Members present:

Rev Dr William McCrea (Chairperson)
Mr Armstrong
Mr Ford
Mr Molloy
Mr M Murphy

Witnesses:

Mr D Barr )
Ms M Finnegan ) Department of the Environment
Mr J McConnell )
Ms H Cousins ) Northern Ireland Office
Mr M McGuckin )

The Chairperson: I apologise for the delay. The Committee welcomes Mr Barr, Ms Finnegan and Mr McConnell from the Department of the Environment, and Mr McGuckin and Ms Cousins from the Northern Ireland Office.

Ms Finnegan: I have circulated a second working draft (number 2). In that, the Department has incorporated the agreed amendments, and they are highlighted in red. We have taken working draft number 1 — in which amendments were highlighted in blue — plus the sheet that was circulated last week.

In addition to that, there is a further proposed change on page 4, in clause 6(6). The expanded wording would include "consultation with … other interested bodies or persons". The Committee requested that change last week.

The other issue last week related to clause 4(7). We do not propose to amend that. We contacted the Office of the Legislative Counsel, and the advice we received is that subsection (7) is in the correct chronological sequence. I questioned the use of the word "section" and asked whether substituting "clause" for "section" would help, but the Office of the Legislative Counsel said that "section" means "clause" in this case and does not need to be changed.

The only mention of Regulations in clause 4 is in subsection (5)(a). Therefore, as subsection (7) refers only to one part of the clause, the Office of the Legislative Counsel said that there should not be any misinterpretation, and so it should be left as it is.

The Chairperson: The old saying goes "Doctors differ, patients die". Our legal advice is that, for the sake of clarity, subsection (7) should state that Regulations under subsection (5) should be subject to negative resolution. Have you checked that?

Ms Finnegan: Yes, but our people did not think that that was the way to do it.

Mr McConnell: This is where the difficulty lies. We end up talking to the Committee and vice versa, yet the experts on these matters never seem to be able to sit face-to-face and determine these things. I am not sure whether there is any reason why they cannot do that.

The Chairperson: We could get our legal people to speak to your legal people. The objective is clarity.

Mr McConnell: We are talking about parliamentary draughtsmen. Their only role, as I understand it, is to make sure that the legislation is correct in parliamentary terms.

The Chairperson: That is the only thing that is still outstanding, but we need to get the legislators to speak to one another.

Mr McConnell: We are both aiming to get to the same point.

The Chairperson: That is right.

Ms Finnegan: Those were the only areas that I was to take back and examine. We are now in a position to put the draft legislation to the Minister for clearance. He has not seen any of this yet. We hope to be in a position to do that quite soon.

The Chairperson: We have to agree clause 7, of course.

Mr Barr: I trust that the Committee has received the Department’s letter of 25 June. It addresses the issue raised at last week’s meeting about the use of the word "impose" in clause 7. We have provided an answer to that query, and we would like members to consider our reply or ask further questions about it. We have given a full explanation of why the term "impose" is being used. It is not that we intend to impose anything on councils; if we were to go down such a route, it would only be at the behest of the Assembly. It is being included to enable the legislature to introduce something on a mandatory basis, if required.

If we include the term in primary legislation now, it means that we can introduce further provisions by subordinate legislation; however, that legislation would be subject to affirmative resolution, which would require the approval of the Assembly. It is something that we, and the draughtsman, consider is there for expediency and, perhaps, for the good use of public resources.

It is there at the behest of the Assembly. If the Assembly decides not to introduce or impose anything, it has the freedom to do so. We intend to run with that in the Bill unless there are any questions.

The Chairperson: There are still questions about the necessity for it, but we may not get any closer to an agreement.

Mr McConnell: If we were putting something in that would give the Department a power to do something, I would understand the concern. This would be regarded as prudent, but because community safety is such an important issue it may well be that the Committee and the Assembly will decide that it should be something that councils should have to do, rather than being able to opt into. It is pure prudence; there is no hidden agenda.

Mr Ford: I accept that there is a degree of protection because a resolution of the Assembly is necessary, and that it is not a negative resolution, as in subsection (3). Is this somewhere where it might be appropriate to spell out consultation with district councils before any Order might be laid? Is that automatically presumed, because it is spelt out in regard to similar matters elsewhere in the Bill? Is this a marginal move from the Department in our direction in order to make it slightly easier to accept?

Mr McConnell: The protection is there. We will not introduce any legislation without consultation. This Committee will not just listen to us, not do its own consultation, and ask what our consultation shows. It is almost seeking to put something in that is implicit in the whole system that we are working. It is there, and we cannot do these things without agreement.

Mr Ford: I accept the point that it is implicit, but would it be beneficial to make it explicit?

Mr McConnell: The draughtsman believes that the Bill is sufficient the way it is. Implicit is explicit, because it is goin[g to happen: it cannot not happen. There is nothing that we can do to make this happen without Committee procedures, consultation, et cetera.

Mr Molloy: If a district council "may" participate in the community safety scheme, that is contradictory. It would give the Department authority to impose where the council proposes not to participate.

Mr McConnell: The intention is that this legislation will be brought in, and that a council may engage in community safety. If at some time in the future the Assembly, in its wisdom, decides that community safety is an important issue, and that it is so important that councils must become involved, legislation would have to be introduced to make "impose" legal. At the moment, "impose" is there as a prudent measure should the Assembly at some time in the future decide to go in that direction.

The Chairperson: If the Assembly believed that, could it not move in that direction at that time, rather than have it here now?

Mr McConnell: That would need primary legislation. We are trying to be prudent by putting it into subordinate legislation. I hope that I am wrong, but I detect some suspicion about this. The Department does not intend to do anything by the back door. It is what it says it is, and there is no more and no less to it.

The Chairperson: The "may" and "impose" do not sit easily together.

Mr McConnell: The "may" is what the legislation will enact. The "impose" is something that the Assembly may at some future time decide to do. We have no plans, and the Minister has no plans, to move further than that, but there could be pressure from councils to do that.

Mr Barr: Clause 7(2) will not override what is in clause 7(1). It is worded in such a way that the Department

The Chairperson: Clause 7(3) is the safety valve, in that any proposal has to come before the Assembly and be approved by a resolution of the Assembly. If "confer" and "impose" were left to officials, I would be totally opposed to it. It will not come as any surprise, I am sure, to the officials. If it were left to the Department, I would be totally opposed to it.

Mr McConnell: That is proper in our democratic system.

The Chairperson: We will not go into a political argument on the democratic system. It is important that we have the safeguard that it has to come before the Assembly, but Members would have to be very alert to this, if it did come, as to their mind and their wish at that particular time.

We will now move on to the other issue. We have NIO officials with us this morning, and we received a letter from them as well. Once again, I apologise for the delay. You know of our discussions so far. Perhaps you want to outline where the NIO stands on this issue.

Mr McGuckin: We previously came before the Committee to address the Government’s community safety strategy. Subsequently, the Committee Clerk wrote to us seeking clarification on the relationship between the community safety partnerships (CSPs) proposed in that strategy and the district policing partnerships (DPPs) established under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.

I have submitted a paper to the Committee seeking to describe community safety and to put CSPs in context. The paper outlines the differences between DPPs and CSPs. a DPP is an accountability body for the police at local level, and its functions are limited to policing issues. The membership of the DPP reflects that role. It is made up of elected members and independents, who are selected on their own merits and do not represent any organisation.

The CSP will be engaged in delivering services to and with the community. Consequently, it will be made up of the statutory organisations that have a responsibility for those services. It will also wish to work closely with the voluntary sector and the community.

It will be important for the police to be part of the CSP, but their relationship with that partnership will be different from their relationship with the DPP. They will report to the DPP, but they will contribute to the work of the CSP. The two partnerships have different memberships because they have different functions.

I am now happy to clarify any issues relating to the paper that came before the Committee.

The Chairperson: Thank you for your detailed paper. Even with the paper, there is still woolliness over what will be talked about by both these partnerships. You said that the police report to the DPP and that they are engaged actively in the other partnership. Many of the issues are the same. As has been said in previous meetings, there are genuine concerns about duplication.

We are dealing with limited public finances. Grants may have been given initially to establish these partnerships, yet public finances overall are limited. We are facing problems with roads, hospitals, et cetera. The bottom line is the money that is available for them. We do not want money being taken up by duplication of functions.

We are considering the quango situation in the Province, or at least we are told that that is under review. However, that will be a hardy annual to tackle because some people will be holding on like death to their paid posts. Nevertheless, we do not want to create more quangos for the sake of it.

Mr McGuckin: First, we have tried to identify and set out in the paper the significant difference between an accountability organisation and a service delivery organisation. We are not trying to create another quango. This is not, in any sense, a quango. It is a partnership of organisations that have statutory responsibility for delivering services to the community. The aim of bringing them together in a partnership to address specific community safety issues is to maximise the benefit that can be achieved by those organisations creating a synergy and working together to address common issues. The Housing Executive might be trying to address an issue from one angle, while social services might be attempting to address similar aspects of that issue from another angle, and so the circle goes on.

In this structure, we are trying to bring organisations together in a forum that will allow them to operate collectively. The police are an important element in that forum. They will engage in the partnership, as opposed to the situation with the DPPs, which they will account to for their activities and the delivery of the local policing plan. The aim is to improve the way in which services are delivered to meet local needs.

The Chairperson: I will consider what you have said.

Mr Molloy: First, you said that the DPPs were to hold the police accountable. There will probably not be agreement on the Committee, but I disagree with that. It does not do that and cannot do so, particularly considering the role that the partnership is being set up with.

However, one of the better consequences of pulling all those different agencies together is that groups bring different statutory agencies’ services together to deal with community health and safety, much as the health action zones do. However, ultimately they are hard to implement. The new partnership will be another quango that will have to be financed from the rates, and I declare an interest as a ratepayer and a district councillor.

The CSP will be funded initially, but after that the owners will rely on the council to fund it directly. The DPP costs approximately 3p in the pound, and it is difficult to estimate the cost of community safety. Local strategy partnerships (LSPs) are also financed by Europe. That means that a whole series of new quangos is being created, and ratepayers will have to pay for the changes each time. An unnecessary tier of bureaucracy is being created that will make no difference to the implementation of safety initiatives in any area.

Ultimately, a committee will not solve our problems in different parts of the community, because it can do nothing except, perhaps, return to considering policing. There has been some suggestion that policing, as well as the LSPs, should be included in the local partnership board, but people are coming up with ideas about how many committees we can establish to deal with the same issue. That does not resolve the problem.

Mr McGuckin: I can try to address several of those points. Funding has been identified to get the CSPs started, and we will recommend to Ministers that the resources for co-ordination be made available for three years. It will be evaluated at the end of that time. There is no suggestion whatsoever that district councils should become responsible for continuing that funding if it is stopped after the evaluation.

The co-ordinating responsibility exists to support the partnership, and all the partnership organisations will benefit from that. There is no indication that co-ordinating responsibility would ultimately fall to the local district council to maintain.

It is generally accepted that the success or failure of partnerships can be measured in circumstances in which organisations with statutory responsibilities can collaborate to harness and focus their activities to deliver better results. That is demonstrated in crime and disorder partnerships and other similar partnerships in England, Wales and Scotland, the benefits of which have been shown. That collaboration has been developing for many years, and several partnerships in Northern Ireland are already in various stages of development; for example, one based in Antrim can clearly demonstrate where new services, such as addressing some of the needs of the youth in that area, are actually being delivered in a joined-up manner.

Mr Ford: Are you proposing to prescribe the membership of CSPs? I find it amusing that you refer to Antrim. Your letter dated 20 June 2002 refers to CSPs being made up of statutory organisations, yet, having been involved in the Antrim CSP, I know that as many local voluntary organisations as statutory bodies were involved.

You have argued that the difference is that CSPs consist of statutory bodies, but it is essential that they also contain representatives of the voluntary organisations, and if that happens, potentially there will be a greater overlap with DPPs than you have given account to in this paper.

Mr McGuckin: The Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, currently before the House of Lords, will make provision for CSPs to be placed on a statutory footing. If that happens, it is accepted that there is a greater chance that those organisations will take on the responsibilities and seriously engage. However, it is not the intention here to put them on a statutory footing in view of the review of public administration, recently announced by the Northern Ireland Executive, which is likely to change the structure and functions of many of the statutory organisations that will contribute to CSPs. The option exists to put the partnerships on a statutory footing in the future, subject, of course, to consultation.

The voluntary and community sector will play an important role in partnerships. The statutory organisations will want to consult closely with that sector about what is needed in the community and how services are delivered. Given that the statutory organisations have responsibility for the delivery of those services, which cannot be abdicated to the voluntary or community sector, they must act as the core of the partnership. Those organisations will determine which voluntary and community sector organisations they engage with.

I do not see how that would mean a greater overlap between the CSPs and the DPPs. The DPPs are set up with elected members and appointed independents who do not represent any organisation. Therefore, my understanding is that they do not represent the voluntary or community organisations, or any other organisation.

Mr Ford: That may not formally be the case, but the reality is that in the majority of smaller districts the people who are likely to be nominated for DPPs are also likely to be those working informally with existing CSPs. You are talking about a district council responsibility for support to both, and whether there will be significant personnel overlaps.

Mr McGuckin: The core of the matter is that the voluntary organisations are not represented on DPPs. The process to select independent members may well be competitive, but I am not sure about that and would need to check. Those individuals will be selected on the basis of their individual attributes, rather than on whether they represent an organisation. They may well bring with them some sense of an organisation, but they will not be the nominees of that organisation.

Mr Ford: I did not suggest that they were. You are talking about mechanisms and procedures, and I am referring to the practical reality of the kind of people who are involved in community and voluntary activities at district level.

Mr McGuckin: There may, potentially, be some overlap at that level.

Mr Ford: Therefore, there is the potential for further bureaucratic confusion if we are to have two bodies, which contain many of the same people, doing closely related —

Mr McGuckin: The bodies could not contain many of the same people. There may well be some commonality in membership between them, but they have two very separate functions. The key organisations in the CSPs will be the statutory organisations, and they certainly are not represented on DPPs.

Secondly, the DPPs are concerned with holding the police to account at a local level, whereas the CSPs are about delivering services on the ground.

Mr Armstrong: I do not see much difference between the two. There is a duplication, of which we have too much in local government. There are too many people doing the same job over and over again. It is time that that was addressed. We also have neighbourhood watch, which is another duplication. I do not see the point: I remain to be convinced.

Mr McGuckin: The paper sets out the differences in function and structure.

Mr Armstrong: I have read that, but I do not see the point.

Mr McGuckin: I cannot add to what is in the paper. It is clear that the membership of the two bodies is different. The statutory organisations with responsibility for delivering services on the ground are not represented on the DPPs. There is a need for them to collaborate to enhance local services. The CSPs will provide that opportunity.

Ms Cousins: I was involved in the initial meetings at which the formation of those partnerships was first discussed. The statutory organisations welcome this development and are keen to start working together. That includes the PSNI, who see immense benefits in working with the other organisations to tackle the underlying causes of crime. Many things are put at the door of the PSNI, yet it does not have the power to deal with them. It is keen to work in those partnerships.

Mr Armstrong: Perhaps we should give the police more powers.

The Chairperson: Let us move on to financial matters. We are constantly being told that we cannot look a gift horse in the mouth; we are getting £2·5 million — who would turn that down? I have been in local government for 30 years, and I have found that Departments are good at pulling you in by giving you money to start you off. Once you are in, of course, they withdraw the money and you are left on your own.

Ratepayers are constantly being made to pay for matters that are the responsibility of central government. What is that £2·5 million for? Is it for salaries? I notice that it is for two years, and then goes down to 75%, and then they talk about a third year. I also notice that there is a caveat; that it goes into the pot with all the other demands. So what are we assured of? What is the direct commitment for the three years and afterwards? Is it the responsibility of the district councils thereafter?

I notice that it refers to top-up funding from the Department of the Environment. We have found that millions of pounds have been cut off. If you do not understand where that is from, I draw your attention to a letter to me from Dermot Nesbitt, concerning a proposed amendment to provide district councils with statutory cover to engage in community safety. We are talking about the right thing; we are on the same wavelength.

The Minister’s letter, dated 8 March 2002 says:

The Chairperson: I am happy for those behind you to move forward to pick up on the other points.

Mr McGuckin: I shall try to clarify the issue. Our strategy was not issued until April 2002. It was only then that we started to make sense of the likely funding arrangements. Unfortunately, the letter which you have — which my colleagues from the Department of the Environment will be only too happy to discuss with you — predates the strategy’s publication. We also listened very carefully to what the Committee had to say at our last meeting. The consultation period on the strategy is not yet over.

I wrote to the Committee in May to say that we would recommend to Ministers that it is important that the full funding for the co-ordinator continue for a third year to allow an evaluation, which is important also because we want to ensure that good use is made of that resource.

The strategy does not state that the district council will be responsible for the employment of the individual. The district council is one organisation that will be engaged in the partnership. It will take responsibility, on behalf of the partnership, for the employment of the co-ordinator. The co-ordinator works on behalf of the partnership, not any individual organisation.

It may make sense to employ the co-ordinator in the district council. However, there is no requirement that that should fall to the district council, and there is no requirement that the district council should have to make up any shortfall in funds. The co-ordinator will operate on behalf of the partnership, and if, following an evaluation, there is a change in the way that the funding is structured, the partnership, not just the district council, will be expected to contribute to the cost of the co-ordinator. The valid point —

The Chairperson: Is that provided for in the Bill or is it your assumption? The letter that the Committee received from the NIO, containing the reference to third-year funding, is dated 22 May. The suggestion that councils would be expected to fund the remainder is not removed.

Mr McGuckin: I cannot address the contents of the letter, because it did not come from the NIO. I can only comment on what is in the strategy. Although it would be nice to be able to commit funds indefinitely, we are all familiar with the way in which Government funding systems operate, and, therefore, we can only make a commitment for as long as the funds are available.

The Chairperson: That is my worry.

Mr Barr: Mr McGuckin has answered the question on the Department’s behalf. The 8 March letter was sent prior to the launch of the strategy. At that stage, the Department was considering the issue on the hoof. It was not familiar with the funding that would be included in the NIO strategy. I mentioned that at a previous Committee meeting, and explained that in March we did not have the full detail.

However, since then, the situation regarding the Department’s understanding of funding has been rectified. Funding will be allocated to CSPs, as opposed to district councils. If councils are members of CSPs, they will avail of the feeder resources that are allocated to them. Given the cycle of Government funding, I suspect that it is difficult for any Department to give a three-year commitment.

Nothing in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill commits councils to anything. It gives councils the power to engage in CSPs if they so wish. If a council decides to join a CSP, there is nothing in the Bill that would mean that the council must remain in the CSP beyond the evaluation period of three years. I may stand corrected on that. Councils will have the freedom to either opt in or opt out of CSPs.

The Chairperson: The wording has been changed, but it does not do exactly what you said. The change is "councils and others would be expected to fund the remainder". That does not mean that councils are not expected to fund it. The given wording is "councils and others". That is the clarification.

Mr Barr: District councils were concerned that the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill was not specific in terms of allowing them to spend money on community safety. It was at their behest that the Department amended the clause to enable them to do that. That suggests that councils recognise that there is no such thing as a free lunch and that they should contribute financially to community safety. Councils accept that, but they will be careful with how much money they contribute.

The Chairperson: For clarification, when you say "councils" you mean SOLACE. It was not councils. I have never heard this debated in council, and I do not know why you name councils. I think that it was chief executives who said that they would like the option, or did you consult individual councils?

Mr Barr: The Environment Committee consulted councils, and the responses were forwarded to us. I think that some councils voiced their concern.

The Chairperson: Yes, some did.

Mr Barr: Some councils were concerned that it was not explicit enough for them to spend money.

The Chairperson: "Councils" is an all-embracing term.

Mr Molloy: As we tease this out, the intention becomes clear. The intention is to make it operational, but then leave someone else to carry the can. It will not be the NIO. It is a deceitful method — and I do not make that allegation lightly. Mr McClarty said that councils did not have the necessary power, but one must remember that there are 26 district councils. That does not reflect the view of them all. Not having the power to do something is not the same as wanting to do something.

District councils are always being told that they do not have the powers to do this or that. I am concerned that councils do not have the power to do what they should be doing, for instance, looking after neglected small infrastructure. The Department of the Environment is very quick to tell councils that they do not have authority and that a particular situation is the Department’s responsibility. However, this is clearly a matter of security and policing services, which are not the responsibility of district councils.

In the past, closed-circuit television (CCTV) was introduced with a funding bribe from the NIO. However, councils will have to pay for the CCTV once it becomes operational. The councils will have to stump up 3p in the rates to pay for the district policing partnership board. Now there is another area which will require council funding. Whether it is "councils" or "councils and others" does not make any difference. Ultimately it will come out of the ratepayers’ money. Either way, it will go into the lines of an unnecessary structure which will not provide anything to help community safety. People are fudging the issue.

The partnership boards were introduced to deal with Peace II money, but the councils were left carrying the can again and had to fund those schemes and assist in paying staff. A number of issues are not clear, and it would be foolish of the Committee to indicate that it is willing to participate. It would also be foolish of district councils to give the same impression.

Mr McGuckin: A number of partnerships have been operating, or starting to operate, on a voluntary basis. Currently some 11 councils are actively engaged in, or developing, community safety partnerships — putting in place the necessary arrangements to develop community safety partnerships or enquiring from us about support for this. There is much interest among district councils in actually engaging with us in that way.

The Chairperson: That information is important. I thank the Department and the NIO for the presentation this morning. Undoubtedly, we will have further deliberations on this matter, because we have to come to a determination. We appreciate the good work that has been done on the vast part of the Bill, especially this area.

Mr McConnell: I just want to thank the Committee. This is a better Bill now than it would have been, and the good work that we have achieved together has served a useful purpose, and I do not want this good work to be lost in a debate that we are not part of. The points raised by Mr Molloy are not really for the Department of the Environment. The Department is facilitating district councils to enter into this, if they so desire, and I do not want us to end up with a difficulty that we, as a Department, really cannot deal with.

The Chairperson: The Committee will have to consider that point, but I understand where you are coming from. It was not us who brought this into the Bill. The NIO, because of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, feel that this is the best vehicle for bringing this forward, but we have to make our determination. Thank you for your presentation.

20 June 2002 (part ii)/ Menu / 27 June 2002 (part ii)