Members present:

Rev Dr William McCrea (Chairperson)
Mr Armstrong
Mr A Doherty
Mr Ford
Mrs Nelis
Mr Poots
Mr Watson

Witnesses:

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

The Chairperson: I welcome Mr John McConnell, Ms Marie Finnegan, Dr Tracy Power and Mr David Barr, departmental officials, and I apologise for the delay. We received your letter of 2 July 2002 on the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and would like you to take us through it. It is about amendments to clauses 2, 4, 6 and 7 of the Bill. Our only outstanding issues are from clause 7.

The word "impose" has been mentioned again. Have we got anywhere on that, or is there —

Mr McConnell: We do not regard it as a hostage to fortune; it is entirely in the hands of elected representatives. If they want, they can require councils to do something about it at a future date. The consultation document seems to contain the strong possibility — although it is an Northern Ireland Office matter and not for us to judge — that the community safety initiative will be placed under the control of the Assembly through the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

The Chairperson: It would be desperate for it to be subsumed by that office, for it would be lost like almost everything else. So you think that is where it will go?

Mr McConnell: Perhaps. It may come under the responsibility of the Assembly. As you know, it is held by the NIO, but the consultation paper suggests that it might move. In those circumstances, it would give the Assembly an opportunity to judge its significance at council level. At the moment, however, the scheme is only permissive — it is a matter of whether councils wish to take part.

The Chairperson: And the imposition is directly linked to the overriding authority of the Assembly’s resolution.

Mr Barr: Absolutely. Any decision must be made by affirmative resolution. At the last meeting, Mr Ford felt that the legislation should say whether we had to consult with councils and others before such draft legislation came forward. We said last week that such consultation would be implicit. We should not put any legislation through without proper and full consultation with councils and others.

However, we could add to the explanatory and financial memorandum. For example, page 7 of the memorandum explains how subsection (3) of the Bill stipulates that no Order may be made under subsection (2) unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Assembly. I would be happy to add something to the effect that there should be full consultation with councils and other interests. That would overcome the problem which Mr Ford raised.

Mr Poots: My basic difficulty with this is that it is supposed to be voluntary. If someone engages in a voluntary act, you are not imposing on him; there must be a two-way engagement. However, the word "impose" implies that one party has the power to define what the other should do. If the engagement between the councils and central Government is to be voluntary, "impose" is not needed. I do not understand why the word is there. I have heard no explanation that justifies its being there. I see no need for it, and I do not understand why there is any debate on the issue.

Mr Barr: I explained why the word "impose" is used at the last meeting; perhaps you were not present. First, clause 7(1) of the current Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill says that the councils’ role is voluntary. It allows them, if they wish, to join in community safety partnerships. That is also touched on in clause 7(2). It will not override clause 7(1); it is there to enable the Assembly, if it wishes, to make legislation at some future stage in addition to what is in clause 7(1). It provides the safeguards of having to go through a consultation process and the Assembly. The term "impose" would enable such laws to be passed as subordinate legislation.

The non-use of "impose" would mean that if the Assembly wanted councils to do something rather than give them the option of doing it, it would have to be done through primary legislation. The inclusion of "impose" would enable the Assembly to do it by subordinate legislation, which means that it would be done more expediently and with a better use of public resources.

Mr Poots: I understand. However, it is creating a situation in which it might be inviting for a council to enter a voluntary arrangement, and once it did so be told what to do. The only voluntary aspect is the entering into it. Once it is in the scheme, the voluntary aspect ends, and the council must implement every part of the scheme as imposed by the Assembly.

Mr McConnell: If a council voluntarily enters the scheme, it can also voluntarily leave. It is voluntary unless, at a future date, the Assembly decides that it is a good thing for the community. It is not intended as a devious method of getting councils to do something. It is a mechanism, and it offers protection.

The Chairperson: I would be more worried if the power to impose was left to the Department, but we have endeavoured to ensure that the Assembly has the power. If the Assembly was minded to, it could change the wording of the legislation. I had concerns initially, and I would prefer that "impose" was not in the words

The Chairperson: There have been major changes in the Bill, and the Committee went through a list of them last week. Ms Lewsley and Mr Poots, because of responsibilities in another place, were unable to hear that, but they both read the Committee documentation on it. The community safety issue has been a sticking point before. A letter from the Belfast City Council says:

The Chairperson: Far be it from me to commit the sin of peddling the Department’s view that this does not force any council to do anything in that line. The councils, with the policing partnerships in mind, will have responsibility for deciding what they want to do in this respect.

We will probably consider the Bill clause by clause in early September. That is our intention; but when will we see the draft Regulations for the formula detail? That is important. What consultation arrangements have been made?

Ms Finnegan: Much work remains to be done on the Regulations, and we aim to have them tabled for the first meeting after recess. We must consult with councils, which is difficult, because they do not like being consulted over the summer. We will probably send the papers to councils at the beginning of September and give them two to three weeks. They will not have twelve weeks.

The Chairperson: They must have at least a month, because they must meet.

Ms Finnegan: We shall give them a month. Most council finance officers are familiar with the detail. However, it is not a good idea to send the papers to them during the summer.

Mr McConnell: We will send them out as soon as possible and give a closing date for response, taking into account their need for at least four weeks. If the papers are ready before the end of the summer, we shall send them out in any case and allow the councils to judge when their members should see them. I assume that councils will not meet, but I take into account that four weeks are needed.

The Chairperson: That is the best route. We shall do our bit to move it forward quickly, but the Committee wants to know what the consultation will produce. We shall see what the councils say about it.

Thank you very much.

27 June 2002 (part iii) / Menu / 4 July 2002 (part ii)