Members present:

Rev Dr William McCrea (Chairperson)
Mr A Doherty
Mr Ford
Mr McClarty
Mr M Murphy
Mr Watson

Witnesses:

Mr J McConnell )
Mr D Barr ) Department of the Environment
Miss M Finnegan )
Dr T Power )

The Chairperson: The Committee welcomes Mr John McConnell, Mr David Barr, Miss Marie Finnegan and Dr Tracy Power from the Department of the Environment.

At first, we thought that the Bill was straightforward, but it is more complex than we anticipated. Several points, which were raised in recent debates, have caused concern. We must go through the Bill clause by clause. The Committee received a detailed response from the Department and would appreciate departmental officials taking us through it. Have any Committee members an interest to declare as councillors?

The Chairperson, Mr M Murphy and Mr McClarty declared an interest.

Mr McConnell: The two experts from the division will take the Committee through the responses.

Miss Finnegan: We shall go through pages 1 to 14 of the submission. Page 1 deals with clause 2(2)(c), which makes provision for requesting information and gathering data in a particular manner for the formula. The Regulation allows the Department to seek information, by way of expenditure figures, at a particular time and in a particular format from council chief executives. The details of the format will be spelt out in the subordinate legislation.

The information must be complete, which is why we felt it necessary to have a clause to deal with it. A problem arises if a district council fails to provide the data in the manner requested by the Department. If the Department received information from only 25 councils, and not 26, the formula would be incomplete. Clause 4 provides a means for dealing with such a problem should it arise.

Subsection (2)(c) also covers data from sources other than councils, such as the Rate Collection Agency, the Valuation and Lands Agency, census data, et cetera. The source of the data, its nature and its timing will be spelt out in the subordinate legislation.

The Chairperson: Should there be an enabling provision in this clause to stipulate the consequences of not providing the required information at the time and in the manner required?

Miss Finnegan: That is not necessary in primary legislation, as a clause in the Bill stipulates that councils can be penalised if they are inefficient or if they do not comply with the Department’s requests.

Not all information comes from councils: some of it has already been published. We do not anticipate a problem. Difficulty would arise only if councils, for whatever reason, were lagging behind and had not produced their expenditure figures — for example, certified figures — by a certain time. If councils had not produced their accounts, they could not be certified in time for us to pick them up. That is the only problem that I anticipate.

The Chairperson: The Department told us that it never stipulated which councils had problems producing data.

Miss Finnegan: Things have improved. Much of what we asked for was new to councils and they presented it to us in the wrong way. There was much toing and froing, which made things difficult. We have been working closely with finance officers at workshops, and councils now know what is required.

Before determining the figures for the last consultation exercise last year, we had great difficulty in getting the adjusted expenditure figures from councils. Some councils were producing one thing while others were producing something else. This year, we have asked for the same information in a pro forma that they understand. I do not think that there will be a problem now.

The Chairperson: The Department came from the opposite side when the Committee was dealing with the best value legislation. It had to include certain things because councils were not providing information. It seems that the Department has come round to the Committee’s way of thinking.

Mr McConnell: Trust between councils and the Department is vital. We are certain that work done on the finance side will produce an outcome. Everyone involved in this exercise in the councils has an interest in getting it completed correctly. I am not sure that the same could have been said about best value.

Miss Finnegan: Clause 2(4) relates to the Regulations and it is a definition of the formula:

Mr McConnell: We have our legal advice and you have yours. Such discussion, however, is nugatory. Perhaps we could have further consideration on the legal advice.

The Chairperson: If the explanatory and financial memorandum reflects the intention to allow the Department to amend the subordinate legislation, should clause 2(4) not be amended to reflect that important point?

Miss Finnegan: According to our legal advisers, subsection (4) is a definition only and the two should be read in conjunction.

The Chairperson: We are guided by our legal advice. It was suggested that if the need to amend clause 2(4) is accepted — and that must be checked with your legal advisers and ours — should the words "of any description" not be removed and replaced with wording similar to "to be agreed within the Regulations made under clause 2(1)"? The words "and rules of any description" is certainly a wide statement.

Miss Finnegan: The words "of any description" were put in to assure Members that all details would be covered in the Regulations, because there is a great deal of data. Any of that data could be replaced over time with better measures. For example, we used the Robson index on deprivation when starting to work on the formula. Midstream, we moved to employment factors, and we ended up with the Noble indices, which seem to be the best measure of deprivation. We use bednights to measure the influx of tourists; councils wanted us to use day trippers, but those statistics are not available. We hope to include them when they become available.

The definition is wide of necessity. At present, we do not know what we may want to change. The Department would not make changes without first consulting councils, particularly those involved in finance and personnel, as they would want to consider the effects. Any change would be made through the subordinate legislation. There would have to be consultation, but the subordinate legislation would come before the Committee for the Environment and the Assembly, because it would be subject to affirmative resolution.

Mr McConnell: It is a response to councils’ concerns. Councils wanted issues taken into account on which we did not have the necessary information and to allow us, if that were the consensus, to use the information in future.

The Chairperson: Would the wording to be agreed in the Regulations made under clause 2(1) not be a more appropriate way of dealing with the matter?

Mr McConnell: We have taken legal advice. However, we do not wish the matter to degenerate into a clash of legal opinions. We should like to marry the two to produce something legally valid that the Committee will accept.

Miss Finnegan: We could have introduced a clause to the effect that the Department desired the power to make Regulations to distribute the resources element of the general grant and left it at that. However, in clause 2 we have provided an outline of the elements that we wished to include in subordinate legislation. The Committee will see an analysis of each section.

The Chairperson: The wording must reflect the reasons for each clause, and that is where our legal advisers have challenged it.

Mr McConnell: Our difference seems to be not in the desired outcome but in the legal ramifications of the Bill’s wording. Perhaps a meeting of both sets of legal advisers could help to resolve the matter.

Miss Finnegan: Would it satisfy the Committee if we outlined a definite link between the two subsections?

The Chairperson: We wish to ensure that the wording is appropriate. It does not help to say that there is a link between the two when the words used mean different things.

Mr McConnell: It would be wrong of us to insist on that when you have received legal advice to the contrary. We shall, of course, check the matter, if the Committee is content.

The Chairperson: We should be more than happy to pass on our legal advice to the Department if that were helpful.

Mr McConnell: That would be very helpful.

Mr A Doherty: What is the legal status of the explanatory and financial memorandum’s contents if there is a difference in the interpretation of its wording and that of the Bill?

Miss Finnegan: My understanding is that the explanatory and financial memorandum is not a legal document.

Mr A Doherty: Does it accurately reflect the Bill?

Miss Finnegan: It should match the Bill’s clauses, but there is an opportunity in the explanatory and financial memorandum to expand a little.

Mr A Doherty: The important thing is to ensure that the Bill’s wording is correct.

Mr McConnell: This is an example of good co-operation with councils. The intention is to ensure that their wants are included.

The Chairperson: The explanatory and financial memorandum gives extensive detail on the formula and the data to be used. Take for example page 1, paragraph 5 and page 5, paragraph 2. If clause 2(4) is to agree with the Regulations — we are suggesting the wording — would that not show that the relevant clauses in the Bill are merely enabling clauses that allow for the introduction of Regulations that will stipulate the full details of the formula?

Miss Finnegan: The Bill’s clauses are enabling because they enable the Department to make Regulations. The Regulations will detail the formula; the Bill does not state it.

The Chairperson: Does the Department agree that it is not for the Committee to scrutinise the formula at this time? Should not it do that when it receives the draft Regulations?

Miss Finnegan: Yes.

The Chairperson: When will the draft be available? May the Committee see the working draft as soon as possible?

Miss Finnegan: Yes. The Department has done some work on the draft Regulations and is working closely with departmental solicitors. It plans to make a submission to the Minister for permission to move on the draft Regulations by the end of May 2002. It will then start work on subordinate legislation, which should be before the Committee by the end of June. The Department will then work on a policy memorandum, which should reach the Executive by mid-October. That will be followed by the legislative process of laying the statutory Regulations with the Business Office in mid-November, followed by a debate in mid-December. The timescale is tight. However, the Department hopes to meet all those deadlines.

The Chairperson: As I say, the Committee would like to see the working draft as soon as possible.

Mr McConnell: It is in the Department’s interest to ensure that it is made available to the Committee as soon as possible; it is aware that the Committee will not simply nod through legislation. I asked for the Committee’s indulgence and as much speed as possible. Issues must be raised and cleared as quickly as possible.

Miss Finnegan: Clause 2(5) refers to Regulations and provides for refinement of the formula. I referred earlier to the kinds of refinement that could be available. The Department accepts that amendment of that subsection may be necessary. The Department must consult, and that could lead to the amendment of subordinate legislation.

The Chairperson: In accepting consultation with others apart from local councils on clause 4(4), will the Department include the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance (NIPSA) and the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA)?

Miss Finnegan: The Department does not normally consult those organisations on subordinate legislation. However, it consulted widely on primary legislation because of the equality impact assessment. The Department consults councils on subordinate legislation because they are involved. It also consults other bodies that are interested in councils, such as the Northern Ireland Local Government Association, Northern Ireland’s National Association of Councillors (NAC) and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE).

The Chairperson: Surely it would be appropriate to consult NIPSA and NILGA as well.

Miss Finnegan: The Department could consider that. I am not sure whether it does not already consult those organisations.

Mr McConnell: That should not be a problem, because unless consultation is nugatory the Department should consult all organisations. It must consult on all those issues with all those who are involved in local government. If the Committee considers that to be necessary, the Department will do so until it proves otherwise.

The Chairperson: When will the Committee know whether the clause is to be amended and when will it be informed of the terms of a proposed amendment?

Miss Finnegan: The Department has not yet suggested amended wording for any of the clauses, although a few may need to be amended. The Department has not considered rewording at this stage, as it is waiting for a response from councils. It will then deal with that as one exercise.

The Chairperson: What are the provisions of clause 4?

Miss Finnegan: Clause 4 provides for a reduction of the general grant due to misappropriation of funds or excessive expenditure.

The Department was asked whether it could put a figure on this, but we would have to deal with each case as it arose. The Department would consider the local government auditor’s report and submit a report to the Assembly in due course; that is part of the requirement. The wording in the Bill is a pick-up from the existing legislation; we did not change the wording.

The Chairperson: The Department says that it cannot give a precise figure, as that would depend on the circumstances of the council in question. However, clause 4(1)(b) states

Miss Finnegan: Factors other than finances may be involved — we need the data. A council may have failed to submit its annual reports. That is important. Under the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972, the Department directs councils to submit their reports by a certain date — for example, this year they must submit their reports by 31 July. We are moving towards submission of reports by 30 June. The general grant reduction may be used to achieve that, if necessary. It has not been used to date, but the Department would have to consider it as a means of ensuring that councils comply with the direction.

Mr McConnell: In this exercise we have been dealing with finance officers, and that has been worthwhile in establishing a working relationship. We do not order councils to do this or to do that; we consult them on everything. They will then agree whether this approach is reasonable.

Miss Finnegan: If a report is not submitted by 31 July, there will not automatically be a drastic reduction in the grant. We would liaise with the council about the delay, and we would perhaps set a target after negotiations. However, if nothing happened and there was inefficiency in the council, the Department would have to act.

Mr Ford: You said that the report of the local government auditor would have to be considered. Should subsections (1) and (2) not spell out that it is on the foot of a report from the auditor that the Department takes action? It is implied, but it is not explicit.

I am afraid that I am unclear about the procedure. The Department would "recommend" the amount to be deducted from the general grant. There is no mention of "recommendation" in the Bill; it speaks of Regulations being made subject to negative resolution. If it is a recommendation, presumably the Department can only recommend it to the Assembly. I praised you earlier this week for getting away from negative resolution in most cases. Should this not require an affirmative resolution of the Assembly, as that is the only interpretation I can place on the Department’s "recommending" as opposed to the Department’s sliding something through while everybody is asleep?

Mr McConnell: The Department has no intention of sliding anything past anybody. I assure the Committee that the past year has demonstrated that, if the Department even attempted to do that, there are too many people around this table to call the Department to task.

Mr Ford: Why not make that clause affirmative, like the others?

Miss Finnegan: We should not have used the word "recommend" in our answer; we should have said that the Department would "determine" the amount to be deducted from the general grant. The clause is one of several that use the wording of the 1972 Act. I do not know whether it is necessary to refer to the local government auditor in the Bill — that is a procedural matter.

The Department would not know about those matters unless the auditor reported them to us. If a ratepayer reported it to the Department, the Department would go directly to the auditor to check the accusation that had been made against the council and to obtain evidence. It could come to light in the annual report. If it does not, the Department can ask the auditor to carry out a special audit. It is understood that the auditor is the Department’s source of information.

Mr Ford: I can accept that point somewhat easier that the second point, which you have not answered. Why is the clause a negative resolution when everything else in the Bill is affirmative?

Miss Finnegan: I did not think that that was an issue. We are not making an Order. The Department makes a written report to the Assembly, by way of information, that contains all the details of the case.

Mr Ford: If the Department reports to the Assembly, what is the procedure for somebody taking action on the foot of that report?

Miss Finnegan: By the time the Assembly received the report, the Department would have taken action and determined the amount to be deducted from the council’s grant.

Mr Ford: Therefore, the point that matters is that, as the Bill stands, the Regulations made by the Department are subject only to negative resolution. A report issued months after the event is irrelevant if the Department has made Regulations that enforce its decision.

Miss Finnegan: I do not see this as the Department making an Order or Regulations.

Mr Ford: That is what the Bill says. Clause 4(5) mentions Regulations. The Department is making Regulations.

Miss Finnegan: I understand where confusion arises. Regulations made under clause 4 are subject to negative resolution. That relates to subsections (3) and (4) only. It has nothing whatsoever to do with subsections (1) and (2). I missed your point.

Mr Ford: Subsection (5) says: "Regulations under this section". It does not say: "Regulations under subsections (3) and (4)". If there is any confusion, it is not on the part of the Committee.

Miss Finnegan: I accept responsibility for the confusion; that will have to be clarified. Subsection (5) does not relate to subsections (1) and (2); it relates to subsections (3) and (4) only.

Mr Ford: Therefore, under subsection (2), a reduction in grant is simply a matter of the Department reporting to the Assembly that it is taking action without having to seek approval from the Assembly to do so.

Miss Finnegan: That is correct. The Department would report to the Assembly stating the case, giving the details of the auditor’s report and stating the amount that the Department had decided is appropriate to deduct from the grant.

Mr Ford: If the Assembly deemed that the Department’s actions were not appropriate, what would be the procedure to reverse that decision?

Miss Finnegan: I do not know that that particular decision could be reversed.

Mr Ford: Will you explain how that would fit in under the European Convention on Human Rights? The concept that the legislature deemed that the actions of civil servants were inappropriate and could not be reversed seems to be a fundamental breach of human rights.

Miss Finnegan: The Department would have to fully justify its decision in its report to the Assembly.

The Chairperson: The Department does not have to justify anything. It has the power to take that action, and whether it justifies it or not, the Assembly can do nothing about it. If it were the Assembly’s opinion that the action taken by the Department was not justifiable, there should be a right of redress.

Miss Finnegan: That is taken from the current legislation, although that does not mean that it should not be changed. There has never been a report, although the legislation was to be laid before Parliament.

The Chairperson: The words "laying before Parliament" mean nothing.

Miss Finnegan: I know that it is a formality.

Mr McConnell: There is nothing in the legislation that allows for that procedure. We need to look at that and ensure that a procedure is in place. Apart from the human rights aspect, we must consider the primacy of the Assembly.

Miss Finnegan: What you want would require the clause to be changed substantially, which is possible. It could be changed so that the Department would make a recommendation to the Assembly, and no deduction would be made until the Assembly approved that recommendation.

Mr Ford: That is what I thought subsection (5) meant, until you told me that subsection (5) did not mean what it says.

Miss Finnegan: As I have said, subsection (5) does not relate to subsections (1) and (2).

Mr McConnell: The point is well made, and it is something that we shall address. All that I have said relates to the primacy of the Assembly, and we want to take that, and the human rights aspect, into account.

The Chairperson: I return to clause 4(1)(a). What measure will the Department use to determine that

In clause 4(1)(b), the word "excessive" is taken into account when the local government auditor reports back on what the expenditure has been.

The Chairperson: Do you say that the local government auditor has sole responsibility for determining a reasonable standard of economy and excessive expenditure?

Mr McConnell: Yes.

The Chairperson: It is not the Department’s responsibility?

Mr McConnell: The Department would determine that based on a report from the auditor. If someone writes to us and says — however unlikely this may be — that a district council is behaving badly, the matter is referred to the local government auditor. It would the auditor’s decision as to whether there was any evidence to support the accusation. The Department would exercise its judgement at that point.

The Chairperson: Is it the Department or the local government auditor that determines the amount of deduction?

Miss Finnegan: The Department would determine the amount of deduction, not the local government auditor. The Department would have to take into account how much grant the council gets. Some councils do not get very much, although others get substantial grant. Could the entire grant, be withheld or, as a warning, could it be reduced by a small amount?

Mr McConnell: That is where the Assembly comes into play. What role does it have to play in the determination of that exercise?

The Chairperson: You have placed so much emphasis on the local government auditor, yet the auditor is not mentioned anywhere in the legislation.

Mr McConnell: The local government auditor is —

The Chairperson: He is a shadowy figure in the background.

Miss Finnegan: The local government auditor’s responsibilities are set out clearly in the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 and in subsequent Orders.

The Chairperson: However, if it is not clearly laid out as his assessment, the Department could carry out the assessment. You are saying that the local government auditor assesses the key areas of the reasonable standard of the economy and excessive expenditure.

Mr McConnell: He will report to us.

The Chairperson: When it is not clearly laid out that you refer to the local government auditor, the Department could make the determination. Is that not correct?

Miss Finnegan: The Department would not have the evidence without obtaining the information from the local government auditor. The Department receives figures, but we do not analyse councils’ accounts.

The Chairperson: Why is that not included for clarity?

Mr McConnell: The second part of that would be the follow-on.

The Chairperson: That follow-on concerns the Assembly’s responsibility and authority.

Mr McConnell: We shall certainly look at that. I need to check the provisions of the 1972 Act, how they cover this legislation and whether it is simply a reference to that Act.

Miss Finnegan: The words that we have used in the clause are exactly the same as those used in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.

The Chairperson: However, as you know, authority and responsibility have changed dramatically. Therefore, just because the words were included in that Act does not mean that they should remain in this legislation. If something was neglected, that does not mean that we should neglect it in our legislation.

Mr McConnell: Or whether it simply means, from a legal point of view, a reference to earlier legislation.

Miss Finnegan: The questions on the reduction of the general grant deal with much of what we have been discussing. The next area covers economic development and the provisions for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to issue directions. We discussed those areas with that Department. It does not intend to issue further legislation. It thought that it would issue similar guidance to that which the former Department of the Environment issued in 1992. It also said that it would be non-statutory.

Mr Ford: In that case, I am at a loss as to what the word "directions" means in clause 6(4).

Mr McConnell: The last sentence in the answer —

Mr Ford: The Bill uses the term "directions". You talk about guidance and specifically used the term "non-statutory". What does the word "directions" mean?

Mr McConnell: Mr Ford previously raised that point. The last paragraph of the Department’s answer to the Committee says:

Miss Finnegan: Councils cannot do what they like in relation to economic development; they must work within parameters. That would be in the form of guidelines issued by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. When the Department of the Environment was responsible for it, we always had to be careful when approving projects that our guidelines were being followed. We did not want councils to duplicate what LEDU or the IDB was doing. Guidelines are needed so that there are parameters within which councils can operate.

As Mr McConnell said, we must amend the wording to make clear that they are guidelines rather than a formal direction.

Mr McConnell: In many ways, we are speaking about another Department. I understand that the intention is to ensure that there is no duplication of effort. It is as simple as that. For that purpose, councils should adhere to the Department of Trade, Enterprise and Investment’s guidelines.

Mr Ford: Do you suggest that there will be guidelines and that the Department of Trade, Enterprise and Investment will have a role in saying what councils may or may not do? It seems to me that you are still skating somewhere between a formal piece of legislation and informal guidance without being entirely sure which it is. There is also nothing in subsection (4) that relates to consultation with district councils to draw up any guidelines, directions or Regulations.

The Chairperson: Although guidelines sound perfectly simple and helpful, we must know what they are. Clause 6(4) says: "a district council shall exercise", not "a district council might exercise".

Mr McConnell: That is why we must examine the wording. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s primary intention is simply to ensure that 26 district councils are not doing their own thing in economic development willy-nilly.

The Chairperson: Time and time again it has been voiced as a concern in the information that we have hitherto received from district councils. There must therefore be proper and meaningful consultation on what the word "guidelines" means.

Mr McConnell: How that consultation is reflected in the legislation is a matter for us to discuss with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. I presume that it would be along the lines of guidelines drawn up following consultation with councils. There must be some way for councils to do what they feel they must do while ensuring that that does not in any way compromise other activities in the area.

The Chairperson: Must the guidelines be backed up by secondary legislation?

Miss Finnegan: The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has conveyed to us that that is not its intention.

The Chairperson: I should like to know exactly what its intention is before I approve something of which I have no clear understanding.

Mr McConnell: We must return with the rewording in any case, and the point that you make about consultation is extremely salient. We shall need to consult with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment about what it intends to do to satisfy the Committee regarding consultation.

Mr Ford: I have another question on clause 6, although not on subsection (4). I raised the issue of vesting land with the Minister in the Chamber. His response was that it was covered not by this Bill but elsewhere. He did not make clear whether the powers laid down elsewhere would extend to economic development. Clarification would be helpful, although it need not come today.

Miss Finnegan: We need legal advice on that, but our understanding is that the provision in the Bill gives councils the power to acquire, hold and develop land. The Minister referred to the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972, which gives general powers to councils to acquire and vest land. There is substantial legislation. Our understanding is that something more may be needed — perhaps a separate clause to allow councils to vest land specifically for economic development.

Mr Ford: That is the apparent lacuna. It is unclear when the economic development powers were granted, and now is surely the time to address that.

Miss Finnegan: Yes. If our solicitors say that what we have is sufficient, councils will have the power to acquire land for economic development. That is now a function of the council. That is acceptable as far as vesting is concerned because it is covered by the 1972 Act. If the solicitors say that, there is nothing more to be done. However, if they say that a separate clause is needed for councils to vest land for economic development purposes, it will have to be included.

Mr McConnell: Mr Ford is correct — it is complex. The Department for Social Development has powers of vesting for the acquistion of land. There is still much to cover on that.

The Chairperson: You will have to return to answer questions that we did not have time to ask today and to clarify several other points. Have councils specifically consulted on the precise terms of clause 6?

Miss Finnegan: The answer that I had submitted to the Committee on whether councils had been consulted on the precise terms of the clause was wrong. The problem is that we are caught between the former Department of the Environment and the former Department of Economic Development. We are trying to piece everything together to see exactly what happened. I understood that the consultation on 27 November 1997 was on the precise terms of the clause. The consultation was, in fact, on the proposals as announced by Lord Dubs at that time. There was, however, a good response to those proposals — 23 out of 26 councils responded — but it was not on the detail of the clause itself. The old Department of the Environment had preferred the clause contained in this Bill.

The Chairperson: That was on 11 September 1997. Several councils have written to the Committee about their concerns. They agree on the need to move in that direction, but they must have the situation clarified to know exactly to what they are agreeing. The letter of 11 September 1997 does not appear to contain anything of note.

Miss Finnegan: A discussion paper, of which you have a copy, went out to councils following that announcement.

Mr McConnell: It is unfortunate, but what Miss Finnegan has said is absolutely true. This piece of legislation fell to another Department. There was then pressure from the councils, mainly because of European Community money and how to obtain and use it. We responded late in the day. There were shortcomings.

The Chairperson: The Committee can help by allowing you to have the responses it has received from councils on the economic development subsection, if that would help.

Mr McConnell: It would.

The Chairperson: It is a guide to the councils’ thinking. We can help to get a clear understanding of what local government is saying. The Committee has received 15 responses to its request and more will arrive. Mr Barr, I am sorry that you did not get to speak today.

Mr McConnell: He has been busy with community safety.

The Chairperson: I hope that you listened to the debate on 20 May about community safety, and have taken on board some of the comments made. Many people thought that this was a simple situation that would be accepted without question, but there is much concern. The Department must answer matters that were raised in the debate — for example, duplication and fragmentation of responsibility.

Mr Barr: To be fair, some of those questions might be better addressed to the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) rather than to the Department of the Environment.

The Chairperson: If that is so, we shall get the NIO to come along at the same time to assist you. We are happy to do that.

Mr McConnell: We shall work with the Committee staff to see where the balance lies.

The Chairperson: That is perfectly acceptable.

Mr Barr: The NIO is consulting at present on the community safety strategy, which is open until 5 July. That gives ample opportunity for consultees to raise those particular issues that were raised in the House, and for the NIO to address those issues. If the Committee wishes to raise concerns about the strategy, I am sure that it would be free to do so.

The Chairperson: The Committee must find out the responses to those issues that have been raised in the Assembly. We need to ascertain whether the answers are satisfactory. Those points arose in the debate, and we cannot run away from that. It is better that we do it now, because they will come up again in the Assembly.

Mr McConnell: Some of the issues raised can be answered without further reference to the consultation paper. The NIO may wish to talk about some issues, but that is entirely a matter for that Office.

The Chairperson: Work with the Committee staff, because the Committee will be happy to facilitate you in any way it can.

Mr McConnell: Thank you for that offer. Frankly, it is my strong belief that, if the situation continues, nothing will happen, which is to the detriment of everyone.

The Chairperson: Thank you very much for your attendance.