hypothetical situation where the DUP becomes —.

Mrs Guy: You have read the proposal and you have it front of you.

Mr Burrows: Yes, I am giving you the answer, but I am explaining to you why I think that it is not feasible, and I will give you a very clear answer.

Mrs Guy: That is OK

Mr Burrows: The strategic aim is that we do not have a collapsed Executive. How do we do that? That is why I have refrained from setting out detailed ways to avoid that, and here is the issue. You have suggested that the next eligible party should take the position. Take a scenario where the DUP comes first in the election and the Ulster Unionist Party comes third. Are you suggesting in you proposal that, where the DUP has taken first pick and Sinn Féin, having come second, were to decide not to take the deputy First Minister role, it would go to the next eligible party and you could have a deputy First Minister —.

Mrs Guy: If a party chooses that they do not want to be nominated for First Minister or deputy First Minister, do you think that the next eligible party should be entitled to the role?

Mr Burrows: No, I do not think that that is sustainable. Northern Ireland is not going to have a functioning Executive with a DUP First Minister and a TUV deputy First Minister.

Mrs Guy: It is a principle question rather than scenarios of the individual —.

Mr Burrows: I will give you a practical reason why the principle does not work. It has not been thought through. In the same way, if you were to a have a Sinn Féin First Minister —.

Mrs Guy: It has been thought through.

Mr Burrows: I do not think that it has. I will ask you a question. Would you be confident to work in Northern Ireland with a Sinn Féin First Minister and an SDLP deputy First Minister? Would you say, "Let's just crack on"? Or would you be confident if those roles were filled by the DUP and the TUV?

Mrs Guy: We have had the election, and a party has opted to say that it does not want to take the position of First Minister or deputy First Minister. What happens then?

Mr Burrows: I understand.

Mrs Guy: I have another question for you.

Mr Burrows: Let me just answer that. I understand your principle, but when I test it, it melts away, a bit like some of our legislation that does not work.

Mrs Guy: I respectfully disagree. We then have a situation where we have no Executive and no Government. We are trying to find solutions that ensure that we can break that deadlock. You said today that Executive formation was one of your priorities, so I am asking what you think of that proposal. Perhaps it is because it is an Alliance proposal. That is OK. I have another proposal for you.

Mr Burrows: It is not. I think that you also had a proposal for a two-thirds majority to elect the Speaker.

Mrs Guy: I will move on to my next question now.

Mr Burrows: I should have the chance to answer. You said that I objected to a proposal because it came from Alliance. Did you not have a proposal that the Speaker be elected by two-thirds majority?

Mrs Guy: Yes.

Mr Burrows: I also said that. Clearly, I do not have an ideological position. That is to clarify that so that it is recorded in Hansard. Thank you.

Mrs Guy: Alliance also wants to change the way that cross-community voting is conducted. It is to replace parallel consent with weighted majority — you have just described that as a two-thirds majority — to address the democratic deficit that exists for those who do not designate as unionist or nationalist. What is your stance on that proposal?

Mr Burrows: I think that we need to look at that further. I think that the proposal on the Speaker is a solid one. Let us work on it. I think that the other proposals are solid. I think that we need to carry the community with us. There is a fear, which we need to manage, that change is something to fear. Unionism, I think, has that to a degree. I think that we need evolution, so I disagree with your proposal at this stage.

I want to normalise this place and make it more efficient, but we need to do this at a time that is right. Actually, what has not been helpful is that, when there have been changes to the Belfast Agreement, they have been done at times of crisis and with a deadline, whereas we need to sit and work through these things. I think that your proposal simply to use d’Hondt to select the First Minister and the deputy First Minister is ill-thought-out. A situation that could lead us to having a Sinn Féin First Minister and an SDLP deputy First Minister simply would not work in Northern Ireland, so we need to think these things through. That is why I have not come with a detailed plan for solving a strategic and difficult issue.

Mrs Guy: We will leave it there.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Jon, for coming to chat to us. You have been deliberately or strategically vague about the Ulster Unionists' proposals, if you have any. You suggest that you support things that are in our paper, some of which are also in Alliance's documents, concerning immediate changes to electing a Speaker by two thirds and changing the title to "joint First Minister". I am not sure that I understand it, but you support a reversal of some of the St Andrews vetoes to make the Executive work a little better.

Are there any other distinctive Ulster Unionist proposals? With respect — it is not that they are not important — a lot of the things about Assembly process are matters that could be improved by the Business Committee or the Commission and are not about how to make the Executive work better. Are there any other structural changes that you advocate?

Mr Burrows: You said that my evidence was vague but summarised three distinct things that I said.

Mr O'Toole: They were things in other people's papers, but I am happy if you are endorsing them.

Mr Burrows: I have spoken about them since I came in.

Mr O'Toole: OK.

Mr Burrows: I do not dismiss the operational stuff; you say that it could be dealt with by the other Committee. However, none of these changes will be dealt with under a Committee. Let us face reality: no Committee is going to change our current structures. It will be people, from many parties, sitting outside the Committee, talking about it. That is why we cannot compartmentalise it and say, "That's that Committee and that's that Committee". Committees have never developed this stuff; this is multi-party talks, with oversight by the UK Government.

Let me also be clear about this: the Dublin Government have no role in strand one issues. That is something that I have been clear about as the only unionist party that is advocating reform. It is very important that the Dublin Government do not become involved, because that would stymie things. This is an internal issue to make the Assembly more accountable, more effective and more efficient to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

You talked about vagueness. I have been clear. It is an abiding scandal that we spend so much time in this place dealing with no end of non-binding motions that the media are frightened to report on in case a member of the public thinks that we have actually passed a law. I was stopped in the street by someone after a motion had been passed, and they asked, "When does that come in?". I had to tell them that, important though the issue was, the debate had no more effect than the debates that I used to have in my school — Bangor Grammar School — debating society.

Mr O'Toole: Indeed. I know that, as you said earlier, you are shy about using those mechanisms to debate.

You said that you want to see improvement in how opposition works, and I certainly agree that the Opposition should be better resourced. We have been the longest sustained Opposition. I would say this, of course, but I think that lots of people have seen a meaningful improvement in scrutiny since we have been doing it. Clearly, you think that your party could do it better. We are all speaking on our own account; we are all politicians, and that is fair enough.

I will ask a specific question in relation to an effective Opposition. Business deadlines are a challenge. You have talked a lot about improving how we do Assembly processes. This is not a gotcha moment, but I wrote to your predecessor a year ago, asking for your party's support for shortening business deadlines — at the minute, it takes at least a fortnight for the official Opposition to get their business on the Order Paper — but I do not think that I ever received a response. I presume, from what you are saying, that you would agree with our ask of the Business Committee to have shortened business deadlines.

Mr Burrows: I never presume, but if you ask me a question, I will give you an answer. Send me the letter, and I will reply.

Mr O'Toole: You have made the point about making opposition work better. Presumably, you think that your party would do a better job, or be a greater Opposition, in general. I am keen to hear whether you would support our ask for shorter lead times between the Opposition putting down their business and it being in the Order Paper. You mention Westminster as the great example. At Westminster, it is sometimes 24 hours; here it is two weeks. I presume that you would agree with the principle that it should not be two weeks for the official Opposition to get topical business.

Mr Burrows: I agree with the principle that we need a stronger Opposition that can provide greater scrutiny. I am not going to give you an answer to a letter that I have never read. If you send me the letter, I will read it and respond to it. I will certainly do everything that I can to reset the balance of power in this place if there is good-quality Opposition.

Mr O'Toole: To be clear, I think that there is good-quality opposition, but it needs to be resourced better. Whether other parties make a decision to enter opposition after the next election is a matter for them.

Just for the record, Mr Burrows, it is important to say that I would like there to be more SDLP opposition MLAs. You talked about our size. We have eight MLAs, and you have nine, and two of your colleagues today appear to be running as independents in the next election, so I would not cast aspersions on our size.

You talked about there being a blank sheet of paper. I think that we will need more than a blank sheet of paper if we are going to agree to make progress on specific reform proposals. You said that you do not even think that it is appropriate that the Irish Government be involved in the discussions. What do you think is the right vehicle to take forward discussions? How should we proceed? Should it be the British Government, to the exclusion of the Irish Government, convening local parties for a discussion? Should the British Government, with or without the Irish Government, implement some of the reforms on the two-thirds majority for the election of Speaker and other proposals? How would you like to see the process go ahead?

Mr Burrows: You used the words, "to the exclusion of the Irish Government". I have a very good relationships with the Irish Republic, as we all should, but this is a strand one issue. The Alliance Party often talks about it in terms of good governance. It is a strand one issue; it is an internal matter for the people of Northern Ireland. It is an internal strand one institution. It is for the parties, with the UK Government as the sovereign Government, to address those issues. The best way —.

Mr O'Toole: Do you not think that the Irish Government are a co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement and lots of people from different traditions up here want their input?

Mr Burrows: You used the word "co-guarantor". Strand one is part of the Belfast Agreement. It is distinct. During the negotiations in 1998, did the Irish Government stay in the room for the discussions on strand one issues or did they leave?

Mr O'Toole: I did not have a camera in the room, so I do not know, but they are a co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement from my perspective.

Mr Burrows: They are, and they should guarantee the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that strand one issues — that is, issues related to the Assembly — are for the people of Northern Ireland. The people of the Irish Republic do not have a vote on what happens in Northern Ireland, in the same way as I would not dream of expecting the UK Government or the Northern Ireland Assembly to start deciding how our southern counterparts reform their Parliament.

Here is the issue for me: this is strand one, and for someone who wants reform, as I do, the more you say that Dublin has a role, the more hostility, resistance and suspicion you will get from the unionist community. This is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives and for the sovereign UK Government.

Mr O'Toole: Presumably, by that token, you object to the Shared Island unit because that is the Irish Government, in some cases, funding public services and additional investment North of the border on issues that are strand one and outwith the formal structures of strand two, but, by your logic —.

Mr Burrows: It is not by my logic; it is by an international agreement — the Belfast Agreement — that states that matters for the people of Northern Ireland are for the people of Northern Ireland alone. Strand one is internal to Northern Ireland. The clue is in the title, with the word "internal". Strand two is North/South. Strand three is east-west. Strand one is what we are talking about, and that is Northern Ireland.

Mr O'Toole: If we are talking about things outwith the Good Friday Agreement, presumably you agree that the East-West Council, an entity created bilaterally between the DUP and the then British Government, exists completely outwith the ambit of the Good Friday, or Belfast, Agreement and is accountable to the Assembly only because, thus far, Ministers have chosen to give updates to the Assembly. However, it is not formally accountable to the Assembly. Presumably you think that the East-West Council should not exist in its current form.

Mr Burrows: I think that the factory setting for the Belfast Agreement in strand three would be preferable.

Mr O'Toole: For the East-West Council?

Mr Burrows: Yes.

Mr O'Toole: That is interesting. I appreciate your giving evidence, Jon. I would like to hear more from the Ulster Unionist Party about its proposals on how it would like to proceed, as we would be keen to work with you on that.

Mr Stewart: Thanks for coming along. I am conscious of time, and I know that members have to get away, but I will be as quick as possible. It has been a really useful session so far.

With regard to the title of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, the point is well made, and a change is long overdue. We have seen that the parties that have held the post of deputy First Minister in recent times have invariably referred to themselves as the "joint head of Government" or the "joint First Minister". Sadly, as I think you will agree, time and time again since St Andrews, it has also been used as an opportunity for people to say, "Vote for us to keep the bogeyman out", only for them to then invariably go into the same room with the so-called bogeyman. In light of that, do you agree with me that returning to the factory settings of the Good Friday Agreement and doing away with the likes of the St Andrews changes would be a welcome first step? Time and again, changes have been made at times of crisis, invariably to satisfy the demands of those who created the crisis in the first place.

Mr Burrows: Yes, absolutely. The way that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister are appointed has created that. The best way of dealing with such issues is to level the titles and make them the Office of the First Minister, which is legally reflective and stops the titles being used as a bargaining chip in an election.

Mr Stewart: You talked about the need for parties to be participating players in reform, and I do not see how anyone could disagree with that. A Committee will get us so far, and this Committee has been worthwhile, but the same issues have been debated time and time again.

We have also heard suggestions of using a citizens' assembly. One of my responses to that is that the Assembly and the elected representatives are the citizens' assembly: we are elected by the people. Others will disagree, and they are entitled to do so, but I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the usefulness of that and the costs that might go with it, noting that it would not lead to any change but might make recommendations.

Mr Burrows: Absolutely. We should engage the community better. A more effective and efficient Stormont would do that. A citizens' assembly is a lazy option; it would be costly and would achieve nothing. We need to engage the electorate. We have a democracy; we are the people's representatives. If we have not satisfied them at the end of the mandate, they can vote us out. I agree with your sentiment.

Mr Stewart: Finally, you have talked about stop-start government here. The difficulty of delivery and the lack of belief in this place is probably part of that. An analogy might be that, if a board of directors had not met for 10 of the 20 years that the company had existed, it would be bankrupt. The same goes for the Assembly and the mechanisms of government. Some of the biggest issues that we see in the lack of delivery by and lack of coordination between Departments are invariably down to the fact that we have had stop-start government. How important is stability for delivering positive outcomes for Departments and, ultimately, for people?

Mr Burrows: It is indispensable. You need the full mandate to properly scrutinise and deliver any effective legislation. You need the confidence of the community that you have stable government. It puts people off coming into politics if they think that they are coming into something that might collapse. It has a significant impact on things such as inward investment. Some people boycotted the Washington trip, but I was there drumming up trade, advocating for Northern Ireland, saying that we have a skilled workforce and explaining why it is a good place to invest. However, if you were a company looking across the Atlantic and seeing that there was not even a functioning Government, you would be less likely to invest. For all those reasons, having a stable Government is vital.

Miss McIlveen: I am conscious of time. Thank you, Jon, for your presentation this morning. I note that you agree with the proposal to elect the Speaker by a two-thirds majority. Sinn Féin, Alliance and the SDLP seem to be in the business of moving towards majoritariansim. Are you in the same space?

Mr Burrows: No. I made a clear distinction between that and other cross-community protections. However, the Speaker is an impartial office. There are three of them. I am not moving towards majoritarianism, but, for the election of the Speaker, it seems to me that a two-thirds majority is straightforward and simple.

Miss McIlveen: The petition of concern was put in place to protect minority interests. There are now efforts to restrict that, and it is probably no coincidence that those have come at a time when the electoral fortunes of others have changed. Will you give a clear position for the Ulster Unionist Party on the petition of concern?

Mr Burrows: The petition of concern has been reformed so that it is not overused, but it offers a protection that gives a lot of reassurance to our communities. This is still a very contested place; it is still polarised, and the petition of concern is vital. The key is that we do not overuse or abuse it, but we are not doing that currently. It is a viable protection, and I am not looking to change it.

Miss McIlveen: Obviously, others have commented on the Ulster Unionist position with regard to reform and you have given us some highlights. Will you issue a position paper on reform of the institutions?

Mr Burrows: Yes, we will, but I am clear that you say at the outset, "Here is what we think needs fixed and here are some things that we can do to fix it". However, here is the realpolitik: it will require us to go offline and sit away from the Committee, media and Chamber, and it will require agreement from all parties. We should not make it about changing the constitution or the constitutional balance: it is about making this place more efficient. I know that that is not the most dramatic headline, but it is what this place needs: long overdue efficient government.

Miss McIlveen: On that point, you have talked about underperformance and inefficiencies in government. Yet you have been part of the Government for many years. Do you include your own members in that criticism?

Mr Burrows: The Ulster Unionist Party has performed very well, but we are operating a system. For example, the Chair made the point that I make as many statements during Members' Statements as anyone. I would say that, if you were to do the research, you would find that I am in the top three or four Members for making statements during Members' Statements. That platform is there and I will use it; if I do not use it, someone else will. We operate the system to the best of our ability, but we say that the system could be better.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Thank you very much, John, for your time this morning, and for members' indulgence, obviously.