Members present:

Rev Dr William McCrea (Chairperson)
Ms Lewsley (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr A Doherty
Mr Ford
Mr McClarty
Mr M Murphy
Mr Poots
Mr Watson

Witnesses:

Mr P McNaney ) Belfast City Council
Mr C Quigley )
Mr R Wilson ) Craigavon Borough Council
Mr T Reaney )

The Chairperson: Welcome Mr McNaney and Mr Quigley from Belfast City Council, and Mr Wilson and Mr Reaney from Craigavon Borough Council. It would be helpful if both groups could make initial statements. The Committee will then ask questions.

Mr McNaney: We are delighted to have the opportunity to make submissions on this matter. I have spoken to my colleague Trevor Reaney before the meeting, and I will lead off. I will not say a great deal about the initial five clauses of the Bill because they do not affect Belfast City Council; that was set out in our letter of 20 May to the Committee. It would be more appropriate for councils that have an interest in those clauses to make their comments. Mr Reaney will speak about that aspect of the Bill.

The aspects of the Bill that we wish to comment on start at clause 6: ‘Powers of district councils in relation to economic development’. We welcome the extension in powers that the Bill offers local government. Some of the issues contained in the Bill are matters that Belfast City Council and many district councils have been advocating for some time. We welcome the initiative shown by the Minister and his officials in introducing the Bill. We commend it to the Committee as a welcome addition to local government powers in this area.

The Committee will be aware that there has been a change of wording, and this is reflected in the Bill. Previously, councils could participate in economic development activities subject to the consent of the Department — that has now been changed. The Bill states that a district council shall exercise its functions

Grants to district councils have been the subject of much debate and scrutiny for many years, and a conclusion has not yet been reached: we hope that the Bill will bring the matter to a conclusion. A fundamental flaw in the current system is the difficulty that councils have in planning expenditure for a number of years ahead. The current formula is, in some cases, widely unpredictable. Information is available only very late in the process of preparing rate estimates and leads to very significant adjustments during the early months of the year — particularly in the run-up to striking the rates in February.

Having a much more stable formula, with a three-year planning framework as currently suggested by the Department, is welcome. It will be of great assistance to councils in planning expenditure. For that reason, Craigavon Borough Council would encourage that the new general grant formula be provided for the 2003-04 financial year.

The definitions of the words "reasonable" and "excessive" cause Craigavon Borough Council concern — and I believe that Committee members have also expressed concern about them. We are concerned about how those words will be defined. We would never argue against the need for some oversight of expenditure; however, there needs to be clarity about the words in the context of councils’ expenditure.

Our council shares the views of Belfast City Council on powers relating to economic development. We welcome the proposals, but the word "directions" is too strong; "guidance" would be more appropriate. There certainly needs to be close consultation with district councils in the preparation of any guidance or directions.

We welcome the introduction of powers to enable us to participate formally in community safety. However, we are concerned that there are two tracks to the process — one through the community safety partnerships and the other through the Northern Ireland Office/Policing Board district policing partnerships. We are concerned that the end result will be a fragmented approach to community safety — with duplication, overlap, and perhaps contention along the way — arising from two essentially different partnerships tackling 80% of the work that is common to both of them. We feel that the opportunity should be taken to clarify the position and reduce the potential for duplication and contention.

In particular, the Bill refers to councils undertaking community safety activities through a partnership and the action plan prepared by that partnership. There is a need for councils to have some flexibility — to operate in addition to that provision and outside of it. Issues come to councils’ attention that either require urgent action, or can be dealt with directly: there should be provision for that. Councils should be able to spend funds directly on community safety activities. As the Committee is aware, Craigavon Borough Council has carried out work such as the installation of CCTV, fencing of properties and so on, which has greatly improved safety in local estates and communities.

We concur with the view expressed by Belfast City Council that there is a need to find a way of structurally integrating district policing partnerships and community safety partnerships. There are two ways in which Craigavon Borough Council envisages that being facilitated given that it appears that we cannot have a single partnership to do both jobs. One way would be through having a commonality of membership; the other would be through having a joined-up secretariat serving both groups. Both ways would reduce the potential for duplication and would assist in a more joined-up approach to the issue.

I wish to comment on behalf of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers (SOLACE), which considered the Bill on 31 May. The Committee Clerk contacted me to find out whether SOLACE had any comments. The society generally supports the views expressed by Belfast City Council and Craigavon Borough Council. However, there are two particular points that I want to highlight.

First, in respect of economic development, SOLACE feels that vesting powers in relation to acquiring land for development purposes are needed in the Bill to ensure that councils can fulfil that role fully. Secondly, an issue not covered in the Bill, but which might be, is emergency planning. Councils — and, in particular, chief executives of councils — have an informal role to deal with the co-ordination of a response to an emergency. There is no legislative cover for that particular situation, and it should be given consideration in the Bill. There should be a permissive power — not a statutory or directive power — for councils to participate and spend money. It covers councils and their staff if they undertake activities and spend money in the immediate aftermath of an emergency.

With those two comments, made on behalf of SOLACE, I conclude my remarks.

The Chairperson: As regards your last point, what do you define as an emergency?

Mr Reaney: It is defined extensively in the emergency planning documentation, nationally and through the central emergency planning unit. It is deemed to be a situation beyond the normal competence or capability of organisations to respond. For example, the River Bann might flood at Portadown. If it did, there would be a need to respond. The lead agencies would be the Rivers Agency, Water Service and so on. However, in the past, councils have been involved in providing sandbags and assisting with the clear up. That expenditure would normally be outside a local authority’s competence.

Mr A Doherty: Mr McNaney, I take it that you believe that the Bill will be ineffective if clause 6 does not give councils vesting powers. I say that because the Minister made it fairly clear when he spoke to the Committee that it was not the Department’s intention to include vesting powers in the Bill.

Mr McNaney: When normal negotiations fail, the ability to undertake a vesting process would considerably assist district councils in pursuing regeneration and promotion of economic development in their districts. In the public interest, a piece of land could be assembled with other land for the purposes of economic development. I am not saying that the Bill would be ineffective; I am saying that it would be more effective if we had the provision.

Mr A Doherty: It has been suggested that councils have sufficient powers under other legislation. Do you agree with that?

Mr McNaney: Councils have powers to vest land in specific circumstances; a specific statutory power must be shown in relation to a statutory function. If we are being given a statutory function as regards economic development, we need a specific statutory power to vest for that. I would defer to Mr Quigley to correct me if I am wrong.

Mr Quigley: The chief executive is correct on the legal position concerning the compulsory acquisition of land, otherwise known as vesting.

A council’s vesting power must derive from primary legislation. Throughout the range of local government enactments, from the Public Health Acts to those that regulate environmental control, there is always a specific enabling power to acquire land compulsorily where it cannot be acquired through agreement. In the context of promoting economic development — and if the Committee were to take the view that it was appropriate — a specific power to acquire land compulsorily in default of agreement would be required.

The chief executive covered all the issues relating to economic development except the formation of companies: Belfast City Council mentioned that in its letter. Such a power exists across the water, but not here. In the context of promoting economic development, which is what we are talking about, had we the power to be involved safely in companies, the ability of councillors to undertake the promotion of economic development projects through companies would be guaranteed. That would give some comfort to councils, because the current position is unclear and leads to potential liability for individual councillors. We would like to avoid that.

The issue requires primary enabling legislation. Schedule 6 of the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 deals with the procedures for vesting land; therefore, there is no need to worry about further legislation on how vesting operates.

Mr A Doherty: As regards community safety, your letter states that clause 7(1)(d) should include the power to "establish and lead" community safety partnerships. Could you expand on the nature and scope of the leadership you expect from councils in such partnerships?

Mr McNaney: In the context of the consultative document issued by the Northern Ireland Office, if a district council’s role were examined and reviewed alongside developments taking place in England, Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland, you would find that the role of a local authority is to be a community advocate. Its role is to speak on behalf of the citizens in its district on the topics that concern them. What grounds a district council in that regard is the representative nature of its members. Councillors are elected to speak on behalf of the citizens of an area, express their concerns and bring those concerns to the legitimate agencies that oversee, or can influence, items such as drugs, burglaries, vandalism and antisocial behaviour.

Belfast City Council feels that that civic and community leadership role is inherent to the operation of a successful community safety partnership. It should be clarified that councils can pursue that role in leading and establishing such partnerships rather than have them hang in the ether of an undefined Northern Ireland Office document suggesting that partnerships can be properly administered by several bodies. The electoral and democratic credibility that councils can bring is essential to the effective operation of such partnerships, though I fully accept that for them to operate effectively there must be a partnership.

Mr Reaney: I support what Mr McNaney has said. We share the views of Belfast City Council on civic leadership, the role of local government and local governance. It is vital to get those roles right.

Ms Lewsley: I have serious reservations about the duplication and the overlap of community safety partnerships and district policing partnership boards. Do you see a defined line where they differ? If you are talking about commonality of membership and joint administration, then why does there need to be two separate committees comprising the same people? Why can there not be one committee? Part of the reason for having two committees is probably due to funding, which comes to them separately.

Mr Reaney: As regards commonality of membership, it would be fair to say that we would not see there being exact commonality. There are interests that need to be represented on community safety partnerships that would not be involved in district policing partnerships. Craigavon Borough Council will be looking towards taking the district policing board membership and adding some of the statutory agencies such as the Housing Executive and Roads Service to form the community safety partnership. We would also bring in the elected representatives and the independent community members from the district policing partnership.

If you are saying to me that I should start with a blank sheet of paper and that there should be one partnership with two functions, then I think that the legislation will not enable us to achieve that. The best we can do is to achieve some commonality of membership and a joint administration that will reduce duplication. We need to ensure at the start of the process that the legislation facilitates commonality so that councils can achieve it locally if they wish to do so.

Ms Lewsley: Are you suggesting taking the district policing partnership board and increasing it by including the wider community?

Mr Reaney: I referred specifically to the statutory agencies because we have community representatives on the district policing partnerships through independent appointments. Particular statutory agencies not represented on the policing partnerships would need to be directly involved in community safety partnerships.

Mr Poots: I am concerned about the methodology for establishing the general grant. It is a fairer methodology than what we currently have but I am surprised to find, as regards the tourism adjustment, that councils such as Coleraine, Down and North Down will lose out. That will be a surprise to most people, and it is regrettable that representatives from Coleraine Borough Council are not here today to speak about it.

Significant tourism is taking place in all those council areas. Did SOLACE raise that issue with the Department? Those councils are losing out under tourism adjustment.

Mr Reaney: Individual councils have raised that issue with the Department, but, to the best of my knowledge, SOLACE has not.

Mr Ford: The number of points of common interest between the councils and the Committee has been interesting. Councils may be aware that the Committee has already raised several of those points with the Department, and it is awaiting a response.

Would it be acceptable to you, as council representatives, if the reference in clause 6(4), "in accordance with such directions", were replaced by "councils shall have regard to guidance issued by Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment"?

Mr McNaney: As a council officer, I would welcome that. There is a need to integrate economic development activities. We have the new economic development body, Invest Northern Ireland, and we do not need duplication. However, local initiative and creativity promotes economic development. Central control can sometimes militate against that. I would welcome the amendment the Committee is considering.

Mr Ford: Is that a view from Craigavon or SOLACE?

Mr Reaney: This is a personal view. There is a need for joined-up governance between local and central government. If you are in a situation where you want to achieve that and have partnership working, words such as "directions" seems to be counter to that. Guidance, formulated in consultation with local authorities, would be the appropriate way forward.

The Chairperson: Mr Reaney, a written submission from SOLACE would suffice instead of you coming back to the Committee to make a presentation. Thank you for coming. Several of the points that you raised have also been raised by Committee members.

Do councils unanimously welcome the removal of the 5p restriction?

Mr Reaney: Yes. It provides local authorities, or district councils, with an opportunity to decide how much they spend. They may choose to spend more or less than 5p, but it is local discretion to meet local needs, and we all welcome that.