Members present:

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

Witnesses:

Mr D Barr )
Ms M Finnegan ) Department of the Environment
Dr T Power )
Mr P McNaney ) Belfast City Council

The Chairperson: I welcome Dr Tracy Power, Ms Marie Finnegan and Mr David Barr from the Department of the Environment, and Mr Peter McNaney from Belfast City Council.

Dr Power: Mr Poots made a point about tourist adjustment when he was speaking to Mr Reaney from Craigavon Borough Council earlier.

Tourism adjustment is made up of tourist bed nights and also a measure of deprivation. We thought about whether that should be included, and the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) pushed to have it included. Tourism needs to be encouraged into areas that are deprived in other ways.

If the Committee feels that it is not appropriate, there is still time for it to be discussed and removed. If the deprivation aspect were removed, north Down et cetera would gain on the tourism adjustment side.

Mr Poots: Everyone used to go on holiday to Bangor, but unfortunately they no longer go there. I used to go to Portrush. The figures for North Down Borough Council are down by 921 people; Down District Council, which covers the Mountains of Mourne and Newcastle — strategic tourism areas — is down 201 people; and Coleraine Borough Council, which covers Portrush, Portstewart, Castlerock and the north coast is down 81 people. It is outrageous that you have devised a formula that says that the tourism adjustment goes down, on the basis of TSN, for three main tourism areas in Northern Ireland — with respect to other councils and areas.

With respect to OFMDFM and the TSN adjustment, people cannot be persuaded to go on holiday to a deprived area. People want to stay in a pleasant environment. Traditionally, they stayed in those three areas and other areas. It is scandalous that those areas lose out as a result of the methodology.

Dr Power: That is a fair point. We can put that to the other Departments if the Committee feels that that needs to be adjusted. OFMDFM may have to bite that bullet.

The Chairperson: There is sense behind the argument. There is much deprivation in provision in some of those areas. The provision must be enhanced if we want to attract people from overseas.

Dr Power: It is the Committee’s call either way, depending on how you want to play it.

The Chairperson: It is important to get clarification.

Ms Finnegan: I shall make two points on clause 6, which covers economic development. The views expressed this morning by the representatives from Belfast City Council and Craigavon Borough Council made it clear that there has been difficulty since the beginning with the word "directions" in clause 6(4). I met yesterday with representatives from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. It is supportive of all the views that have been expressed, and it feels that clarification is needed. It wants to issue guidelines within which councils can work, and it wants to work with councils and consult with them to draw up the guidelines to be followed. The Department would like us to reflect that in the legislation and drop the word "directions". That would seem to tie in with what councils have said this morning.

The Chairperson: What are you going to replace it with?

Ms Finnegan: We have not drafted the words yet.

The Chairperson: One word could be replaced only for people to find that word equally objectionable.

Ms Finnegan: It would clearly say that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will produce guidelines in consultation with councils.

The Chairperson: Will you comment on vesting?

Ms Finnegan: We did not take that on board. However, following the Second Stage of the Bill in the Assembly, the point was made about vesting powers with regard to economic development. The Department consulted its solicitors, who were of the view that the wording did not give councils vesting powers. From the correspondence that I have read from councils, it seems to be coming through loud and clear that that is something they wish to see. The Department would have no problem with that. However, it would mean inserting a new paragraph in clause 6.

The Chairperson: Would that be clause 6(2)(c)?

Ms Finnegan: Yes. We would consult our solicitors about where best to insert that, but it would go in as a separate item so that no doubt might arise.

Mr Poots: In relation to the community safety function — [Interruption].

The Chairperson: We shall return to that, because Mr Barr is champing at the bit to say something. We shall hold him back for a few moments, because Mr Ford also wants to say something.

Mr Ford: To return to the two points about clause 6 that were raised, I welcome the fact that the Department, councils and the Committee are in agreement, subject to its precise wording.

Ms Finnegan: That is all that I have to say.

The Chairperson: That is a shame — you have charmed us on every other occasion. We shall see whether Mr Barr is just as amenable, or whether he will put the foot out of the bucket.

Mr Barr: I probably have more to say than Ms Finnegan, as community safety was raised more frequently than other issues.

The Northern Ireland Office (NIO) has responsibility for district policing partnerships as it does community safety partnerships (CSPs); they are reserved matters that involve NIO strategy.

The Chairperson: We have already written to the NIO about that.

Mr Barr: We have spoken to NIO officials and relayed the Committee’s comments. We have also responded as a Department to the NIO strategy and relayed the concerns that have been expressed about that. I hope that the NIO will respond to the Committee shortly.

Craigavon Borough Council said that councils should be allowed wider powers to engage in community safety; Belfast City Council also mentioned that, and the idea was carefully considered. However, we must be mindful that this NIO strategy is trying to encourage a joined-up approach to community safety activity. The NIO obviously feels that a CSP approach is the best way to deal with that. We shall not discourage councils from engaging in community safety as a single body.

Section 115 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides councils with an opportunity to spend money on matters that they consider to be in the interests of the council, its area and its citizens. Therefore, although it is cash-restricted — half a penny in the pound — some councils may not have much scope with that. However, they still have statutory cover if they wish to spend on community safety in is broadest sense. The Bill is trying to enable councils to engage in community safety partnerships. We must be mindful that that is the situation.

It was asked whether councils should take leadership roles or whether we should make provisions in the Bill that enable them to do that. We must consider that carefully, because the NIO strategy does not specify who should assume leadership or who should select members. If we introduced something such as that into our Bill, we would perhaps override the NIO strategy, which is a reserved matter. I am unsure whether councils would want the power to take responsibility for the leadership of community safety partnerships; only two councils have made that representation. We must be careful that we do not give councils a responsibility that they perhaps do not want.

The Chairperson: The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) also raised that point. That group represents all councils, not only two.

Mr Barr: I have not read what SOLACE has said on the matter, but I have heard — [Interruption].

The Chairperson: It will be interesting to see SOLACE’s response when it arrives. Your point may be superseded if you are basing it on a false premise.

Mr Barr: Perhaps. It is strange that the individual councils did not make the same representation in their submissions. The Bill is discretionary; in other words, it suggests that councils may wish to engage in community safety partnerships. Therefore, several councils may choose not to do that.

The issue of emergency planning was raised, and a fair comment was made that emergency planning is separate from community safety. There is a link in the sense that both require consideration to be given to the safety of citizens. There has been no detailed consultation with councils on emergency planning. We are concerned that the introduction of such a clause at this late stage of the Bill would require further consultation with councils, and we must be careful not to delay the progress of the Bill. We shall not forget about that issue. The Minister has already assured SOLACE that he will consider the matter and address it, and perhaps, develop a further piece of legislation in the future.

The Chairperson: What if an emergency happens before the matter is addressed? It is not a contentious matter. If there were an emergency everyone would wish to assist.

Mr Barr: Emergency planning has been going on for some years — it is not a new concept. The Department issued a circular letter in June 2000 that set out the responsibility of chief executives in emergency planning and response. That letter was cleared through the local government emergency management group, on which SOLACE is represented, as well as the Chief Environmental Health Officer and departmental officials. The letter was agreed by all parties and issued to all councils. The councils have taken on board those responsibilities and are preparing emergency plans in accordance with guidance that the Department issued through the local government emergency management group. Emergency planning is actively taking place.

The Chairperson: Therefore there should be no problem inserting the provision into the Bill.

Mr Barr: We would need to be very careful about the wording. If it were a matter of inserting a simple clause, I would be content to put that in the Bill. However, it is never that simple. We would have to define what is meant by emergency planning, and I would be concerned that there would be a delay. I am happy to take the matter back to the Department to explore it.

The Chairperson: Any delay would be caused by the Department rather than the Committee. We shall see how quickly you respond.

Mr Barr: If it were a case of inserting a straightforward clause, we would consider it. If I felt that it would not delay the Bill, and if the Committee and district councils were content with it, it could be considered.

The Chairperson: It will be interesting to see the outcome.

Mr Poots: With regard to the community safety function, although it may be an issue for the NIO and the district policing partnership boards, councils will have to pay for both. It is important that we get it right, and that the two groups are not tripping over each other and duplicating work. We need greater clarity on the role of the community safety function, how it relates to the district policing partnership boards, and how the two groups can interconnect. I am not satisfied to proceed with the community safety function until we have that clarification.

Mr Barr: Do you suggest that clarification be included in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill?

Mr Poots: Guidance is needed on what the community safety function is, and how it will fit in with the district policing partnership boards. For example, the Housing Executive has a role in tackling drug abuse, but how will it make that role compatible with the role of the district policing partnership boards? There may be poor lighting in some areas, and Roads Service may be able to help, but, again, how does that fit in with the role of the district policing partnership boards?

Mr Barr: The Department of the Environment cannot answer that question. That is a strategy matter for the NIO to address, and I am sure that it will address that in its submission to the Committee.

The Chairperson: With the greatest respect, Mr Barr, if that is to be included in the Bill, you cannot cop out of answering the question. If it is to be included in your Bill, it must mean something — the Committee must know what it means. It is no use to say that the Bill will include a certain provision, but that no one knows what it means. Is this duplication? I am fed up with quangos — the country is full of quangos. We are establishing two groups to do the same work. Some 80% of the two groups’ work will be the same, serviced by the council. That is not good enough. The functions, and how they will be introduced so that there will not be duplication and fragmentation, are unclear. With the greatest respect, Mr Barr, the provision appears in your Bill. Whether you say that it is a matter for the NIO is not relevant; it is in the Bill, and the Bill is coming from the Department of the Environment. We must clarify the meaning.

Mr Barr: The Bill is there to enable district councils to engage in community safety partnerships, if they so wish. The community safety strategy is out for public consultation by the NIO, and, as a result of that consultation, only the NIO can determine what community safety policy it will introduce. I assume that everyone will have the opportunity to respond. The Bill cannot go into the detail of community safety strategy; it is there to enable district councils to engage in CSPs.

The Chairperson: Unless the Committee knows what the provision means, do not expect us to give our seal of approval to it. The provision is balanced between two Departments. If the Committee is to approve a Bill that includes such a provision we shall need to know what we are approving. I do not care where the responsibility lies. Make no mistake: we want to know what we are approving. If you do not come up with the answers, no harm to you, do not expect us to give our seal of approval.

Members are saying that they are not happy with what is being said; that is their prerogative and their duty in scrutinising legislation.

Ms Lewsley: I tried to find out from Belfast City Council and Craigavon Borough Council representatives whether they could identify any defined difference between CSPs and district policing partnerships. They could not, because they said that 80% of the both groups’ functions would probably be the same. The only difference was that other statutory agencies would be included at CSP level. No one can tell us what the two defined roles will be. Accepting your point that the district policing partnership boards are a reserved matter and the NIO’s responsibility, we do not know your strategy for CSPs. That is the problem.

Mr Barr: The Department of the Environment is not responsible for the community safety strategy. Therefore we do not have a strategy. We can respond to the NIO strategy and we have done so; district councils and others have also provided comment. It is not for me to respond to the Committee about NIO strategy on community safety; it is a reserved matter. Undoubtedly, the NIO will respond to the Committee in due course.

The Chairperson: There is no point asking you questions such as this if you do not have the power to answer them.

Mr Barr: With respect, Mr Chairperson, you are asking me a question about the district policing partnerships and the community safety partnership strategy. The Department of the Environment has no responsibility for those. How do you expect me to answer that question?

The Chairperson: We are asking you that question because the provision appears in the Department’s legislation. One of the strategies is being provided for in your legislation.

Mr Barr: If we go back to square one, Mr Chairperson; the Department reacted to —

The Chairperson: We understand where it came from. However, there is still not clarity. Councils will have responsibility for two functions, and there seems to be an overlap. Someone said that there would be an 80% overlap. One has to ask questions about that. I am not trying to take away from your responsibility, but if you cannot give us the answers we shall have to go to the person who can. The Committee will have to get answers before the Bill can pass.

Ms Lewsley: My question was on the general grant. Craigavon Borough Council asked for clarification on clause 4(1)(a),

Mr A Doherty: Much has been said today about partnerships, and I feel that there is room for more effective partnership between the different arms of government. Is the NIO’s stance on every aspect of the Bill set in stone, or is it open to persuasion? You seem to be indicating that what the NIO says is fixed. Moreover, if the passage of the Bill predates the NIO introducing its community safety partnership strategy, what will be the consequences in that case? The NIO’s strategy does not conform to the Bill.

Mr Barr: I shall answer your final question first. Obviously, the two have to run together. The NIO strategy is out for consultation, which confirms that it is prepared to take into account the views being expressed by several important bodies, such as the Committee. The Bill has to be made in time for the general grant to be cleared, and we cannot wait until such times as the NIO strategy is finally defined and cleared.

Undoubtedly, councils are looking to have involvement in community safety and wish to avail themselves of resources that the NIO has secured. Total funding is not going to fall on district councils. The NIO has already secured resources for the next three years and has indicated that it will be funding the feeding system in establishing CSPs. If councils decide to take the lead on that matter, they will want to benefit from it.

I shall make another important point on community safety, which may involve a potential amendment to the Bill. Some councils have indicated that clause 7(1)(d) in the Bill could be more explicit in allowing them to expend money on community safety. It is implied in clause 7(1)(d) that councils, in assisting and facilitating a CSP, could contribute financially to that body in implementing community safety projects. I have taken legal advice on that and, in the interest of legal certainty, perhaps we should include an addition to that clause. It should be amended to read:

Ms Finnegan: Yes. We wanted to take on board councils’ views. The Department has started to prepare a redraft in which it has considered the wording that Committee members have recommended in the past few weeks. It is hoped that it will be with you next week or, at the very latest, the following week. It depends on our getting clearance from the Assembly draftsman.

The Chairperson: That would be helpful.

Mr McNaney: I shall write to the Committee Clerk with some reflections on community safety. I sympathised with Mr Barr when he was attempting to answer questions for the NIO. Belfast City Council welcomes the Committee’s intervention with the NIO because some rigour needs to be given to consideration of its strategy. The Department wants to give legal powers to councils to participate in community safety, activities for which there is a strong degree of support from all councillors. It is an issue that deeply affects their constituents. Time will be well served in asking the NIO to bring clarity to a document that lacks clarity on how to effect implementation. I support the clause that gives councils the power to participate because without it their ability will be limited and a vacuum will be created.

I shall write to the Committee Clerk with informed views on that. I could also send the Committee the council’s endorsed comments on the community safety strategy, which may strengthen the Committee’s ability to interrogate the NIO.

The Chairperson: The Committee has sympathy for a person presenting something over which he does not have complete control. However, the Committee wants clarity from those who have the responsibility, which is why it has written to the NIO. We await a response from the NIO, and its representatives will probably appear before the Committee shortly. Before the Committee puts its stamp of approval on something it must get clarity.

Mr Barr: I welcome that.

The Chairperson: Thank you.