STATUTORY COMMITTEES (Hansard, 23 July 1998)

§ Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire)
I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 11, line 2, at end insert ', except that the chairman shall not be a member of the same party as the Northern Ireland Minister being advised and assisted by the statutory committee.'.

The Chairman
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 152, in clause 22, page 11, leave out lines 17 to 20 and insert— '(5) Standing Orders shall provide that, where the figures given by the formula for two or more political parties are equal, each of those figures shall be recalculated using the formula: S/1+C+M Where the figures given by this formula for two or more political parties are also equal, each of those figures shall be recalculated with S being the number of first preference votes cast for the party at the last general election of members of the Assembly.'.

§ Mr. Moss
Clause 22 seeks to establish a number of statutory Committees to advise and assist each Northern Ireland Minister with the formulation of policy and to monitor the work of each Department. It seeks to put into legislation paragraphs 8 and 9 of strand 1 of the Belfast agreement.
Paragraph 8 of the agreement provides a definition of how the "Chairs and Deputy Chairs" of the Committees will be determined. The strange use of language in the agreement has been translated in the Bill to Chairman and Deputy Chairman. The Chairman and Deputy Chairman are to be allocated proportionally by the d'Hondt system which is outlined in subsection (4).
Paragraph 9 of the Belfast agreement details specific powers to those Committees. It states: They will have the power to: consider and advise on Departmental budgets and Annual Plans in the context of overall budget allocation; approve relevant secondary legislation and take the Committee stage of relevant primary legislation; call for persons and papers; initiate enquiries and make reports; consider and advise on matters brought to the Committee by its Minister." However, the Bill does not detail those powers. It states simply in clause 22(2)(a) that Standing Orders shall make provision for establishing committees of Members of the Assembly to advise and assist each Northern Ireland Minister in the formulation of policy with respect to matters within his responsibilities as a Minister". 1338 The emphasis is on the formulation of policy and there is no mention of the role in paragraph 9 of the agreement to monitor the work of the Executive and scrutinise primary and secondary legislation. I hope that the Minister will clarify that point, because, on the face of it, those detailed functions of the Committees seem to have been overlooked.
The agreement goes to great lengths to achieve political and community balance in the Assembly. Clause 4 sets out clear rules with regard to weighted majorities under the definition of cross-community support. Why, then, does the Bill not seek to extend such checks and balances to the operation of statutory Committees? As I interpret clause 22(3), it is more than likely that, by operating the same d'Hondt system for choosing the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Committees, the nominated officers of the respective political parties could and may choose to select statutory Committees that parallel the ministerial Departments that they have already chosen. That could lead to exclusive control by one party of one or more of the Northern Ireland Departments.
Ministers and Chairmen of Committees could work hand in hand to dominate the work of that Department and the Committee, to the detriment of the best interests of fairness and balance in the working of the Assembly and of good government in Northern Ireland.
The amendment would prevent such exclusive control by ruling out the possibility of a Chairman of a statutory Committee being of the same party as the Minister heading the relevant Department. However, a Deputy Chairman of the same party as the Minister could still be selected under the d'Hondt system.
We believe that the amendment is compatible with the Belfast agreement and would reinforce the sentiments of fairness, balance and accountability. It would block off an obvious and potentially damaging loophole in the Bill.

§ Mr. Öpik
When I was just a schoolboy, way back in the 1980s, at the Royal Belfast Academical Institution, algebra was one of my favourite subjects. I remember the adage that was occasionally shared in my class that two plus two equals nought—if we rounded it down to the nearest 10. To some extent, that is the basis for my amendment. An injustice is built into what happens if there is a tie break in the nomination for Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of the statutory Committees.
Clause 22 says: Standing orders shall provide that, where the figures given by the formula for two or more political parties are equal, each of those figures shall be recalculated with S being equal to the number of first preference votes cast for the party at the last general election of members of the Assembly. Without going too far into the mathematics, that means that the formula that applies to the allocation of Ministers in the event of a tie break also applies to the allocation of Committee chairmanships.
The problem is that using the same tie break rule could result in an unbalanced outcome. For example, a party with 14 seats could get two Ministries and two chairmanships, while a party with seven seats got none of either. That does not conform to the spirit of the agreement, which is clear about proportionality. Paragraph 5(a) of strand 1 refers to the allocation of Committee Chairs, Ministers and Committee membership in proportion to party strengths". 1339 The system will not be completely proportional if the situation that I have described results.
My amendment would modify the formula, to right that wrong and give the small parties a chance of getting a chairmanship in the event of a tie break. The amendment would remove subsection (5) and insert: Standing Orders shall provide that, where the figures given by the formula for two or more political parties are equal, each of those figures shall be recalculated using the formula: S/(1+C+M) Where the figures given by this formula for two or more political parties are also equal, each of those figures shall be recalculated with S being the number of first preference votes cast for the party at the last general election of members of the Assembly. In essence, the amendment proposes that, in the event of a tie, the number of Ministries already allocated should be considered in decisions on allocating chairmanships. The proposed formula clearly follows the spirit of the Belfast agreement, which refers to proportionality for Ministries and chairmanships collectively, not just separately. The amendment is important because it creates a collective calculation.
Safeguards must be workable; I am glad to say that there would be nothing complex about applying the proposed formula following an election—even though it might be complex to explain in the Chamber. It ensures that all sections of the community can participate and work together, and that justice is seen to be done even for smaller parties that might otherwise be bereft of any meaningful positions of responsibility in the Assembly. There would be no downside for the larger partie because the proposed formula would kick in only when they already have the lion's share of ministerial positions—possibly all ministerial positions—and chairmanships.
One point that has not been mentioned in the debate is that the smaller parties actually received many votes. The other benefit of the amendment is that it acknowledges that minority parties have a right to play a significant role in the functioning of the Assembly. Once again, that is in the spirit of the agreement. Will the Minister give me an assurance that what I can only assume was an oversight will be seriously reconsidered over the summer recess, and that technical amendments to right a wrong facing smaller parties will be tabled at a later stage?
Finally, I suppose I must thank the mathematics department of the Royal Belfast Academical Institution for making the amendment possible by giving me a reasonable education.

§ Mr. McNamara
I am not sure whether hon. Members, particularly those on the Government Front Bench, would congratulate the Royal Belfast Academical Institution, although I am sure that the subject of the amendment will be of great interest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and will occupy his mind throughout the summer recess. I am sure that, when we return, he will send many pages of squared notepaper covered with work to their Lordships, most of whom had the benefit only of a classical education rather than that of the RBAI.
I should like to take up one point made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). On the face of it, his proposition that the Chairman and the Minister being advised by the Committee should be of different parties appears very sensible, sound and secure. 1340 Although, normally, I would go along with that, in this case, we would be providing one safeguard too many. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will have their parties and colleagues to consult on such matters. Perhaps the allocation of such posts is better left to them and their parties and to the other parties. We should be considering the ability of people in certain relationships.
I accept that there may be a danger of exclusivity and of certain areas being hived off as nationalist or Unionist, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire suggested. Although those difficulties might emerge, we should leave matters of chairmanship to the good sense, good will and what we hope will be the spirit of the new Assembly.

§ Mr. Worthington
Following the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Minister of State that I reply to the debate on this group of amendments, I realised belatedly that it includes the d'Hondt principle. I looked through the amendments and rejoiced that nothing tested my algebra—until I came to the amendment tabled by the honourable anorak on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). [HON. MEMBERS: "That is unparliamentary language."] I do not think that it is, but that could be tested.

The Chairman
Order. It might be unparliamentary if there is a ruling by tomorrow morning.

§ Mr. Worthington
I had better withdraw it then, and apologise profusely.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) pointed out, there is a danger here. I understand why the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has a desire to help small parties—it has been bred into him—but there can come a time when helping small parties overcomes the principle of proportionality. We must ensure that that principle, which is at the centre of the Bill, succeeds in the end.
The d'Hondt principle will certainly work for the Ministers, and perhaps 20 times again, for Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Therefore, many people will have positions of influence within the Assembly. I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman that we will embrace his amendment, but there is a link between it and amendment No. 14, which was moved by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing the amendment to the Committee.

§ Mr. Öpik
May I emphasise, for the sake of the record, that our amendment exactly enshrines the principle of proportionality? That is why I tabled it.

§ Mr. Worthington
We wish to safeguard the principle of proportionality. That was the spirit behind amendment No. 14. It would be unfortunate if the Minister and the Chair of the Committee were from the same party. That situation is not specifically provided for in the agreement, but, in the spirit of the agreement, it would seem desirable that a Committee Chair should come from a different party, if the Committee is to carry out the scrutiny part of its role effectively.
However, there may be circumstances in which an overlap is unavoidable. We cannot accept the amendment as it stands, but we intend to introduce a similar 1341 amendment at a later stage, while repeating that, no matter what the system may be, we cannot guarantee that there will always be perfect balance across, say, 10 Committees with Ministers, Chairs and Vice-Chairs. We recognise the idea behind the amendment, and we will consider it over the summer. I can give the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire that promise, and, in considering that principle, we will also take into account the principle raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire.

§ Rev. Martin Smyth
Coming from the Methodist college, I shall support the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who comes from the rival institute, in suggesting that the Minister's latter comments are most welcome. I refer to the 1975 constitutional convention, when we went further and the Committees had to be divided 50:50 between those who were on the executive and those who were not. The chairmanships, too, had to be 50:50. That contrasts with the lack of generosity in this place, where the Government must always have a majority on Standing or Select Committees. As the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) pointed out, the smallest two parties returned to the Assembly have very able Members who could perform a useful role in the Committees.

§ Mr. Worthington
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I hope that, in the light of my assurances, the amendment will be withdrawn.

§ Mr. Moss
We are grateful for the Minister's comments, and, on the basis of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.