1. The ability to scrutinise legislation line by line, and to suggest relevant amendments. This power implies a conflictual relationship between the committee and minister, though it is more commonly the case that the committee and minister work together to try to produce good quality legislation. The Assembly Education Service estimates that 76 per cent of amendments suggested by the Statutory and is used to good effect. \n Committees are accepted, indicating that this is a significant power
2. The ability to scrutinise the actions of their minister (and, unlike the UK system, this is difficult to avoid). In order to do this, the committees have the power - reinforced by Section 44 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and Standing Order 46(2) - to call for persons and papers. This means that the committees can ask for witnesses to come before them; oblige ministers to attend hearings and answer awkward questions; and ask for all relevant documentation to be made available for their investigation. These scrutiny powers are taken seriously by the committee members who can, and do, ask some very difficult questions. On the other hand, Professor Rick Wilford of Queens University daims that they act more like 'party animals' than political animals - that they are still reluctant to criticise their own party when in the committes!, Committee reports are available online at www.niassembly govuk for further information, as required.
3. The ability to conduct inquiries. Ultimately, committees, if they remain dissatisfied with their minister's responses, or if they have an issue raised by a stakeholder (someone who has a key interest or solid knowledge of that area, for example, the Housing Executive in the case of a social housing matter), or as a result of the press or public interest, can start an inquiry. The inquiry will be held like any other legal inquiry, requiring detailed hearings and lengthy discussion. One of the most high-profile inquiries held by a Statutory Committee in the 2011-16 mandate was that held by the Committee for Social Development. Following a Spotlight programme in July 2013, this committee had to suspend most of its other work and investigate claims that Social Development Minister Nelson McCausland, had acted inappropriately in attempting to extend a Housing Executive contract with a maintenance firm - the Red Sky scandal (see page 75). This inquiry revealed the effectiveness of this process, as the committee found against the minister. However, it also said that there were limitations to its powers, and in its summary called for more extensive powers of investigation to be made available.
The ability to suggest change. Once they have looked into a matter committees will publish reports which will then go to the Assembly for debate. It is then up to the full Assembly to decide whether the report recommendations are enacted, and if the minister is present he/she is expected to respond. The minister is then expected to give a written response to the committee within two months. According to the Assembly Education Service, approximately 70 percent of the committees' recommendations are taken on board, The ablity to hold reviews. Apart from full inquiries committees can hold reviews that allow them to explore certain issues . An example of this is where the Assembly Education Committee looked into he matter of potential changes to A levels: These reviews allow the committees to keep up-to-date with issues as they arise, and make them better informed when dealing with relevant legislations.