To: Business Committee

From: Business Committee Secretariat

Date: July 2010

Review of Standing Orders: Note of Pierhead event

Background

1. The Business Committee’s written call for evidence on the Review of Standing Orders was launched on 26 May 2010. To complement the call for evidence, external stakeholders were invited to the Pierhead on 2 July for a lunchtime discussion.

2. The purpose of the Pierhead event was to:

• facilitate discussion with external stakeholders regarding the areas they would like to see developed within Standing Orders; and

• encourage participation in the public consultation prior to the deadline for written submissions.

3. Discussions were facilitated by Adrian Crompton with input from an expert panel comprising Professor Laura McAllister (Liverpool University), Dr. Ruth Fox (Hansard Society) and Michelle Matheron (Public Affairs Cymru and WCVA).

4. This note has been prepared to summarise discussions and to inform the Business Committee’s consideration of changes to Standing Orders during the autumn term, alongside written evidence received.

Approach

5. Discussions were framed around the National Assembly for Wales’ three key functions:

• representing the interests of Wales and its people;

• making laws for Wales; and

• holding the Welsh Government to account.

6. All panellists and audience members were invited to express their views on how Standing Orders currently facilitate the delivery of these key functions and how they could be improved for the Fourth Assembly. A summary of the issues raised is provided below.

Issues raised

General principles relating to Standing Orders

7. Attendees acknowledged that changes to working practices for the Fourth Assembly may not necessarily require detailed or significant amendments to Standing Orders themselves. Those present recognised that overly prescriptive Standing Orders could prove to be limiting and have a perverse impact on the Assembly’s ability to react to the variety of business demands it faces.

8. It was suggested that the Assembly’s ways of working may be just as appropriately adjusted via process changes, resolutions of the Assembly and / or its committees and published guidance as through amendment to the Standing Orders. There was consensus, however, that it would be important to remove needless Standing Orders to increase clarity and understanding of the legislature’s ways of working.

Holding the Welsh Government to account

9. It was noted during discussions that the scrutiny role undertaken by the National Assembly for Wales – particularly its scrutiny of the Welsh Government – is one of its most important functions.

10. Attendees commented that current capacity issues can limit the legislature’s ability to scrutinise both the Government and other public sector bodies accountable to it. It was suggested that the Review of Standing Orders should give consideration to how capacity issues can be managed via our process and procedures. This, attendees argued, could be achieved by seeking further flexibility within the rules to allow, for example, for:

• the Assembly to manage its sitting days as flexibly as possible in response to business demands (one participant advocated sitting for 36 weeks rather than the present 34 weeks);

• a reduction in the numbers of committees and / or in the number of Assembly Members required to sit on each committee to ensure full engagement in the scrutiny process; an

• the wider use of external expertise e.g. long-term expert secondees, policy councils or external expert networks to increase capacity (e.g. when planning a forward work programme or inquiry) in a cost-limited manner

11. Those present also suggested that although many committees have successfully engaged with external bodies during the Third Assembly, ways of working ought to be adjusted to ensure even better engagement with scrutiny work. It was proposed that the Assembly should consider producing a document (if not provision within Standing Orders) outlining how, and in what circumstances, committees will engage with external bodies. This, attendees argued, would ensure that:

• committees draw on a broad and possibly innovative range of expertise when undertaking their work;

• external stakeholders have clarity about what is expected from them and where they can input, and may feel less intimidated by the arguably formal arrangements currently in place; and

• committee work remains focused and effective by limiting duplication at consultation and evidence gathering stages of the inquiry process.

12. It was also suggested that it may be useful for committees to state their ‘core tasks’ or functions. This approach is taken in the House of Commons where the House agrees by resolution a list of core select committee functions as opposed to including them in Standing Orders.

Making laws for Wales

13. Those in attendance seemed to agree that it is still early to fully assess the legislative processes introduced in light of the Government of Wales Act 2006, but it was noted that there were differing views on the efficacy of the processes for gaining legislative competence.

14. The opportunity provided by current Standing Orders for Member and Committee proposed legislation was commended, however there was general consensus that expectations need to be managed with regard to how successful these are likely to prove. It was also suggested that better mechanisms could be put in place to engage external bodies and their ideas when drafting proposals for legislation, particularly for Committee proposed legislation.

15. Four main themes emerged for further consideration as part of the review of Standing Orders and the related review of legislative processes:

• the need for better cooperation between Welsh and UK executives and legislatures It was noted that, given current negotiations around the recommendations of the Calman Commission and the associated Scotland Bill announced in this year’s Queen Speech, now may be an opportune time to improve inter-governmental and inter-parliamentary channels of communication. ;

• an alleged scrutiny deficit in relation to framework powers contained in UK Bills as compared with Legislative Competence Orders;

• concerns regarding the extent to which powers have been devolved to the executive as opposed to the legislature since the commencement of relevant provisions in the Act in 2007, and the need to scrutinise these as well; and

• concerns regarding the complexity of the statute book as it relates to Wales, particularly in relation to recent ‘carve-outs’ to exceptions under Schedule 5 of the Government of Wales Act 2006.

16. It was suggested that one way of helping Members engage better with the scrutiny of subordinate legislation would be to explore mechanisms to enable Members to amend draft regulations.

Representing the interests of Wales and its people

17. Attendees identified the petitions system as the most engaging mechanism currently in place in the Assembly and valued the fact that there was a clear process in place. The view was expressed that this mechanism ought to be strengthened and the work of the Petitions Committee developed further (possibly through producing more inquiry reports themselves as opposed to referring petitions to other scrutiny committees). It was also suggested that petitions could be debated on the floor of the Siambr.

18. There was general consensus that better information needs to be provided by the Assembly to explain what it does, how it does it, and how the outside world can engage with it. Although it was acknowledged that this may not be a matter for the Standing Orders, it was noted that the Government of Wales Act 2006 provides that the Assembly Commission can promote awareness of the current political system.

19. It was also suggested that revitalising business in the Siambr – for example through exploring new mechanisms by which backbench Members can introduce business and promoting a better understanding of their role - would improve the Assembly’s representative capacity and draw more media and public interest to the Assembly’s work.

20. It was noted that there was no concept of backbench time in the Assembly as such, only opposition group time. Providing mechanisms other than the Short Debate for backbenchers of all parties to bring forward business would, it was argued, present better and more frequent opportunities to raise constituency, regional or international issues of interest to the people of Wales. It was noted that the Short Debate ballot was not a helpful mechanism, in that it did not enable Members to work strategically with external organisations.

21. It was suggested that this could be developed via the current Statement of Opinion system, with a certain number of signatories triggering the Business Committee to consider allowing time for the Statement of Opinion to be debated in the Siambr. Current developments in Westminster with respect to backbench time (and the creation of a Backbench Committee) would be of interest to follow.

22. It was also suggested that mechanisms to provide more opportunities to raise topical issues would be beneficial for both the representative and scrutiny roles of Members. It was noted that the main mechanism for doing this at the moment was by raising urgent questions, but that few are allowed in the Siambr. In India, selected Members are given one minute to air an issue at the start of Plenary proceedings - referred to as “zero hour”.

23. One suggestion for improving question time was to follow the Canadian example, whereby Members can table a request to recall a Minister at the end of the day if they are dissatisfied with the response given during question time.