Assembly and Executive Review Committee, Tuesday 12 May 2026

Added: 2026-05-13

[00:00:00]members and welcome to today's uh ARC committee meeting. I welcome those members that have now just joined us.

[00:00:06]Agenda item number four which is draft minutes. Uh can I refer members to the draft minutes of the meeting held on the 21st of April which are page 25 of the meeting pack. Can I ask are members content with the draft or minutes as noted? Members agreed.

[00:00:22]>> Thank you.

[00:00:27]Okay. Okay. Agenda item number five which is matters arising. I have none.

[00:00:31]Uh I'm going to the next agenda item.

[00:00:34]It's uh agenda item number six which is review into the assembly and executive reform oral evidence session with Owen Tennyson MLA. Could I seek agreement to have the oral evidence session recorded by Hansord in line with normal practice?

[00:00:48]Are members agreed?

[00:00:50]>> Okay. And I refer members to the secretariat memo at page 31. The following annexes at page 33 and 35 and 71. And at this stage, we will welcome Owen to our meeting.

[00:01:11]>> Okay.

[00:01:13]>> Morning.

[00:01:15]>> Thanks very much for uh coming in this morning. uh normal procedure whenever we've had other party leaders in this uh 10 minute or or around that opening pitch and then we can go to members questions. So this point I would like and to invite you to brief the committee. Thank you very much chair and to the committee for the opportunity to give evidence and what has been um as you'll be aware a long-standing campaign for the alliance party around the need for reform of the institutions. Um, it's fair to say that the Good Friday Agreement was an historic opportunity in that it created the conditions for peace and provided us with a framework for pragmatic win-win politics. Um, but the institutions designed in 1998 were were designed for a very different society to the one that we live in today. As our evidence notes, the 2022 assembly election returned a record number of MLAs who designate as neither nationalist or unionist. Um, and close to 40% of people in our society hold an identity that is not exclusively Irish or British. And yet our institutions remain structurally dependent on a set of binary designations and community vetos that no longer reflect the society that they're meant to serve. Um, our society has evolved and changed, but our institutions have not kept pace with that change. The ambition was um that if operated in good faith and in a spirit of goodwill, the very rigid structures that were set out in 1998 could change as our peace process evolved and as confidence was built in structures. And the failure to transform those institutions has resulted in a situation whereby the assembly has been suspended um for almost half of its existence. And even when it is up and running, I think we can all agree that it is too often characterized by deadlock and dysfunction. um with brinkmanship incentivized over cooperation with vetos elevated over consensus and collapse over continuity and it is undoubtable that that has caused real harm for communities and public services and our written evidence sets out a number of examples um of that. So, the Benoa review, your 10-year plan to transform our health service was set out in 2016, but Stormant um has been suspended for half of those 10 years. As a result, today, Northern Ireland has some of the worst hospital waiting lists anywhere um in these islands and with 500,000 um wait on a waiting list and only one in five people satisfied with the quality of local healthcare. Our economic strategy has been similarly fragmented between 2017 and 2024 due to collapse.

[00:03:42]We've had multiple economy ministers from different parties and three separate economic strategies. Um and that has undermined long-term planning um around uh productivity and economic inactivity. Um with that instability undermining our appeal for foreign direct investment. Um, regular suspensions also mean that we've been left without a program for government between 2015 and 2025 and without a multi-year budget agreed for the past decade. We've also seen mechanisms of the Good Friday Agreement which were intended to protect minority rights turned on their head and abused um to frustrate um issues where that was never the intention. So, for example, to oppose the introduction of marriage equality in Northern Ireland despite overwhelming support across the community. um to block vital public public health measures during the CO 19 pandemic, to block the creation of an independent environmental protection agency in this mandate despite agreement the new decade new approach and to stop the introduction of minimum minimum unit alcohol pricing despite widespread consensus across most of the parties and that constant cycle of stop government and ransom politics is eroding what little public trust remains in these institutions. poll published earlier this year suggested that over twothirds of the people that we represent collectively do not believe that storm is improving their lives. So the the question facing this committee chair in my view is not whether reform is necessary but what type of reform would work and whether we are willing to institute it. So the proposals set out in our democratic renewal paper last week are intended to deal with these issues and to transform our politics into something that is more open, accountable, stable and focused on delivery. um they set out clearly how we can remove the ability of any single party to hold either the executive itself or the business of the executive to ransom whilst upholding and defending the principles um and protections of the Good Friday Agreement at the same time.

[00:05:35]As you will have seen, our immediate proposals include amending the Northern Ireland Act so that if the largest um eligible party refuses to nominate a first or deputy first minister, that that entitlement would pass to the next largest party under DAT and that all ministries including the justice ministry should be allocated on that basis. Um second, we recommend replacing the current parallel structure model for measuring cross community support and I believe that is the least um effective measure of cross community support possible. um as it excludes cross community parties and replacing that with a weighted majority system of around twothirds of MLAs restricting the use of cross community votes um in the executive um and assembly and the petition of concern to those key issues pertaining um to issues like national identity, legacy and the constitutional architecture of the agreement as I believe was the original intent. Um and fourth placing the three meeting rule um which was agreed during fresh start negotiations on a statutory footing removing the ability of either the first or deputy first minister to indefinitely block items from the executive agenda in an anti-democratic fashion. In the more medium-term, we believe that the assembly must move to abolish the outdated system of designations, which requires MLAs to label themselves unionist, nationalist, um, or other in a way that I believe entrenches division right from the outset of any mandate and excludes the growing number of people who do not identify with either of the traditional blocks. Um, and also our proposals around weighted majority um, remove the need for those designations in their entirety. We also propose renaming the first and deputy first minister positions to joint first ministers as these roles are already co-equal in law and in practice the title should reflect um that reality.

[00:07:23]There is now a crucial window of opportunity. All parties in this assembly have at different points expressed support for some element of reform of the institutions but that reform cannot be left to the local parties alone. In December 2025, this assembly endorsed calls for an institutional reform process led by the two governments. Both governments as co-gar of the agreement have a duty in my view to lead and drive that reform.

[00:07:48]To argue for reform is not to undermine the agreement. It's simply to acknowledge that with the changes in our society and the fact that we have road tested the institutions almost to the point of destruction on numerous occasions that failure to reform is condemning the institutions of the agreement either to death by a thousand collapses or by a death of slow bleed of public confidence in their ability to deliver. I welcome that in recent weeks the secretary of state has set out that he wishes to engage with local parties about their proposals for reform of the institutions and look forward to engaging in that process. Um and there is now I think a window of opportunity ahead of the next election to grasp the potential for reform if people are willing to grasp it. And with that sir I will bring my opening statement to a close and I'm happy to take any questions.

[00:08:31]>> Okay. Thank you Owen. I go to Michelle Guy first.

[00:08:35]>> Thank you and thanks for being here. Um I'm going to just start by revisiting the line of questioning that I put to the former first minister Arlene Foster because I think it's really important um that we reflect the findings of an independent inquiry in this case the co inquiry in terms of the impact of assembly suspension and that was between 2017 and 2020. The inquir inquiry was very clear that the collapse impacted our pandemic preparedness and get that word out. And when the executive was restored and pandemic had begun, cross community votes played a role in blocking vital public health measures. I think that's absolutely damning and actually makes me angry even reading it out loud again today. So would you share my concern that some of our people here in Northern Ireland suffered worse outcomes and may even have died because of the combination of these factors?

[00:09:21]>> Yes, I do. And I think the co inquiry makes that abundantly clear. uh for years we have been in a position where largely it was the alliance party driving this conversation alone. We've then moved to a position where other parties right across the assembly have indicated support for other forms of reform of the institutions. Um and during the most recent suspension, we had a discussion with Chris Heaton Harris and he was very clear that if the co inquiry exposed that there were structural and institutional failings that that affected the ability of the executive to respond that the UK government would have to take that very seriously. So it's now not just a political call but the finding of an independent inquiry set up by the UK government um that cross community mechanisms and vetos were abused during the co inquiry. The inquiry found that um the response to the pandemic was marred um by political disputes, that decision-making was chaotic, um and that it failed to put the common interests of all of the people of Northern Ireland above the political interests of the two largest parties. And I think therein lies the fundamental problem that we have a system of government which prioritizes the rights and privileges and interests of the two largest parties ahead of the common interests of all of the people that we're there to represent. Um and I think the most egregious example of this during the co inquiry um was the executive meeting um to consider the implementation of a circuit breaker. Um and the health minister had taken advice from his officials and brought a recommendation to the executive to introduce such a measure. that then was vetoed um by one of the parties in the executive and gridlock unfolded where the executive meeting lasted for 4 days and no consensus could be found about a way forward and in the meantime we had members of the public and we had businesses crying out for certainty and leadership. So I I mean I've heard it argued that the structures aren't the problem and actually we just need parties to come um to meetings focused on building consensus and finding agreement. I think that is evidence that even when we are facing a crisis at a time when parties are incentivized and motivated to work together in the common interest of the people that we represent when issues of life and death frankly are on the table that the structures prevent us from finding that agreement and finding a way forward. Um, so I think it would be a dereliction of duty at a time when the UK government has that clear evidence of the impact that this had on a public health response not to look at how we can reform our institutions to ensure that we can improve our response should that situation arise in future but also recognize that these issues are not the preserve of times of crisis and they pervade our government at all times.

[00:12:02]>> Thank you. Um, I have a couple other questions here just quickly. So what impact do you feel that stop start politics and fragmented government has on our wider public services and our finances?

[00:12:14]>> Well um we're sitting here at the moment um first of all with no certainty that the assembly will still be here by the end of the mandate because it's as stable as it was before the last collapse. No certainty that there'll be an assembly after the next election. Um and we also have no budget and an ensuing financial crisis with no certainty for our public services. Um and that crisis that has built up in our public finances has developed over the past 20 odd years partially through austerity that's been pursued at Westminster but not exclusively. I think stopstart government has played a major role in that. So if you go back to the early 2000s, the sort of first suspension of the assembly, at that stage, the the the then labor government was making enormous investments into public services and the health service in particular, but opportunities for us to replicate that investment and take decisions around trans transformation were taken away from us. Um, we then fast forward to 2016. As I said in my opening statement, we had the Bingo review published with a 10-year road map for reform of our health service. The institutions collapsed a matter of months after that plan was published.

[00:13:24]And for five of the 10 years, we haven't had government overseeing that change.

[00:13:29]Um, and now in this mandate, again, we're facing a truncated mandate where where reform and change is limited. So we haven't had that sustained leadership that is necessary to do long-term reform of public services. There's also the issue around the incentive of parties to take risks and take difficult decisions around reform of our of our public services. So for example, I can point to two examples whereby the alliance party has taken genuinely transformational decisions within ministries. So reform of teacher training for example was vetoed. um proposals brought by David Ford during his time as justice minister were then subsequently reversed. So for as long as parties know that difficult decisions that they put in the executive table can be vetoed by their executive partners or blocked from getting onto the executive agenda um or that the assembly could be collapsed and an election fought off the back of that difficult decision. There's actually no incentive to transform our public services. Um there's also if you like um this Pavlov's dog mentality that has developed whereby politicians in Northern Ireland because of the structures are incentivized to elevate every political and financial issue into a crisis. So the sec there there is an issue of credibility where the NIO and Treasury will only engage where they feel that the institutions are on shaky ground and about to collapse and that effectively rewards bad behavior and incentivizes politicians in the assembly to threaten to use the vetos that exist to create instability in the institutions. I believe believe if we had reformed institutions those incentives would disappear and we would be more likely to get that kind of sustained engagement um upstream before those issues developed into wider crisis. Okay, last question then and linked to kind of how um these these um mechanisms can be abused. I suppose the petition of concern um how what is your assessment of how it's being utilized and what way do you think it still needs to be reformed?

[00:15:25]>> Well, the intention of the petition of concern clearly um was to protect minority groups in our society from discrimination. I don't think that that is disputed. Um and what we have seen since is examples whereby that has been turned on its head and abused to discriminate in my view against newly visible minority groups who perhaps weren't considered um adequately in 1998. So the most obvious example of that from my perspective is equal marriage where Poland would suggest there was widespread public support um for equal marriage right across our community amongst people who were unionist amongst people who were nationalist and amongst people who don't fit into either of those boxes. It's also an issue which wouldn't have had a differential impact on the basis of someone's national identity or constitutional aspiration. And yet we saw in 2015 a petition of concern deployed to frustrate that progress. So I think that's an egregious perversion of those mechanisms for a start. and I don't think it has delivered the kind of protections um that that that were intended. It has also been threatened um when we've been debating issues like for example the integrated ed education act in the last mandate um integrated education and support for integrated education was explicitly mentioned in the good Friday agreement. So it's clear that the intent was never that that would be threatened or weaponized to seek to prevent progress in that space.

[00:16:44]And to be honest, whilst I accept and support the need for minority protections within the structures, um I struggle to point to an example of where the petition of concern has been used appropriately or as intended. So our proposals are not actually about removing the petition of concern. We accept that there are situations in our politics and given our history um and our political makeup where a petition may well be necessary but what we are proposing is that should be limited to issues pertaining to um cultural identity um and constitutional arrangements within the assembly and the legacy of our past because it's clear that when the good Friday agreement talked about key decisions those are the kinds of issues that it was intended to deal with.

[00:17:24]>> Thank you Owen. Thank you chair.

[00:17:26]>> Okay. Thank you Matthew.

[00:17:27]>> Thank you very much. Thanks everyone for coming and giving us evidence and I think it's really useful that we're for us for political parties to engage on this stuff in this context where we're not kind of just sparring in the chamber or talking in the media. Um so I suppose first of all um uh just to say I think there's a lot of there probably a lot of overlap in terms of um things your party would say about improving institutions uh and our party not complete overlap but um but and but certainly a shared view on making progress in this area and the urgency of doing so. um your proposals, some of them are long-standing alliance proposals around um ultimately removing designation. I think lots of people uh looking at our institutions and our society see that as a um uh worthy and perhaps even admirable um end point, but they are concerned about not just in relation to designation the I suppose viability of agreeing that in the short to medium term. Do you have any and I think this was alluded to by either yourself or your party leader last week when you published proposals.

[00:18:25]Is there do you have any gradation of proposals that you think some are more achievable in the short term and others would take uh longer to agree because I think there's a just be helpful to give some sense of what we think is achievable in the short term.

[00:18:39]>> Yeah, absolutely. And we have in our democratic renewal paper graded them into immediate and what we call medium-term priorities. um and those immediate priorities for us are issues that we feel would improve the functionality and stability of the assembly but also issues where I believe there is a degree of commonality already among some of the parties um your your party included Matthew. So um in terms of our immediate priorities, we have said that executive formation needs to be a priority because I think that is the biggest public complaint. Um that there is no guarantee that following any election uh an executive will actually be established and our proposals to be absolutely clear are not radical in that they protect every party's right to be in government by virtue of their mandate. So it's not actually about excluding any party um but it's about removing the ability of one party to exclude everybody else from government.

[00:19:35]The second area of which is an immediate priority for us as I've mentioned is move into a system of weighted majority voting as a measure of cross community support and a version of weighted majority voting was referenced in the original Good Friday agreement. So again is not a radical departure um from what was said >> 23 >> it would be two/3s in our view and we believe that that is about ensuring that there is sufficient consensus in the assembly for key decisions in a way that does not discount the votes of genuinely cross community parties and others who don't designate in those terms at all.

[00:20:04]So for example, people before profit sign into the assembly as socialist, the Greens previously as environmentalist and ourselves as united community, but our votes are not counted on an equal basis to nationalist and unionist in the chamber. Um, and I think that is anti-democratic and it is treating a section of our community as secondass in a way that's unacceptable and must be rectified. I also think that would be vulnerable to legal challenge were we not to act on it in in the short term.

[00:20:28]Um we have also said that we would restrict the use of cross community voting to prevent abuse and that we'd put the three meeting rule on the um executive onto a statutory footing. So that kind of St. Andrews or Klandestine veto that the first and deputy first minister have by convention the the first ministers are only supposed to be able to defer issues for three executive meetings. In practice that doesn't happen and so there needs to be change there and we think those things would make a transformational difference for us. We do believe that in an increasingly pluralist and diverse society, we should move away from the system of of designation. Um, and that we should have joint first ministers.

[00:21:04]Um, in the very long term, I would love to see us move to a more normal system of democracy, but I accept that we're not at that point. So, we are optimistic that if we make the practical changes set out in the immediate term section of our paper that we can engender the kind of confidence in the institutions to start to take some of those longerterm transformational steps forward. What would you say to the argument and I suppose it's worth the asking argument I have made or a point I've made that alliance did get a remarkable man like got a remarkable vote in 20 or remarkable in a good vote and a remarkable increase in representation in 2022 and I think lots of people did um in a sense really put uh backed alliance to kind of disrupt the system I think that's fair to say um but then obviously there's a two-year collapse or two-year failure to form an executive and then when the executive was restored. I think people might have thought well given the alliance party has such a huge increase in its representation. It's now effectively a third a third leg if you like of the executive for the first time. There are you know the two big design designating parties and then there's the alliance party as a not a third wheel but a third force to and that that has a different meaning historically here but you know people will understand what I mean. Would it not have been a reasonable thing for the alliance party then to say our either we will not enter the executive without clear guarantees on assembly reform and executive reform or our participation in the executive will be timelmited i.e. if after 6 months or a year we do not um have delivery or some progress on executive reform because this is so fundamental to us we will leave the executive and go into opposition. Well, I think >> join us. I >> I think context is really critical. So in 2022, as as you say, we were in a period of stasis in the institutions. We then went two years without institutions. And I think what the public were demanding at that point in time was a government and they were less up for a debate about what the complexion or type of that government would look like. And so we believed it would be irresponsible frankly for us not to go in and put our shoulder to the wheel and do our best to make the institutions work within the current structures whilst arguing from within for change. I think that context is slightly different when you're moving from a position um where the executive has been operating for some time. I think you then start to have that conversation about what are the conditions around participation, what changes would we need to see, what progress would we need to see. However, I would dispute um the suggestion that there hasn't been significant progress.

[00:23:39]If you go back to 2016 um when we were eight MLAs in the assembly, we were told that this was a niche niche issue. It was captain for the alliance party. It was an academic exercise and that government wasn't interested in it. Um we then went away. We got bigger as a party and now this is a mainstream conversation. During suspension, government told us that now wasn't the time that you couldn't move the goalposts whilst the assembly was suspended. So, we said in good faith, we will go and we will we will make the effort against the institutions up and running to work them and to have this argument in parallel. As a result of that, the Irish government has shifted their position where they're in favor of an institutional reform process and indeed the secretary of state has suggested to party leaders that he wants to have a round of discussions. So I think there has been momentum and progress but if we feel that momentum stalls at any point then that would inform our decisions on the way forward.

[00:24:28]>> So I I mean and I would do this because you're you're arguing your party's influence. I'd argue for ours in opposition. I think we've and I wouldn't disagree that the alliance has been consistent on I would say us being in opposition and pressing other parties in the in the executive has also been part of why that shift has happened and I acknowledge there is more momentum around the discussion. It was the very first question I asked as leader of the opposition and we've been consistently present. I think that has contributed too. But I come back to this point and it is a genuine sincere not a gotcha is given you had that increased mandate in 2022 in 2024 would it not have been so for example you said that the public wanted to see an executive formed um that's certainly true um but I suppose they wanted to see it form and work and now their trust is even less than it was in 2022 and 2024 because they've seen dysfunction and lack of delivery and everything that we see every day up here. So why not for Naomi Long and indeed Andrew Mir yourself to say we will be in the executive for uh to to make sure to to get it up and running but our participation is contingent on delivery and that's what the public would see and want to see and if you don't get it frankly go into opposition because that's a that that is a legitimate choice and it's important to say your lack of participation in the executive would not have brought it down. So it's it's a different situation to shin well it's a different situation for Shinfi and the DP because if they if they resign if Michelle or Emma resign the executive collapses that doesn't happen if uh if the alliance had left obviously it's it's too late now for you to be the official opposition um remind you of that but should you wish to you can come to come and be the official opposition but why not simply say our participation is time limited and if we do not get this in the program for government which might have been an obvious because that was agreed about a year after you were in why not use that as the opportunity to say Thanks, but no thanks. We've tried. We're not going to take our substantial mandate into opposition.

[00:26:17]>> Well, because we feel that our participation in the executive and our engagements with both governments are resulting in progress and momentum around this conversation. Would >> that have been in opposition and you'd been >> I I not necessarily not necessarily um because we have seen for example in 2016 where we did take the decision as as you put it. We said that there should be some reform and if not we're going into opposition. in 2016 that didn't deliver the kind of change that we wanted and in fact I think only accelerated the collapse of the institutions because I think the DUP and Shinfen struggled in an executive where you didn't have alliance and other parties acting effectively as the meat and the sandwich and bartering between them. Um so this is a delicate balance but we we have set out at our conference recently that for us this is a delicate balance between what we can deliver um and the benefits associated with walking out of the executive and holding the D and Shinfi into account. But that's not a decision that we would take for example simply out of self-interest or simply to get our hands on an official opposition title or be driven around those deadlines. That is a decision that will be based on what we believe is best for Northern Ireland. Nor would I underplay um Matthew the risks associated around the Department for Justice because whilst Alliance leaving the executive doesn't automatically result in collapse, it may well result in a miniature crisis of the DUP and Shinfy and can't agree who would take up that ministry. So there is a very delicate balance and a very delicate line to walk on these issues.

[00:27:46]>> Brings on the question of of justice. I do think there's a specific question there. Lots of people think that the this strange anomaly whereby the justice ministry is carved out from the dant process is an example of dysfunctionality over here and they might say with all due respect to alliance's consistent position on um storm reform that actually that kind of places you in the middle of this kind of you've kind of gone along acquies to this dysfunctional kind of setup where people who for example happen to designate as nationalists and this isn't by the way you know this isn't just one party you know just so happens a guy called Alden McInness who you know experienced barristister was excluded from that post and uh what would you say to that that the exclusion of um it's true people talk about being excluded from office nations have been excluded from the justice ministry >> I don't think it's about acquiescence to the system I think it's about being pragmatic um and the reality is um that had alliance not been willing to step up and step into the department for justice then it's unlikely that we would have been able to successfully devolve placing and justice and I fundamentally ly believe those decisions are far better taken by local accountable ministers than by ministers at Westminster. I think that's been a positive thing for our society and a step towards normalization of our society. But I do think it is a journey.

[00:29:01]I think now almost 30 years on from the Good Friday Agreement that ministry should be into hunt like every other ministry and there should be no barrier to anybody with a mandate taking up that position. But to to be absolutely transparent about it, under the current structure, though I don't support the current structure, there is no bar on a unionist becoming justice minister or a nationalist becoming justice minister.

[00:29:23]It's simply a requirement that whoever the candidate is from whatever party can command sufficient cross community consensus right across the chamber and to date alliance is the only party who has commanded that confidence from all sides. Um so I support changing the structures but I think it's wrong to say that this has been some sort of um strategy by the alliance party to hold on to the portfolio. We're very proud of the work we've done in justice but we're not wedded to it and I think if somebody else is willing and ready to to step up and take that position that should be facilitated >> if you're coming you don't believe you're you're a party leader then that that uh the STLP and maybe other NASA need to I think in her her words were engage more constructively with unionists. Well, under under the current structure, you have to get the confidence of your partners right across the assembly in order to be elected to that position. That's just a reality.

[00:30:13]Now, I don't think that should be the system. I think the system should be on the basis of your mandate. You should be able to be nominated to that position.

[00:30:19]But that's just the reality of the system which was designed um largely by the SDLP and Austrian Unionist party in 1998 when it came to cross community votes because bizarrely in the election of a justice minister my vote and the vote of my alliance colleagues including the justice minister herself counts for less than yours um or other nationalists and unionists across the chamber.

[00:30:37]>> I suppose what what I'm saying is at times we end up in the situation where where we end up in kind of tor defending fairly tortured bits of the system which happen to work for a particular group.

[00:30:48]But but I acknowledge that there that there's a there are consistent positions on one final question from me um is uh in relation to um the the actual mechanisms for getting some of these things done. So um we have pressed the Irish and UK governments to so I mean our position is that there are certain that there are certain reforms which actually can be basically implemented by the British and Irish governments. Um and they don't really need a massive uh summit with cameras outside and they could make this place a bit more stable.

[00:31:20]Um and the concern might be that trying to do more than that. convening a multi-party talk system, which might be one for the medium term, simply just gives us all another reason to go into rooms and disagree with one another and and perform for the cameras. What would you say to that? Do you think there do you think the Irish and British government should move to implement some of this um uh before the election or do you think we should win? Do you think we should How do you think we should proceed? Well, I think we need to be cautious um about this because I mean I've heard some refer to the need for short sharp keyhole surgery. I I don't think keyhole surgery is appropriate when the patient is flatlining and in need of resuscitation. I think what we need is significant and radical reform. And the truth is in order to get agreement or sufficient consensus around what those reforms would look like, you are going to need a process of engagement with the parties first. I think that's just the reality of the position that we find ourselves in. were the UK government to rush ahead with very small tweaks. For example, wait a majority vote for the election of a speaker, you don't actually really improve the functionality of the assembly or the executive.

[00:32:25]>> You make it less likely that the whole place collapses in.

[00:32:27]>> Well, you end up you end up with the likelihood that you would have a zombie assembly whereby you have a speaker in place but no legislation and no policy being driven by ministers to scrutinize.

[00:32:37]So I think we do need a package of measures implemented in order to ensure that not only do we have a guarantee of stable government but that government can deliver.

[00:32:44]>> I might agree with a lot with with a lot of what you say in terms of endpoint and around designation and and and all of those major reforms that I think are now required and arguable. Isn't there a concern though if you put place everything on what you you know huge and substantial reform without staging some of it then you're effectively guaranteeing a big multi-party talks process probably after an election when the public gone out and voted and they then have this huge prolonged negotiation and you might have your ask my party might have my ass but you also have the DP probably with the donas and Jimmy Bryson tweeting every 5 minutes about rewriting border whole criteria and people chucking in other complaints and then the public just look on and think this is a complete joke. I just want uh you know and it discredits the thing even more. So what would you say that that would be one argument for staging reform implementing stuff to stabilize and ensure um uh to minimize the risk of short-term collapse and then you convene a longerterm process >> and and we have staged our proposals for reform. So for example, we have said that those issues around designation and around changing the titles of first and deputy first minister is probably a longerterm discussion given that there's not likely to be a consensus around the parties on those issues. And we have prioritized four key issues which we believe would be worthy of discussion with the two governments and the other parties. But we should avoid any temptation to window dress this. There is a window of opportunity of a year before the next election to guarantee that not only the people of Northern Ireland will have a government on the far side of that election and that government will sustain until then, but that that government will be capable of representing the society that we are rather than the divisions we inherited and it will be agile and able to deliver for them. And I think that is what's needed in order to instill public confidence. If the only guarantee that we can give the public after a reform process is that a speaker will be elected and that there will be a zombie assembly here with members traping in and out every day to knock lumps out of one another and poke each other in the eye, but it isn't actually capable of delivering anything, I think you're at risk of actually bringing the assembly and the executive into further distribute and damaging that process even further. So, we need reform, but it has to be the right reform and it has to be reform that will make a difference.

[00:35:05]Um otherwise I think we're robing public confidence altogether.

[00:35:08]>> Well I don't moving on.

[00:35:11]>> Yeah I'll my questions there. Thank you.

[00:35:13]>> Um when you you've put out an articulate case for how for the justice portfolio how alliance have demonstrated their ability to gain cross community support.

[00:35:22]Uh and that's through the mechanisms that are in place. Your party has often talked about the need for cross community consensus. Well, why should that not apply to who leads the executive going by your proposals?

[00:35:39]>> Well, it would in that every party whether they identify as nationalist or unionist or neither would have a guaranteed right to be in the executive either leading it or in executive ministries um by virtue of the mandate that is given to them by the public. Um and so I believe that everybody whether they are a nationalist politician, a unionist politician or don't identify as either of those should have a level playing field and should be protected equally. So we have a perversion in the system at the moment whereby we should not assume first of all that the DUP and Shinfane will perennially be the largest parties in the executive. If we're serious about a sustainable executive, we have to plan for all eventualities.

[00:36:22]We're in a position now where the alliance party if the largest party or any other party could be first minister.

[00:36:28]But if we come second, we are not entitled to the deputy first minister because of the absurdities of the designation system. Now I think that would erode public confidence if the second largest party in our society was deprived that opportunity. Um and so I think our proposals do enshrine a cross community executive um in that the executive would have to command majority support in the assembly for example in order to get things like budgets passed.

[00:36:51]would be weighted majority support in practice actually because that's a key decision. Um but again it removes the ability of any single party either to veto um progress in the executive or to veto formation of an executive itself.

[00:37:04]>> You you may be many things Mr. Tennis but you're not naive. You know the history of the agreement. You've studied it. You've articulated your paper quite concisely. But you know on first point the the chances of alliance becoming the largest party or the second largest party is probably for the birds when we look at the recent polling and we look at where the representation is at present. So that's one point. The second point I would add is that your proposals essentially say just that that essentially you believe that this place could govern by consensus if neither the largest nationalist party nor the largest unionist party chose not to occupy the position of joint government. And I would say that either that is particularly naive or you don't understand the history of what has been involved to get Northern Ireland to a point whereby power assuring government can exist. So could I ask what do you believe will be a achieved by a shared future if we can't govern by consensus and don't have both uh designations represented in the joint office. So, so the first thing to say chair is we were told we were naive to be to believe that Alliance could be the third largest party in a divided society and we broke through that barrier. So, I don't rule anything out. There's no ambition for me um on what the Alliance Party can deliver and achieve for Northern Ireland. But in relation to this issue of consensus, I think it's important that we knock this on the head at the outset because the word consensus appears in the Good Friday Agreement once. You wanted a history lesson, Char, I'll give it to you. Um and that is in relation to the operation of the British Irish Council. It says nowhere in the Good Friday Agreement that the devolved power sharing institutions would be required to operate by consensus. So that is a nonsense and we have never argued that there should be consensus.

[00:38:54]What we have said is that there should be sufficient consensus on those key issues that relate to legacy identity and constitutional issues because that was clearly the intent um behind the behind the agreement. Um and in terms of th this question um of of consensus chair I don't think that your party has a particularly good record with respect may I say because consensus requires that you treat your partners in government with respect and that you listen to the proposals that your partners in government put on the table and that you engage with those in good faith. And what we heard from the leader of the Democratic Unionist party last week was that he couldn't even be bothered to read the document that was put on the table by his partners in government. So what hope is there under the current system that consensus and cooperation could be built if that is the level of arrogance and contempt which is being displayed for partners within the executive. So this is about moving away from a system chair where effectively what we have is minority rule to a system where minorities are protected but not able to dictate the agenda of the assembly or the executive.

[00:40:04]And I think if you look at these proposals you will see that there is no differential impact for nationalists, unionists or others. It is about leveling the playing field and ensure that there are equal rights and protections for everyone in this assembly and everyone that we represent.

[00:40:18]But you also recognize that the power mandatory power sharing system of government that we have in Northern Ireland is in place for good reason. You understand that there is a need for parties of all traditions and none to have the ability to be represented in the executive. Now, what I what I what I want to put to you very very clearly, one of your proposals suggests that neither the largest nationalist party or the largest unionist party, if they chose not to be in those offices, it would then transfer to the next largest party.

[00:40:59]Do you genuinely believe that Northern Ireland could be governed without unionists or nationalist representation in a future executive? Given the history, given that this place operates on the basis that there are people with distinct different democratically held constitutional positions, distinct economic positions, distinct cultural positions and if a Northern Ireland assembly is to succeed in the future, it must ensure that all sections are represented in that executive. Is it not naive to believe that it could function without either of those two designations being in those positions?

[00:41:42]>> Do you believe that it could or should function to the exclusion of the other designation? Chair, >> the other designation is represented in the executive >> but we have the option to leave. Do you think that the executive could or should continue to function on that basis?

[00:41:56]Because this fundamentally comes back, chair, to the principle of equality and about the protections that are applied to nationalists and unionists applying equally to those of us who do not designate. And to to be clear and for the avoidance of doubt, I want the most inclusive executive. I want the largest parties of unionism and nationalism to be represented in that executive. But for as long as they have the ability to exclude everybody else from the executive, they will use the threat of collapse or collapse itself to further their own selfish interests and political agendas to the detriment of the wider public who want to see functioning and stable government. So what we are saying really clearly is that if either the DUP or Shinfane or any other party know that if they choose not to take up their position in the executive that it would pass to the next largest party. It's less likely that they would threaten to walk out. I also believe char that your party should have the same rights and ent entitlements as mine in respect of opposition. I believe in a democracy it is healthy that if a party doesn't agree with the approach um to things like program for government or the direction of an executive if a party needs time to rebuild and refresh its ideas um and renew its vision that it should have the opportunity to go into opposition and hold the executive to account. So this isn't about excluding anyone. It's about ensuring that there is equality in how we govern and ensuring that all parties have the same choice um to take up positions or refuse them as they see fit on behalf of their constituents.

[00:43:22]>> You've often referenced and indeed your party has that uh the cross community votes in the assembly are of something that is of particular worry to alliance representatives. Do you still hold to that position and if so why?

[00:43:34]>> Well, sorry, could you repeat that question? You've often said that cross community votes in the assembly and by means of it that the alliance votes do not count in the same way as their unionist and nationalist coals in the assembly. Do you still hold to the position that that is a major issue for the alliance party and if so why?

[00:43:52]>> Of course it is sure because I mean let's take the example of electing a speaker at the beginning of this mandate. You had over 70% of MLAs in favor of electing a speaker and getting on with the business of government. Now that is a similar margin that voted for the good Friday agreement in 1998 and yet it wasn't sufficient to elect a speaker and operate its institutions and I think it cuts to the core of this question chair that you have raised around um consensus because you seem to be implying that simply because the DUP don't agree with the proposition that that proposition can't proceed and the good Friday agreement is evidence that it can D was outside the door in 1998 arguing against these very arrangements ments which you are now professing to defend and in fact your party has gone further than alliance in advocating voluntary coalition in manifestos in 2004 2007 2010 2011 2015 2016 and 2022 so just to be absolutely clear our position has been consistent since 1998 yours with respect chair has not been >> you often talk in the assembly about how alliance votes count for less on the assembly lower. You often cite that position. How many times has a cross community vote in the assembly happened since its restoration in following in 2024?

[00:45:15]>> I don't have an exact number, but every time every time a budget has been brought to the floor, >> how many times >> the election of the justice minister?

[00:45:24]>> How many times?

[00:45:25]>> Every time a standards commissioner report has been brought to the floor of the chamber, >> every time a petition of concern has been deployed. I don't have a number, chair, but I've just given you a list of examples for those.

[00:45:36]>> So, out of the hundreds of votes in the Northern Ireland Assembly, you're citing probably in total less than 10 votes in the current mandate. But yet, your party want to continually manufacture the grievance that on every vote your votes count for less. POC. How many PC's has there been since the assembly was reestablished?

[00:45:57]>> I believe there's been one in this mandate. were they were floating around the executive and the assembly like confetti between 2011 and 2015?

[00:46:05]>> What happened? What happened post that?

[00:46:09]>> Was there was there reform of the petition of concern?

[00:46:14]>> Yes, it was. It's limited that only two parties could trigger it, but it is being abused.

[00:46:19]>> I would put it to you, Mr. Tennyson that it is also your party's poor performance in both polling and performance in the assembly that has led you to now pre-manufacture certain crisis points within the institutions particularly around cross community votes in the assembly PO of which we know there is only a handful and the total number of votes in the assembly. You want to spend more time talking about these particular points rather than actually delivering in a cross community consensious way within the assembly. You mentioned at the start of your briefing a number of executive papers in which your party have been unable to get through the executive.

[00:46:57]Could I ask why is it that alliance ministers seem to struggle more than any other department or minister represented albeit there is some papers that won't find cross community concerns but your party seems to have a particular issue with getting them through the the executive. Is it a relationship problem >> ourselves and the olster unionists? I mean first of all chair to paraphrase think sometimes equality feels like oppression to those who are used to privilege within the current system and that has certainly been the case. I think you would be a gasast if on 10 or more occasions your vote as a unionist politician was discounted or if I argued that that was acceptable and all I'm asking for all I'm asking for it wasn't discounted accounted equally on the same basis as everybody else which which proves which proves my point sir and that you're not satisfied with being treated on an equal basis as everybody else to come to this table and argue that not just my vote but the votes of the people that I represent should count less than yours simply because I do not do not designate as nationalist or unionist I find absolutely appalling and completely indefensible and would not be tolerated in any other democracy. You've asked is there a particular issue though with alliance ministers getting papers through the executive. I don't think it's simply the preserve of alliance. I think the ultra unionist party have had some of the same challenges and that is because there is a two-tier system within the structures where the DUP and Shinfane have disproportionate rights and privileges. So for example, if the DUP and Shinfane um have blocked one another's papers from getting on to the executive agenda, there is a power dynamic there whereby they can barter and negotiate and horse trade to lift their vetos from the table and allow business to continue. The Olter Unionist Party and the Alliance Party don't have that power. They don't have those vetos.

[00:48:41]There's nothing to horse trade. There's nothing to barter over. We simply have the power of persuasion. And so that's why we have seen for example an independent environmental protection agency which by the way there was consensus for a new decade new approach and your party resiled from that being blocked despite sufficient support within the assembly. Issues like minimum unit pricing which a previous DUP minister actually proposed suddenly blocked because the DUP changed its position. So it when it comes to con to two issues of consistency and consensus and good faith, you have to have a partner that's willing to act with goodwill and in good faith and keep their word when agreements are made. And repeatedly we have seen that that doesn't happen in the current party able to garner cross community consensus to reference an earlier point from Matthew.

[00:49:24]You know Naomi said in the chamber that she was able to get on with unionists and nationalists and therefore to command the cross community support to occupy the office. Why are you not able to find consensus in the executive? I mean the consensus that's needed around the executive table is give and take.

[00:49:41]There are issues in which we will agree with and there's issues that we won't but it's trying to act in the collective good. What we see happening now on a regulara o occurrence is a distraction from what appears to be alliance ministers failure to deliver on their particular h mandates and their particular portfolios and therefore manufacturing grievances whether it's on petition of concerns what is which has only been deployed once since there was reform uh cross community votes in the assembly of which there is a minority compared to the majority of voting but not whenever we talk to members of your party who tried to present that on every vote their vote counts less than other members. That's simply not the case. And as for papers in the executive, perhaps if there was a more co collegiate way of working and a more and an ability for alliance particular ministers to convince those of different designations to buy into whatever the proposal is to make compromise were appropriate and try to move forward in a collective spirit.

[00:50:40]is perhaps where their attention should be best placed rather than ripping up some of the safeguards and protections which are vital to par sharing.

[00:50:48]>> I I have set out well first of all we aren't ripping up safeguards and protections. So as I have set out the ability to trigger a weighted majority vote through the petition of concern would still be available to everyone nationalists unionists and neither. The right of parties to be represented in an executive and to have that choice would be protected so no one could be excluded. So it's not true to say that we were removing minority safeguards. We reforming how they would work to ensure that they're returned to their original purpose, but we're not removing them. In terms of that dynamic, I think I've set out very clearly that the DUP and Shinfian have leverage in the executive that we do not. But I would put it to you, chair, when it comes to the creation of an independent environmental protection agency or the introduction of um minimum unit alcohol pricing or the introduction of a green growth strategy.

[00:51:39]What compromise would you like to get those issues even just onto the executive agenda? The executive if it goes on the executive agenda and the executive decides that it's a bad idea, that is a democratic decision. What is not democratic and what is clandestine um and in bad faith is for the first or deputy first minister without even a discussion at the executive table to prevent papers being tabled. I don't think that's acceptable. That's not how you would run a parish council chair where issues just sit um in an inbox not being addressed. I mean Andrew Mure has had to maintain a spreadsheet of issues.

[00:52:14]Not that he hasn't got agreed because I accept you have to work with colleagues in government to seek agreement. he can't even get it onto the table to ask for that agreement and make the case. So that's not sustainable in terms of our record. I mean the minister had conversations with his ministerial colleagues >> on an ongoing basis. I think he's he's spoken to some of his colleagues until he's blew in the face. But whilst those vetos exist, there's no incentive for them to negotiate in good faith and to reciprocate. I mean I have one member saying that I should precipitate some kind of crisis by coming away from the executive and I have another saying that I'm seeking to distract. The truth is that we're working constructively within the structures that exist, but we also recognize the limitations of those structures and are setting out a case for them to be reformed to maintain the protections for everyone to ensure people are treated equally, but to ensure that we have a government that is agile and can actually deliver the change that people in Northern Ireland voted for and not be frustrated for selfish party political interests.

[00:53:05]>> And it doesn't seem that it will have consensus at this meeting today. So, thank you Mr. Tennyson. I'll now to the next member which is Shen Dennis.

[00:53:14]>> Thank you chair. Um so I suppose to say unlike Catherine Robinson I did read alliance proposals.

[00:53:19]>> Thank you.

[00:53:20]>> Um and from a shinpane perspective I think there's a lot of uh common ground contained within your proposals with your your party's proposals um that I think we can uh we we can work together on. Um and I suppose just just to say because I hear Shinfi's position misrepresented an awful lot on the media. um that we will be announcing our own uh uh position paper in terms of reform. Um we have engaged um collegiately with this members of this um committee and with others when when the um issue has come to the assembly floor. So um our position is that we're up for doing reform and we have said that consistently um and that is our position. So I I think in terms of your own document there's as I said there's a lot contained within it that we would share common ground. Um and I think that will become apparent uh whenever we uh whenever we go public with our own proposals on reform. Um ju just to pick up uh something the chair said there if the DP are now advocating a more collegiate um uh approach to executive and assembly perhaps they want to start demonstrating that themselves um before they start pontificating to others. And in terms of uh just picking up the line of question from Matthew Tul um I don't think it's helpful to uh propose this type of uh brinkmanship that you hold reform the issue of reform over the you know whether you're in an executive or whether you're not h because I think we've seen since the assembly has returned in 2024 the issue has gathered momentum and it's gathered pace and it's gathered interest and that's because we're all around the table. We're not shouting from the sidelines in terms of it. are all around the table and everybody and everybody um realizes that this is an issue. We're almost 30 years since the good party agreement was signed and for anybody to be advocating um that we don't that these institutions and how we operate them should not uh be updated be modernized uh that we shouldn't keep pace with with how society has changed I think is is to use somebody else's phrase earlier for the birds. Um so just to set that uh out at the outset. Um as I said I did read alliance proposals um last week uh and as I say I agree with a lot of them. the the the only you do mention in in your reform document um about removing the election uh the veto sorry in terms of the election of a speaker um I think where I would like to see that maybe expanded further and I'd be interested to hear your take on it one um is around more greater accountability for the speaker um because under the current standing orders decisions made by the speaker are final and cannot be challenged and we have seen where decisions by by this speaker have have impacted on legislation um on amendments that that have been uh have not been brought forward. Um and I think just if we're we're talking about inspiring greater confidence in these institutions and how decisions are made, I think I I certainly would like to see um maybe looking at international best practice, how we increase the accountability and transparency of the decisions that are made by the speaker. Yeah.

[00:56:21]>> Um, so I know you you mentioned the speaker and the role of the speaker in your proposals, but maybe just your thoughts on how we can um increase that aspect of it.

[00:56:28]>> Yeah. Know it's it's a good point and obviously I don't want to stray into the territory of discussing any decisions made by the current speaker um because that wouldn't be allowed by the rules of the assembly. But in general, um I think first of all the appointment process for the speaker is really critical because at the minute effectively again like on so many other key decisions you have a veto at the hands of either one of the two largest parties and so often in good old Northern Ireland fashion when we're coming back after a period of suspension. Um there isn't much negotiation that happens about who will be speaker. It's sort of one of the two main parties will put up a nominee and that is the decision that is made. So by actually reforming that process and moving to a weighted majority system um I think it makes it more competitive um in terms of who might be eligible to become to become speaker and that ingrains a culture of accountability in terms of the quality of speakership that we get because I think accountability matters for the speaker as much as it matters for ministers and for assembly members in the chamber. Um I think one of the things that could be done um to improve some of the transparency around speaker's decisions um is a more detailed log of the decisions and conventions that are actually made because I know even just as an individual member of the assembly I struggle to follow sometimes the conventions and decisions that have been made historically and whether or not those have been challenged or changed.

[00:57:48]Um and also transparency with whips in the assembly about the nature of the advice that is being received from officials um or even if that was being shared more widely with deputy speakers for example um to ensure that there is at least some transparency about that process without in any way enabling a culture of challenge to the speaker which I think would also be would also be difficult. Um the the other issues um more broadly around accountability relate to things like motions of no confidence where it's actually a very high threshold for the assembly to express that it doesn't have confidence because of the inherent freedoms that exist. And so I think all of those changes would change the culture around the speakership and make the process more competitive and different mandates.

[00:58:25]>> Would you like to see the the speaker having to issue um you know a short note in terms of explaining his decisions around certain the decision-m process around certain decisions that he is?

[00:58:35]Yeah, I I I think that would be helpful some explanation around the basis on which decisions are being made. I also think it it instills members confidence in the decision-m process. So you're less likely to have examples where there are angry exchanges through members stray into territory of challenging the speaker if they're informed in more detail about the rationale and conventions behind why the speaker has arrived at the position he has. So yeah, I'd be entirely comfortable with that and I think it would improve the processes.

[00:59:00]>> Thanks speaker and thanks for your time today and your proposals last week were very interesting. Thank you Shen and Michelle.

[00:59:06]>> Thank you chair. Can I ask how do you propose to work with unionists in order to bring about reform? And I asked that because I get the impression that it's really it seems to be your plan to lecture us into compliance because today it really the attitude has been and the tone and rhetoric has been rather patronizing and condescending.

[00:59:31]>> I I don't share that analysis at all. I think so. First of all, if you look at opinion polling around both confidence in the assembly and the executive and indeed support for removing some of the blockages over executive information, there is widespread support from across our community. So I think it's unhelpful to try and sectarianize this when actually I think the public are far ahead of politicians on these issues. I would also say gently that I represent many people who are unionist and would identify in that way as a cross community party. There are people who are both pro- union um but pro- reform of the institutions and who believe in stable um political structures who believe in prioritizing things like reconciliation and integration. So we should shy away from that very simplistic narrative. But we have said I mean first of all many of our proposals Michelle are somewhat influenced by either complaints that the D have made in the past or issues that they've put in previous manifestos. So I've already listed a number of D manifestos over successive elections where you have committed to quite radical reform of the institutions and I think it's regrettable that that common ground has eged away because it's no longer in your interest to argue for it. I think that's unfortunate. So there was previously common ground and you have resided from that. Um, and I also believe fundamentally that it is in all of our interests, those who are unionist, those who are nationalist, and those don't who don't fit into either of those boxes to have functional, stable institutions providing sustained leadership focused on improving people's lives and not beset by some of the vetos and dysfunctions that we've experienced. Um, and so I don't see any disadvantage for anybody around this table by having that conversation. We've said really clearly that it's important that all parties are involved in talks and I I would hope that the DUP would be willing to take up their seat at that table to engage and and share their views and that both governments as co-gar of the agreement would lead and drive that process in order to engender confidence in them.

[01:01:25]Um, and I will welcome the opportunity, Michelle, um, if your party does come forward with proposals for reform in the near future to read those and to engage with those seriously. Um, because unlike your leader, I do respect the views of my unionist colleagues in this assembly and I would be very very happy to engage and critique and analyze and discuss whatever the DUP puts on the table.

[01:01:46]Can I ask about your the case that you you're making for limiting the use of petition of concern uh and particularly around the themes and issues which you've identified which also include identity national identity. Can I ask where in the Belfast agreement um do you garner the evidence for this interpretation of petition of concern?

[01:02:10]Well, when you read strand one of the Good Friday Agreement, um it it clearly talks about key decisions of the executive, it lists some of those, but it is not um a comprehensive list. Um and I think it is clear when you look at the issues that are dealt with throughout the agreement. um that the intention behind th that that mention of key decisions is that it would deal with issues that are relevant to our particular history and culture and political setup. So issues that are unique to Northern Ireland like the legacy of our past like issues of identity and culture like issues such as the institutional arrangements here arrangements here at Stormant and in the assembly. I see no coherent or cogent argument, nor do I believe it was foreseen in 1998 why that should extend to other day-to-day issues that parties just simply ideologically are opposed to that have no relevance to our past or the peace process. So I think that should engender again some confidence that we're not saying that we would remove the safeguards. We're simply saying that we should remove the opportunity for people to abuse those safeguards. Um and as I say, we're very happy to and open to discussing with other parties what exactly the threshold for triggering that should be. We've put a proposal on the table and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss others views on what what exactly that threshold should look like.

[01:03:30]>> So it's your interpret interpretation of intention. Okay. So um can I ask is it your view that language falls into the category of national identity?

[01:03:44]>> It falls into cultural issues certainly.

[01:03:45]Yes. Um and those are issues of particular sensitivity in Northern Ireland. But I think it we would move to a position therefore where for example vetos in the executive around those issues would be removed so they could come to the executive. Um and also that issues could be dealt with on the floor of the assembly on a weighted majority basis rather than single parties having a veto unlike the current situation where if one party disagrees with the policy they can block it. You would have to build a consensus for a position across the assembly chamber. Um so I think that actually incentivizes cooperation and negotiation over those issues rather than the current position which is effectively if you support the status quo you don't have to speak to anybody else and you can just freeze the situational aspect. So as I say yes I think it would a cultural issue that would fall within the opaces of that youth. Um but as I say it would remove the ability of a single party to block progress on the issue.

[01:04:43]>> Okay. So you you you've you've identified that it that it is um an issue that um should be looked at and not those those that situation. However, how could my community trust Alliance to honor that given your endorsement of a 15% threshold for dual language signage in Belfast?

[01:05:03]>> Well, that first of all, Michelle, as you will know, is a misrepresentation of the position. So in Belfast City Council the threshold for an application process to be triggered and considered by the committee is 15%. But in practice when those papers come to the committee alliance has taken a position that there should be majority support for applications to be erected. And in terms of confidence um of people out there from unionist backgrounds mean many of them have moved to the alliance party over recent election cycles. Now I'm not complacent that that will continue but ultimately it is a decision for the electorate about who they return to the assembly to represent them. And I think that should be respected by all parties um irrespective of the system that we have and currently that isn't the case because where we have huge majorities of people in favor of progressive social change in favor of things like workers rights and and other things there's often a risk that that can be frustrated by a by a minority party. And I mean your own your own former leader said that he didn't believe um that a party representing maybe 25% of the people should be able to hold government to ransom. I agree with them. So, as I say, my my position is consistent. There is a degree of consensus with things that the DUP have said in the past. It's just unfortunate that the position your party has taken hasn't been.

[01:06:17]Finally, from me, um, so you've talked about polling and how that substantiates the need for change in in your mind, but do you apply the same litmus test for polling that shows that alliance ministers are the most unpopular ministers within the executive? Do you apply do you apply the same rationale which suggests that among unionist voters in the same polling that you're talking about suggests that they have the lowest confidence in the alliance ministers? How does that stack up with your other evidence to suggest that polling shows that we should go ahead with reform? And do you not accept that when it comes to enjoying unionist support that many people view the proposals that you have on the table as an attempt not for fairness or progress but an attempt to rig the system to your own ends?

[01:07:09]>> Well, if I'll take that point first, chair, if we wanted to simply put proposals on the table that were in the selfish interest of the alliance party, we wouldn't have come with this paper. I would have come to this committee today and I would have argued that the alliance party should have the same vetos and the same entitlements as the DUP and Shinfen and whilst that might increase our leverage around the executive table I don't believe it would create more agile and more effective and more efficient government to have more vetos at the executive table so instead we have come with a paper which very clearly and I would welcome the public reading it levels the playing field for all parties because it may be difficult for you to comprehend chair but some politicians do act out of the public interest and not always by selfish party political interest. In terms of the issues around polling, I haven't said that the reason that we should do this is because of polling figures. I've said it demonstrates a a feeling and an atmosphere within the electorate. The test of that will be in elections. But what I have said is that this is now an inarguable case. If you're in a position where you don't have government for almost half of the time, if when you do have government, it can't function and deliver well. and the democratic will of the people we represent are being frustrated then we are in a very difficult space and that should be a wakeup call for all of us who believe in devolution. The people we represent deserve better than a choice between bad government or no government at all and this paper sets out a pathway for good government if collectively we're willing to grasp it. So if at the subsequent election the alliance party drop in its representation which is the the cross community party selfd designated by yourself does that diminish the need for the reforms that you've suggested within your paper I >> I don't believe it does and the reason I say that is because we are now not the only party who are making these arguments we've already heard at this committee today the SDLP have previously set out proposals the olster unionists previously um have made warm siren dinks about the need for reform shinfane are due to publish a paper. So there is a consensus on a cross party basis that is building. Um and I think the case frankly chair has been won. The question now is do we have a willingness to grasp this nettle and to institute those reforms and changes. Um and I think there is a real window of opportunity for us to do that over the next year.

[01:09:23]>> Yeah. Well listen thank you very much Mr. Tennyson for giving us your time quite extensively and for answering the questions that were put to you. We much appreciate that and we will now move to our next stage. Before I do so, could I seek agreement to add the submission from Owen Tennyson to the reform review evidence base? Members content. Content.

[01:09:40]Thank you. Thank you.

[01:09:42]>> Okay. Members, I know we are racing on.

[01:09:44]We now have uh another session uh which is an oral evidence session from John Burroughs. Could I seek agreement to have the oral evidence session recorded by Hansard in line with normal practice?

[01:09:56]Members agreed. Agreed. Yeah. Okay.

[01:09:59]Welcome John if we could members we just now are on court in case >> no pressure thank you very much John okay members uh can I thank John for attending uh today's uh session uh we are running a wee bit overtime but John the normal procedure for this is obviously we give you an opportunity to outline your position up to 10 minutes and then we go from question for questions and answers from members. So over to you.

[01:10:35]>> Thank you chair. Um I will start with something of of an introduction. I think there is a general perception in the community that storm our executive our assembly is underperforming. Uh I use the phrase it was designed to exist as opposed to excel.

[01:10:55]devised at a time to get people around the table where that was seen as in itself a massive achievement and yes it was. But does it deliver the optimal form of government for the people of Northern Ireland? Well, I think eight out of 10 people would say no and there's some opinion polling that underines that. The challenge for me is how do we get it to be more efficient, more effective, more stable, have more scrutiny, more accountability, more proper effective opposition, and ultimately higher quality legislation.

[01:11:30]Now, in terms of what changes I think could be made, I know this debate gets very toxic in Northern Ireland because we have a still a zero- sum game where someone thinks if a reform is taking place, it has to be to someone's constitutional advantage and disadvantage.

[01:11:49]Um, I don't see reform that I am advocating to be in that realm at all.

[01:11:53]I'm looking at operational reform largely to make this place more efficient. Let me start with one piece though that is I suppose uh more of a headliner. I do believe it is time to change the office of first minister deputy first minister to a joint first minister title. I think it reflects two things. One that they are that is the most accurate description of the title.

[01:12:14]We know that the first minister can't post a letter without clearing it with the deputy first minister. Um but second of all and I think we can all be honest about this.

[01:12:27]Whoever is in the position of being the biggest two parties when it comes to election time, the narrative comes out, vote for us to stop the other side getting first minister.

[01:12:38]Only we can stop that and that works uh for both the largest two parties at any given time. I think that has a polarizing effect on our politics and I think it would be better to take that out of the equation.

[01:12:52]I think and I don't have all the answers to this because a lot of this is not going to be delivered by a committee.

[01:12:57]It's going to be delivered by parties sitting down and talking is looking at what changes are required to make sure that we cannot have a collapsed executive again. I I take a view that government is important. It's important to people's lives. It is unthinkable that Westminister would simply say, "Well, we're going to collapse. we're not going to have a government. And I think we need to have the same position here in Northern Ireland. I think on a political level, it actually plays into the hands of those who say that Northern Ireland is a field state, which I do not believe it is, that it is ungovernable and unworkable when you don't have uh an effective and functioning uh executive.

[01:13:39]I think it also lets the people of Northern Ireland down because what we do here matters as we've seen recently with the passing of sign language bill.

[01:13:48]the third issue. So that's about how do we avoid that um collapse.

[01:13:54]I think there is merit in looking at the position of speaker and electing it on a twothirds majority instead of having two sides of the community both having 50% uh plus vote. I don't think the public will particularly be aware of this issue, but I think anything that tries to normalize this somewhat uh is is useful.

[01:14:17]I think and I would say in these headlines, we do need to keep cross community protections in place broadly.

[01:14:23]We we need to make sure that the community has confidence both sides of the community that they will have uh representation and fair treatment. Um but I think when I actually strip down to the nuts and bolts of this and I observe this as follows.

[01:14:45]We spend a huge amount of time dealing with things like non-binding motions.

[01:14:51]They are brought in by parties, including parties in the executive. And of course, all parties currently have a pick, but the public sometimes are unaware that we spend hours upon hours debating non-binding motions. We have a a vote on it. The minister's time is taken up. The staff at Hansard are recording things. There's a cost to it and it has no meaningful impact. And yet you will also find that we spend precious little time on legislation.

[01:15:23]Too little time spent legislating and too much time spent debating non-binding motions which could be held in a six form debating society. That needs to be fundamentally addressed.

[01:15:34]I think we need to fundamentally address the uh level of scrutiny that the assembly provides to ministers.

[01:15:42]I think the 45minut question time is is insufficient.

[01:15:47]You have 30 minutes uh of questions where the minister gets the answers in advance. I think it's two weeks in advance. Often by the time the minister goes to answer it, the issue is moved on. You've got an answer elsewhere. So I think could we tweak that somewhat? But then I look at the topical questions and I think well actually there's only 15 minutes of topicals. Could that be expanded to 30? Would that provide more scrutiny?

[01:16:14]Are the tweaks to provide to allow more supplementary questions? I just think that time that a minister is in front of the uh assembly we could be doing more scrutiny. And then very broad brush.

[01:16:27]And this is broad brush because I think ultimately this is going to have to be worked out by people sitting around the table trying to work it out.

[01:16:35]We need a proper opposition. You we have an opposition by default. Um we have the leader of the opposition uh here. U but of course the SDLP are the opposition because they didn't get enough votes and and seats to get into the executive.

[01:16:49]They may of course have opted for opposition, but here's the reality. one more seat than us. John, >> well, we'll come to that in a minute.

[01:16:56]>> Yeah.

[01:16:57]>> Here's the reality.

[01:16:59]>> We do not have a vigorous, well-resourced opposition. I would like to see us get to the point where we're more like a normal government where you actually have shadow health minister, shadow education minister. They have the resources and the access to information to really give an alternative to the public. So, these are the kind of reforms that I'm looking at.

[01:17:20]And a lot of the other reforms you'll have is is amend this, amend that. I think we need to actually start with a blank sheet of paper and acknowledge this. We spend our time dealing with what's happening in Gaza and yet we have an infrastructure system here where the uh sewage systems at capacity. You cannot build homes.

[01:17:40]Businesses cannot expand.

[01:17:43]And yet we are spending our time debating what happens in Gaza, Venezuela, Iran. I think it's appalling we spend our time so much of it is wasted. Member statements are basically a soapbox. Yes, they can be useful. You add into that other things, the matters of the day, urgent orals. So much of our time is actually not spent dealing with the underlying major issues of our time in this country. Economic inactivity, regional imbalance.

[01:18:16]And I think we need to reflect that we need a fundamental change. So I just draw back to the end of my evidence and that is I think equalizing the title of joint and first minister looking at how we can try and ensure that the assembly cannot be collapsed bit of normalization around the election of a speaker on a twothirds majority and and not needing both uh communities and then looking at the operational issues around the format of the assembly how long we get to scrutinize ministers having an effective and fully resourced opposition And finally, actually doing far less talking shops on non-binding motions and all kinds of ideas and actually spending more time scrutinizing legislation, holding ministers to account and dealing with the big iss.

[01:19:04]>> Okay. Thank you, John. So just to summarize obviously from from my point of view uh in relation to the structural change um you'd like to see change of the office to joint FM uh in terms of avoiding collapse but no suggestion but open to suggestions essentially and how that could be achieved. Uh election of speaker and a twothirds majority of the assembly and cross community protections to remain in place. A lot of your second half of your presentation was focusing on operational plenary issues in terms of scrutiny in terms of how it's formatted. H question times that that's in summary. Um could I ask you so the D secured fundamental reforms to the Belfast agreement centers which in our view positively changed the nature of the institutions. So these include requiring ministers to bring all major decisions to the executive for approval, requiring a minister to take a pledge of office to support the police and ensuring north south cooperation and decisions were accountable to the executive. Do you believe that these protections should be conceded or eroded?

[01:20:10]>> Well, I mean it's clear to me that um a commitment to supporting the police is is absolutely essential. Um that's thankfully we now have at least a statement that we support the police. Um putting things in the executive table. I I think the the issue that we need to work around is the ability of the first minister and deputy first minister as it stands to veto something on the executive table. I just think that needs some thought. Uh there has been legislation that has not been debated in the chamber. uh for that reason >> um and these things need teased out.

[01:20:52]>> I suppose the central point was the position was to ensure that there was no solo run by a particular minister h and that it would bring all those decisions to the executive for approval. Is that something you would want to see continue or conceded or eroded via?

[01:21:08]>> Yeah. And and you put it as a binary and that's what I've said in this that what what we need is is to look fundamentally at how this assembly and this executive works because there has to be a better way of doing it than we currently are doing it.

[01:21:22]Um so clearly you don't want solar runs but actually if we can develop a wider system that allows more collective almost like cabinet responsibility that's where I see us going towards a functioning opposition. So you actually see collective cabinet responsibility you wouldn't have those solar runs at at the minute. It sometimes feels like you have individual ministers within their own parties and they're almost operating uh in silo.

[01:21:53]Now that's probably because of the nature of our government. This sort of if you like mandatory coalition I'm not saying we we throw it away but I'm saying we need to look back and go to a blank sheet of paper and say how can we make that more like a collective cabinet responsibility. How can we make it that you have then a fully effective uh and functioning opposition? These are things that one party can't come up with the solutions to. We need to sit down and say the current system is not ideal.

[01:22:20]It's suboptimal and it needs to improve.

[01:22:22]>> Would your position be that we don't have an effective opposition uh arrangements within the assembly at present?

[01:22:28]>> No, we don't. Um that's not a criticism of Matthew and his party, but we need to attract people to opposition so that you actually have larger number of people in opposition. I mean look nearly everyone's in government except the SDLP and the TUV which is one member.

[01:22:50]So by number game that is not an effective opposition. Their access to resources is not sufficient.

[01:22:58]Whenever you look at and I do think we should have for example shadow justice minister, shadow health minister, shadow education minister, a a symbol of that opposition who galvanize and leads on those issues who is there actually across the dispatch box if you like um holding the minister to account. um not just having all the backbenches if you like doing that. So we need to actually look at other assemblies, look at uh Westminster and how do we emulate that stronger accountability, that stronger delivery.

[01:23:34]Um and I go back to the point you talk about solar runs. There's virtually not an issue in our society that isn't combining a number of different uh departments. I mean you look at education well early years sits with health vitally important for the education. Education then goes into the economy because you end up with further education and skills sits under apprenticeships sits under the economy portfolio. So you need to have then you add in special education needs. Health education and the economy actually working together. But are they currently working in silos? Is that a stitched together proposition for government or is it three different ministers potentially from three different parties working three different directions?

[01:24:20]>> You mention about the ineffectiveness or soapbox style of member statements, matters of the day, um non-binding motions, all of which your party do partake in as is custom for all parties to take part in. Is it your position that we should not have those mechanism by which elected representatives can er their views on given matters or matters of urgency of the day? I think you mentioned in an earlier point when it comes to question time for example you submit somewhat near two weeks in advance by the time it gets to the issue could be away. Um I know you've taken the opportunity as have I to use those matters member statements in particular and matters of the day to probe and have your view heard on those particular issues. Do you have a view on whether it's how would you reform that to me?

[01:25:04]>> I think they're they are useful. Um and look like yourself chair I probably do as many member statements as anyone. Um I'm probably up there. So where there's a mechanism I'll utilize it to get the voice. The question is is it the most optimal use of of Storm's time the public's time. This is the public purse.

[01:25:24]So our it's the first half an hour a day to member statements and remember we actually start what is it at 12:00 on a Monday you know by half 12 12:35 you got member statements over you might have then um a member state uh matter of the day that comes before it I sometimes look at my watch and we haven't actually got much done 2:00 um so I don't rule out member statements I think there's a there's a rule for them I think there's rule for all those mechanisms but But when I look at it in the accumulation in the round, we spend a lot of time on a soap box, but not a lot of time legislating. Now, you can crunch the the minutes. If if I were to ask for and I I try to get figures from this the the library, how many hours in the last two years have been spent on non-binding motions? How many hours are spent in legislation? I I guarantee you it's probably 10 to one.

[01:26:19]>> Yeah. But also >> that can't be right.

[01:26:20]>> Yeah. But also, as it is the case with every democratically elected chamber, legislation often comes towards the end of a mandate because there's the chance to prepare and obviously goes through processes whether it's through executive bills or private members bills, then committee scrutiny, then assembly scrutiny. Uh so in theory, uh what you would see is essentially that balance tipping the other way. Now, as we work towards the last year of the mandate where you would like to assume that the majority of time in the assembly, we've already started to see that change is focused towards legislative scrutiny rather than non-binding motions. Well, yes, uh there is something in that, but I still think the balance is wrong.

[01:26:59]There's a lot of secondary legislation that could be uh looked at in the first part of the mandate. uh our our non-binary motions could be more focused I think on um the pressing issues of the day the issues linked to the program for government. We could spend more time uh with ministers in front of committees.

[01:27:18]We could spend more time uh with cross-examination of ministers. So it it's about it's about the overall balance. But I'll also say this I just want to make uh one final point on things that are that seem quite trivial.

[01:27:34]um we need to attract clearly more uh women to the assembly chamber uh and our politics and I think there are simple changes we could make that would assist with that. So for example, paired voting. I know it happens in other uh legislators because I know there are people who have families. Now not all caring responsibilities are women uh but they do carry a particular extra extra load at times or the caring responsibilities for uh family members, men and women. And sometimes you find people sitting here 9:00 at night or 8:00 at night in non-binding motion uh in which they could simply pair their vote off with someone else. Um, and that would give that bit of flexibility because I I I say it like this and I have a female deputy leader who lives in Formana. If you're a a for example a working mom who lives in Formana and you are a 60-y old man who lives in East Belfast, your experience in the assembly is very very different. and is there things we can do to support encouraging more women, encouraging people from the west, making it easier for them with their travel and things like a paired vote uh would help. So I think there's just things that we could do better that way.

[01:28:47]>> Finally for me and you mentioned this about more effective scrutiny of secondary legislation. Uh the committee is undertaking a piece of work on that.

[01:28:55]Have you any suggestions as to how we could endear more effective scrutiny of secondary legislation or any examples?

[01:29:03]No, I I think um I just think it's an issue that when you say we the the new primary legislation just come through, we should look at how we could expand the amount of time as you say scrutinizing secondary legislation and then also having more time ministers in front of the committee. U my own committee, I've had a minister there I think twice uh since I've been there. um you have and that's not a criticism of the minister. it just different ministers different sometimes they're not invited but by the time you actually get to speak to the minister and there's x number of people in your committee you're maybe only getting three or four minutes I mean really when I can speak for three minutes Monday and Tuesday on any matter that I choose and I can spend five minutes twice a week virtually speaking on a non-binding motion uh but whenever I actually want scrutinize.

[01:29:58]I'm given three minutes by the chair to say we've got two questions. It just doesn't feel right. So, they're my broad points. I think we could do a lot better.

[01:30:07]>> Okay. Michelle Guy.

[01:30:08]>> Thank you, chair. Thanks, John. I think it's been good to get a sense of where your head's at really around the issue of reform and you've talked a lot about some of the operational stuff. I'm kind of interested in the institutional side.

[01:30:18]Um, so your party colleague, the health minister, has quite rightly been deeply frustrated um that his proposals around minute uh minimum unit pricing for alcohol has been blocked by one party at the executive when every other party supports the policy. In 24, Mike Nesbet um also said that the evolution is a precious asset, but if collapsed again, it's gone for good. But when the lands party brought a motion to the house recently which argued that no single party should ever have the ability to hold decision-m in the executive or the executive itself to ransom, your MLAs voted against it. One in a really critical speech dismissed it as a political womb. So I'm wondering is there a split within the Austrian Unionist party on these issues issues especially preventing executive collapse which is something that you've referenced here this morning.

[01:31:03]>> No, there's not. The question is how we do this and um I I think we need to work um with strategic aims and say how do we prevent the executive collapsing to have normal stable government to encourage people to invest.

[01:31:21]The question is how we do these things.

[01:31:23]Your motion we weren't convinced on. Um, I absolutely agree with the health minister on his frustrations around the minimum unit alcohol pricing because it seems to me unhealthy that a first year deputy first minister can veto something getting on the executive table.

[01:31:44]So I think I'm in agreement with the health minister. Um but the questions that we're faced with here is as a strategic objective. The Austrian party have said for a long time we won't will not collapse the executive. That's never ac acceptable. I have a platform piece coming out hopefully in a a newspaper to that uh point.

[01:32:07]Taking collapse off the table to me is is normal. Um stop start government is abnormal. Look at look it affected our preparedness for co having no executive um because you're your preparations for things and there's a lag our ability to deal with big deep protracted issues have been affected confidence in business is affected inward investment is affected the ability to bring in legislation is affected and and as the chair rightly says most your legislation is done towards the back end of a mandate but how many times we worked on compressed mandate that then affects scrutiny and then we actually have laws sometimes that are passed that are not thought through.

[01:32:52]>> Okay. I'm going to ask a couple of specific questions here just in some of our proposals just get your your input.

[01:32:58]So Alliance has suggested that in a situation where a party declined to nominate a first or deputy first minister um first minister deputy first minister the entitlement would go to the next eligible party. So that means there's no unilateral vetos over executive formation. Would you support that? uh have concerns about that. When you work that through, are are you suggesting um if if you ran that through theoretically that you could have a Shinpen first minister and a STLP deputy first minister?

[01:33:29]>> Um I would like you to tell me what you think of the proposal.

[01:33:32]>> Well, they're trying to understand the proposal um before I give you an answer because I mean that would be ludicrous.

[01:33:38]That's why >> well if if you're saying you would simply put the first and deputy first minister into a daunt situation.

[01:33:46]>> I'm saying that where a party declined to nominate. So you finish the election you've can nominate for the first minister deputy first minister and we all know what the rules are in terms of that entitlement. If somebody said that that they don't want to do that we're saying the next eligible party is the next party who is the largest party for example would then take that role on.

[01:34:08]>> Okay. So le let's use a hypothetical situation that the D become >> wonder I mean you've read the proposal you have in front so just >> yeah I've given you the answer but I'm explaining why I think it's not feasible and I'll give you a very clear answer >> so the strategic aim is that we don't have a collapsed executive how do we do that that's why I have refrained from setting out uh detailed ways to avoid that because here's the issue you've suggested then the next elo party so say the DUP become first in the election and the also ununice party become third. Are you suggesting in your proposal that DUP if they took first pick if Shinfane then decided they weren't taking that it would go to the next eligible party and you could have a deputy first minister >> if somebody chooses that they don't want to be the first minister but nominate for first and deputy first minister I'm just asking you do you think the next eligible party >> no I don't think that's sustainable because if you think Northern Ireland is going to have a functioning executive with the DUP first minister TV sec deputy first minister that's not going to happen >> that's a principal question rather than I'm giving you the practical reason why the principle doesn't work. It hasn't been thought through. The same way if you had Shinfane first minister >> been thought through.

[01:35:16]>> Well, I don't think it has because would would you be confident then I'll ask you a question. Would you be confident h to work in Northern Ireland with a Shinfane first minister SLP deputy first minister? Would you say let's just crack on or or DV?

[01:35:29]>> I guess we're saying here the scenario is we've had the election and that party has opted themselves to say that they don't want to take forward being first minister or deputy first minister.

[01:35:39]>> I understand. I have another question for you.

[01:35:41]>> Okay, let me just answer that that I understand your your principle, but when I test it, the principle melts away.

[01:35:47]Sometimes a bit like some of our legislation that doesn't work.

[01:35:50]>> Um, I will respectfully disagree. I think we have then situation where we have no executives, then we have no government. So, what we're trying to do is find solutions here to ensure that we can break that deadlock. You said today you wanted to ensure there was no um the executive formation was one of your priorities. So, I'm just asking what you think of that specific proposal. Maybe it's because it's all proposal. That's okay. I have another specific proposal for you.

[01:36:11]>> Well, I I endorsed I think you also had the proposal 2/3 for speaker.

[01:36:15]>> Um, on to my next question.

[01:36:18]>> But you said to me, I was very clear I get the chance to answer this. Did I give you an answer?

[01:36:23]>> No. I gave you an answer on the basis that it was an alliance proposal.

[01:36:26]Therefore, I objected to it.

[01:36:28]>> They're alliance proposals.

[01:36:30]Did you not have a proposal that the speaker is elected by twothirds majority? I also said that. So clearly I do not have an ideological position.

[01:36:37]Just to clarify that so it's recorded in answer. Thank you.

[01:36:40]>> Okay. Alliance also wants to change the way cross community voting is conducted to replace parallel consent with weighted majority which you just described there as a two-thirds majority to address the democratic deficit that currently exists for those who do not designate as unionist or nationalist. So what is your stance on that proposal?

[01:37:00]>> I think we need to look at that further.

[01:37:01]I I think the speaker proposal is a solid one. Let us work on it. I think the other proposals are solid. I think we need to carry the community with us.

[01:37:10]There is a fear out there that we need to manage that change is something to be frightened about. Um unionism I think has that um to a degree and I think what we need is evolution.

[01:37:27]So I disagree with your proposal at this stage. Um I want to normalize this place, make it more efficient but we need to do this at a time that is right.

[01:37:35]A and actually what has not been helpful is that whenever there's been changes to the Belfast agreement, it has been done at times of crisis and at a deadline and we actually need to go away and sit and work through these things because I think your proposal for example uh the ill thought out one on simply being able to use dant first and deputy first minister a situation that could lead us with a shinfane first minister and sb second deputy first minister simply wouldn't work in all. So, we do need to think of these things through which is why I haven't come up with a detailed plan for solving a very strategic and difficult issue.

[01:38:12]>> We'll leave it there.

[01:38:14]>> Okay. Thank you, Matthew.

[01:38:16]>> Okay. Thank you, um, John, for coming and chatting to us. Um, you've been, um, deliberately or strategically vague about the Australian proposals.

[01:38:29]um if if they haven't I think you're you suggested you support things which are in our paper and some of them are also in alliances um documents around immediate changes around um the electing speaker by twoth3 um changing the joy first minister title and some but I'm not sure if I completely understand it reversal of some of the St. Andrew's vetos to make the executive work a little better. Are there any other distinctive olster unionist proposals?

[01:38:54]And with the greatest respect, not that they're not important. I think a lot of the things around assembly process are matters that could be improved in the assembly business committee or the commission. We don't need an effect.

[01:39:04]They're not about the structure of how you make the executive work better. But I just wonder if there any other structural changes you would advocate.

[01:39:12]Well, you summarized you said my evidence was vague, but you summarized three distinct things that I I said very >> those are things in other people's papers, but I'm I'm happy if you're endorsing them.

[01:39:19]>> Well, I've spoke about them since I come in. Um, but the reason I I don't dismiss the operational stuff and you say this could be dealt with by the other committee. The reality is none of these changes are going to be dealt with under a committee. Let let's face reality.

[01:39:34]No committee is going to come out and change our current structures.

[01:39:39]It is going to be people sitting outside of the committee, multi-parties talking about this and that's why compartmentalizing it to say well look see that's that committee that's that committee look committees have never developed this stuff this is multi-party talks with a a oversight by the UK government and let me be also very clear the the Dublin government has no role in strand one issues and I think actually that is something I've been very clear about as the only unionist party that's advocating reform it is very important that the Dublin government do not become involved because that will actually styy that this is an internal issue to make this assembly more accountable, more effective, more efficient and deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. Uh and in terms of vagueness, um I've given very clear things. 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 actually are frightened to report on in case a member of the public thinks we've actually passed a law. I've been stopped in the street by someone and there was there was a motion passed and they says when does that come in? And I had to tell them, well, as important as the issue was, that has no more effect than my old school debate in society where I used to debate in Bangar Grammar School.

[01:41:00]>> Indeed. And and I know you're you're you're shy about about about as you said earlier on, John, you're shy about about using those mechanisms to to debate. You me you said earlier on um uh you want to see improvement on how opposition worked. I I would certainly agree that the opposition should be better resourced and I think we've been the we have been now the longest sustained opposition.

[01:41:18]would say this, wouldn't I? But I think lots of people have seen a meaningful improvement in terms of scrutiny um since we've been doing it. But clearly you think you do it better or your party uh could do it better. Um that's all we're all speaking on our own account.

[01:41:30]We're all politicians and that's fair enough. But in relation to an effective opposition um uh can I specifically ask um uh business deadlines are a challenge here?

[01:41:42]talked a lot about improving um uh how we do assembly processes.

[01:41:48]This is not a gotcha moment, but I wrote to your party leader, your predecessor, a year ago asking for for your party's support in terms of shortening business deadlines. At the minute, it takes at least a fortnite for the official opposition to get its business on the assembly order paper. And I don't think I ever received a response. So I presume from what you're saying now you would agree with our uh our ask at business committee that we have shortened business deadlines.

[01:42:12]>> Well I never presume um but if you ask me a question I'll give you an answer.

[01:42:15]Um send me the letter and I'll reply to it.

[01:42:18]>> So the point is that I mean you have made this point about making opposition work better and and presumably uh you know you think your party would do a better job or a greater opposition in general. So I'm keen to hear you would support our ask that there are long there are shorter lead times between the opposition putting down business which you mentioned Westminster is a great example. Westminster it's sometimes 24 hours here it's two weeks. So I presume you would agree with that principle that it shouldn't be two weeks to debate to get topical business for the official opposition.

[01:42:52]>> Well I would agree with the principle we need a stronger opposition that can provide greater scrutiny. I'm not going to give you an answer to a letter that I've never read.

[01:43:01]>> If you and I just genuinely if you send me the letter, I will read it and respond to it, but I certainly want to do everything I can >> to reset the balance of power in this place that there is good quality opposition.

[01:43:15]>> I think there is good quality. To be clear, I think uh I think there is very good quality opposition. I think it needs to be resourced better. Um whether other parties make a decision to enter opposition after the next election is a matter for them. Just for the record, Mr. Bros, I think it's important to say you talked about our size. I'd like there to be many more SDLP uh opposition MLAs. We have eight, you have nine, and two of your colleagues today appear to be running as independents in the next election. So, I wouldn't cast dispersions on our size. Um can I ask you you talked about there being a blank sheet of paper. Um I think we will need a bit more than a blank sheet of paper if we're going to agree um to make progress in specific reform proposals.

[01:43:50]So, would you and you s you said here you don't think it's even appropriate that the Irish government is involved in these discussions. What do you think is the right vehicle to take forward discussions on them? In that case, how do you think we should proceed? Should it be uh the British government to the exclusion of the Irish government convening the local parties for a discussion? Should the British government with or without the Irish government implement for example some of the reforms around the two3 election of speaker and other proposals? Um how would you like to see it in process terms? Go ahead.

[01:44:20]>> You used the word to the exclusion of the Irish government. Look, I have very good relationships with um the Irish Republic and we should do, but this is a stra one issue. Uh and I know that the alliance party often talk about this now in terms of the governments. Um it's a strand one issue. It's an internal matter for the people of Northern Ireland. It's an internal uh scram one institution. It is for the parties with the UK government as the sovereign government to address these issues.

[01:44:53]the best way for >> you think the Irish government's a co-artor the good Friday agreement lots of people from different traditions up here want their input >> well you use the word co-gar stram one is part of the Belfast agreement it is distinct I mean am I right during the negotiations in 1998 when it was a Stram one issue did the Irish government stay in the room or did they leave >> I wasn't I don't have a a camera I didn't have a camera I don't know I don't know But they were certain they are no guarantee of the good friend agreement for >> they are and they should guarantee the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom that Stram won the assembly is for the people of Northern Ireland because the people of the Irish Republic do not have a vote in what happens in Northern Ireland. The same way as I would not dream of expecting either the UK government or the Northern Ireland assembly to start deciding how the Southern counterparts reform their assembly or sorry their their their parliament. So here is the issue for me.

[01:45:51]This is Stram one. And actually for someone who wants reform like I do, the more you talk about saying Dublin have a role, the more hostility and resistance you will get and suspicion you'll get from the unionist community. This is for the people of Northern Ireland. It is for the representatives of their people and it is for the UK sovereign government. Presumably by by by that token then you you object to the shared island unit because that's uh the Irish government in some cases funding public services uh and additional investment north of the border uh on issues that are strand one and out with the formal structures of strand uh strand two but by your logic that's uh >> not by my logic it's by an intern it's it's by international agreement the Belfast agreement which says matters for the people of Northern Ireland for the people of Northern Ireland alone and Stram one is Stram one I mean Stram internal Northern Ireland. The clue is in the title internal. Strand two was north south. Strand three was east west.

[01:46:48]Strand one is what we're talking about and that is Northern Ireland. So in relation to STR just if you things being out with the Good Friday Agreement then presumably then you don't you would uh agree that East West Council which is an entity that was um created uh uh bilaterally between the DUP and the then British government um uh and exists completely out with the ambit of the um uh Good Friday agreement Balfos agreement if you prefer and indeed the only accountability to the assembly is because thus foreign ministers have chosen to come back and give updates to the assembly, but it isn't formally accountable to the assembly. Presumably, you think the East West Council should shouldn't exist in its current form.

[01:47:29]>> Well, I think the factory setting for the Belfast Agreement in Strand 3 would be preferable >> to the East West Council.

[01:47:35]>> Yeah.

[01:47:36]>> Okay. So, that's that's that's interesting. Um, okay. Well, look, I um I appreciate you coming and giving evidence, John. I think I'd like to to hear more from the from the Australian Party in terms of its proposals and how it would like to to proceed and obviously we'd be keen to work with you on that.

[01:47:49]>> Thank you, Matthew. John. Yeah, thanks Sharon D John. Thanks for coming along.

[01:47:52]Conscious of time. I know members have to get away, but I'll be as quick as possible. I think it's been a really useful session so far. Just in terms of the office of um first and deputy first minister and that title. I think the point is well made and I think it's a change that's long overdue. What we have actually seen is the parties that have held the deputy first minister over recent times have invariably referred to themselves as the joint head of government or joint first minister. Um sadly what it's also been used for and I think you'll agree with this is time and time again since St. Andrews, it's been used as an opportunity to say vote for us to keep the boogeyman out and then invariably go in to the same room with the so-called bogey man. Anyway, um and to that end, do you agree with me that return to the factory settings of the good furry agreement would be a welcome first step doing away with the likes of the changes of St. Andrews which have seen time and time again changes have been made at times of crisis invariably to satisfy the demands of those who have created the crisis in the first place.

[01:48:45]>> Yeah, absolutely. um the way the first and deputy first minister is appointed has created that and I think the best way of dealing with his issues to level the titles and make them the office of first minister >> which is legally reflective and stops it being used as a bargaining chip in an election.

[01:49:02]>> Mhm. Um we've heard um you talked about the need for parties to be to participate in players in this and I think don't say anyone could disagree with that. That's obviously a committee will get us so far. I think this has been a very worthwhile um committee, but we've seen the same issues been debated time and time again. We've also heard suggestions of potentially using a citizens assembly. One of my responses to that is that the assembly here and the elected representatives are the citizens assembly. We are elected by the people. I know others will disagree and they're entitled to do so. I'm just interested to hear your thoughts on the usefulness of that, the cost that might go with it. Ultimately, how it wouldn't actually lead to any change anyway, but more a recommendation.

[01:49:39]>> No, absolutely. I think what we should be doing is engaging the community better. Um, and a more effective and efficient storm would do that. I think it's a lazy option. Uh, it's costly. It wouldn't achieve anything. And what we really need to do is engage the electorate. We have a democracy. We are the people's representatives and if we don't satisfy them at the end of the mandate, they can vote us out.

[01:50:01]>> So, I agree with your sentiment. Um the final thing chair I mean you talked about stop start government here and obviously the difficulty of delivery and the lack of um the lack of belief in this place is probably part of that you touched on this I mean I've made the analogy that if a board of directors didn't meet for five 10 out of the 20 years that it existed the company would be bankrupt and that goes the same for the assembly here the delivery and the mechanisms of government and some of the the biggest issues that we see the lack of delivery um the lack of the lack of coordination between departments is all invariably down to the lack of the fact that we've stopped our government. I mean, how important do you see um stability being in terms of delivering positive outcomes for departments and ultimately for people?

[01:50:46]>> It's indispensable.

[01:50:48]Um because you need the full mandate to deliver any sort of effective legislation to scrutinize it properly.

[01:50:57]um you need actually have the confidence of the community that you have a stable uh government. I think it puts people off politics coming into it. Thought you might be coming into something that will collapse and I think it has a significant impact on things like inward investment. You know, I was in Washington. I know some boycotted the trip. Um, but I was in Washington drumming up trade, advocating for Northern Ireland saying why we have a skilled workforce, why it's a good place to invest. But if you were a company and you looked across the Atlantic and there wasn't even a functioning government, I think you're less likely to invest. So I think for all those reasons, a stable government is vital.

[01:51:41]>> Thank you.

[01:51:41]>> Thank you, John Michelle.

[01:51:43]>> Thank you, Taran. Again, very conscious of time. Thank you John for your presentation this morning. Um you've I've noted that you've agree you're agreeing with the proposal to elect the speaker by twothirds majority. Shinfian alliance and the SDLP seem to be in the business of moving towards majoritarianism. Are you in the same space?

[01:52:06]>> Well, I've given a very clear uh distinction between that and other cross community uh protections. But I think the speaker is something it is an impartial office anyway. Uh there are three of them. Um so I'm not moving towards majoritarianism.

[01:52:21]But for the election of the speaker, it seems to me that a twothirds majority is straightforward and and and simple.

[01:52:29]>> Just in relation to the petition of concern, obviously that something which was put in place to protect minority interests. Um there are now efforts to restrict this that and I think it's probably not just just a coincidence that the election fortunes of others have changed. Um can I ask you to give a clear um position for the Austrian Union party in relation to the Austrian Union or to in relation to the petition of concern.

[01:53:00]>> Okay. The petition concern has been reformed that it is not overused but there is a a protection there that gives a lot of reassurance to our communities.

[01:53:08]This is still a very contested place. Uh it is still polarized and the petition concern is absolutely vital. The key is that we don't overuse it or abuse it but we're not doing that currently and I I think it is a a viable thing to have. Uh I'm not looking to change that.

[01:53:25]>> Okay. And um obviously there others have have commented in relation to the Austrian Union's position with regards to reform. Um and you've given us some highlights at this point. Um are you going to be in a place where you're going to issue a position paper on reform of the institutions?

[01:53:42]>> Yes, we are. But what I'm going to be very clear upon is that you're saying at the outset, look, here's what we think needs fixed. Here's some things we could do to fix it.

[01:53:54]But here's real politic here. It is going to require us to go offline.

[01:54:00]Sit away from the committee and the media and the chamber and all parties agree in this. And we should not make it about changing the constitution, the constitutional balance. It is about making this place more efficient. And I know that isn't the most dramatic headline, but actually it's what this place needs is efficient government, which it has not had. And that is what's long overdue.

[01:54:28]>> And on that point, you've obviously talked about underperformance and inefficiencies in government, but yet you have been part of that government for many years. Do you also include your own members in that criticism?

[01:54:40]>> I think the Australian party performed very well. Um but you know there is a system we are operating a system. So for example the chair made the point I do as many member statements as anyone and I would say if you did your research I perhaps do is in the top three or four people for member statements that a platform is there and I will use it and if I don't use it someone else will use it.

[01:55:04]We operate the system to the best of our ability but we're saying the system could be better.

[01:55:11]Thank you.

[01:55:12]>> Thank you very much John for your time this morning and uh members indulgence.

[01:55:16]Obviously we just need to close out on our pack and we will uh look forward to any written evidence you want to submit to the committee. So thank you John.

[01:55:23]Okay members I want to move on very quickly now because I know members have to get away. Uh so I'm just going to talk through a number of action points here and then if there's questions we'll we'll come to that. So uh could I refer members to the member with page 31 and I'll invite the clerk to update the committee for future evidence sessions.

[01:55:38]Go ahead.

[01:55:38]>> Yeah chair. So there's two meetings left. 2nd of June and 23rd of June before summer recess. The 2nd of June is a panel of academics and the third and the the final meeting on the 23rd of June is Paul Given as former uh first minister and an Watt from Pivotal. Also, Claire Hannah um representing SLP and Jerry Carl representing people for profit have confirmed their attendance for a meeting on the 8th of September.

[01:56:00]I've also received an email from um the Shinfane whip to say that Chris Hazard will set out the Shinfane position. So there's a need for an additional meeting in September for that chair just to be agreed.

[01:56:11]>> Okay, members. So can I ask that we note that Clar Hana MP and Jerry Carol have both confirmed their attendance and a separate oral sessions for the 8th of September. Members content. Could I also refer members to item of correspondence from Alan Weisel of the Constitution Unit at UCL page 88 which advises that his report on improving government in Northern Ireland towards a program for reform was published on the 6th of May on the UCL website. Are members content to add this report to the reform review evidence base? Great. Members also were advised that Chris Hazard MP has indicated his willingness to attend the ARC to set out Shinfane's position on reform. Um as has been suggested given that there are two additional ords or evidence sessions to be scheduled in September to accommodate Chris Hazard.

[01:57:02]Uh both lasting approximately 40 minutes it will be necessary to schedule a meeting on the 15th though that may be flexible given that we don't >> June >> 15th of September that may be flexible given now that Alan Wisel's not breaking the committee. So we will come back to that if there's any change of schedule.

[01:57:19]Okay members. Um agenda item number eight which is I refer members to the correspondence at page 92. Could I advise members that the nila submission to the review of the assembly committee engagement crosscurren executive strategies is recommended for noting at this stage the committee may wish to consider a combined evidence session panel from both NILA and NIKA depending on the detail of a Nika response is pending. So we'll wait till we receive that. Could I seek agreement to action the correspondence as suggested on the correspondence table? Members content.

[01:57:50]>> Content. Forward work program agenda item number nine. Refer members to the draft forward work program at page 112.

[01:57:57]Our members content to note as drafted.

[01:58:00]Agreed. Agenda item number 10 which is AOB. I don't have any. H. And with that it's date, time and place of the next meeting and four members of committee will meet on Tuesday the 2nd of June 9:30 in room 21. Thank you members.

[01:58:14]We will adjourn. Thanks.

[01:58:18]>> Committee room 21 sound.