Rev Dr William McCrea (Chairperson)
Ms Lewsley (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Coyle
Mr Ford
Mrs Nelis
Mr Watson

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

The Chairperson: Before we start discussing the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, members, if appropriate, should declare an interest.

The Chairperson: Members have been provided with an updated working draft version of the Bill.

I welcome Mr John McConnell, Ms Marie Finnegan, Mr David Barr and Dr Tracy Power from the Department of the Environment. They are here for any points of clarification rather than any further statements. Before we proceed to the clause-by-clause reading of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, there are some matters that I have to draw to the Committee’s attention.

I wish to put on record a summary of the Committee’s deliberations on the Bill to date. The Bill was referred to the Committee for consideration on completion of its Second Stage on 20 May 2002. On 25 June 2002, at the Committee’s request, the Assembly agreed to extend the Committee Stage of the Bill to 17 October 2002.

To date, the Committee has considered the Bill at 15 meetings. Members will recall that at several of those meetings, the Committee scrutinised, with the co-operation of the Minister and officials, a draft of the Bill and the explanatory and financial memorandum. Such pre-introduction consideration greatly assisted the Committee’s later formal scrutiny of the Bill. Some of the initial meetings addressed a consultation paper on detailed proposals for a new formula for the distribution of the resources element of the general exchequer grant to district councils.

Clause 2 of the Bill introduces powers for the determination of this element of the grant through the use of a formula in accordance with Regulations. Those draft Regulations have been provided to the Committee today and will be considered at a future meeting of the Committee.

The Committee wrote to all district councils, to the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) and to the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) on the specific terms of the Bill. The Committee received 17 written responses, and it took oral evidence from representatives of Belfast City Council and Craigavon Borough Council. The Committee received detailed written and oral evidence from departmental officials on several occasions.

I wish to put on record the Committee’s thanks to those officials for the helpful and timely manner in which they responded to the Committee’s numerous enquiries about the Bill. The Committee also received helpful written and oral evidence from Northern Ireland Office (NIO) officials on the issues surrounding community safety partnerships. All the evidence will be available to Members of the Assembly in the Committee’s forthcoming report on the Bill.

The results of the Committee’s extensive consideration of the specific terms of the clauses in the Bill culminated in a letter from the Minister of the Environment, dated 2 July 2002, stating that he had agreed to move amendments to clauses 2, 4, 6 and 7 at the forthcoming Consideration Stage of the Bill. That letter, which I will be referring to on several occasions during the formal clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, provides the wording of each proposed amendment.

A copy of the letter, which the Committee considered on 4 July 2002, has been included in members’ papers today, together with an illustrated revision of the Bill, highlighting the proposed amendments in red. Members will recall that the proposed amendments are extensive; however, they are necessary and will result in better legislation for all concerned.

At the meeting of 4 July 2002 the Committee agreed to give formal clause-by-clause consideration to the Bill in September 2002, and that is the purpose of today’s meeting. Members will note that departmental officials are available to answer any questions or points of clarification. If members are content, we shall move to the clause-by- clause consideration without delay.

The Chairperson: The proposal is that the Committee is content that clause 2 be amended as proposed by the Minister in his letter to the Committee dated 2 July 2002.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The Chairperson: The proposal is that the Committee is content that clause 4 be amended as proposed by the Minister in his letter to the Committee dated 2 July 2002.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The Chairperson: The proposal is that the Committee is content that clause 6 be amended as proposed by the Minister in his letter to the Committee dated 2 July 2002.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The Chairperson: The proposal is that the Committee is content that clause 7 be amended as proposed by the Minister in his letter to the Committee dated 2 July 2002.

Mrs Nelis: You will have to bear with me because I did not have the benefit of going through all this with the Committee earlier. I have given some consideration to this clause. It seems that this element of the Bill is a duplication of resources. Tell me if I am out of order, but there seems to be duplication between community safety partnerships (CSPs) and district policing partnerships (DPPs). In the interests of resources, I wonder if it would be possible for a clause to be inserted to make CSPs a subsection of DPPs.

The Chairperson: We had a long discussion about that. Officials were brought before us several times. Members were concerned about duplication.

Some Committee members have spoken to different councils to find out if they had any concerns. Those councils that I have spoken to have assured me that there is not over duplication and that there is a position for both groupings.

Because of our concerns, we took evidence from NIO officials. The Committee questioned those officials in depth, as some were against, rather than supported, the community safety activity of councils. The officials pointed out that this is a power enabling, not forcing, a district council. However, many district councils are currently carrying out that function. The NIO believed that it was vital that there be a difference between the DPPs and the CSPs, and it was using this legislation, rather than the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, to bring it through. However, Committee members had to be convinced of that fact. Mr Barr, could you clarify the position?

Mr Barr: I agree with what the Chairperson has said. District councils have expressed an interest in engaging in community safety, particularly through the partnerships. The latest figures from the NIO suggest that 21 of the 26 councils have shown a deep interest in that, and 12 of them have now decided to take the lead in those community safety partnerships, with the seven other partnerships being established where the lead is being taken by other organisations.

I understand that the Policing Board has accepted that separate management structures should exist for DPPs and CSPs, and that was discussed frequently between the NIO, DPPs and others. I understand from the NIO that the Policing Board now accepts that DPPs and CSPs can coexist.

The NIO has assured us that there has been some movement in relation to the potential duplication of services. We understand that the Northern Ireland Local Government Association has been in close contact with the NIO and that, together with SOLACE and the Policing Board, it hopes to work to see if there can be some dual servicing of DPPs and CSPs so that there will not be substantial duplication or any real cost to district councils. It is hoped that that can be resolved on a local basis between councils and their local DPPs.

The NIO has taken the lead in the community safety strategy. Our legislation is to enable district councils to engage in CSPs if they so wish. Councils are not forced to do so, but it gives them the freedom of choice to engage in CSPs at their discretion. The evidence produced so far suggests that the vast majority of councils are interested in engaging in CSPs.

I was talking to a chief executive recently who was concerned that district councils would be put in an awkward situation if the legislation did not go through. Those already engaging in CSPs would be afraid that they would be doing so without the statutory cover. He was keen that we should proceed with the Bill to enable them to proceed with CSPs on a statutory footing.

Mrs Nelis: I appreciate your response and your clarification. I also appreciate the Chairperson’s comments that there has been a great deal of discussion about the subject. As you say, my concerns are legitimate, because although the budget is going to be covered by the NIO for the next three to five years, the long-term budget will have to be met out of the rates. Therefore, it is our duty to avoid any duplication that would, in the long term, be a waste of resources. Is the power granted to councils statutory or discretionary?

Mr Barr: It is an enabling power.

Mrs Nelis: Councils might see DPPs and CSPs doing the same job. I have read the document, and I thought that a way to address the potential waste of resources might be to establish CSPs as subcommittees of DPPs.

Mr Ford: Mr Barr’s response was extremely helpful. The function of a DPP is not the same as that of a CSP. My concern was that they were so closely aligned and that the personnel involved were likely to be so similar that we might encounter major problems in administering two different organisations in small district councils. Pooling resources appears to be the practical way forward. It does not affect the substance of the Bill, and it at least indicates that we can look forward with confidence to the Bill achieving its objectives. I am happy to proceed as outlined.

The Chairperson: Members must decide whether or not they are content that clause 7 be amended as proposed in the Minister’s letter.

Ms Lewsley: Mr Ford was proposing that it should proceed.

The Chairperson: In the light of what has just been discussed, we have to decide whether to proceed as proposed in the Minister’s letter to the Committee dated 2 July 2002. We should take a vote to make things clear.

Mrs Nelis: Can a member abstain?

The Chairperson: Yes, members can abstain.

Ms Lewsley: May I have clarification? It is my understanding that we are voting to proceed with the clause with the amendment as agreed by the Minister.

The Chairperson: That is correct. The proposal is that we are content with the clause, subject to the amendment proposed by the Minister in his letter of 2 July 2002.

Mrs Nelis: I will abstain.

Question put, That the Committee is content with the clause, as amended.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5; Noes 0.

The Chairperson: That concludes the Committee’s consideration of the Bill. A draft of the Committee’s report on the Bill will be provided to members shortly, and it will be considered for final approval at a Committee meeting in the near future. The Regulations are tabled today and will be considered at a future meeting.

Mr McConnell: I thank the Committee members; matters have worked out very well. The Bill is a much better Bill than it was to start with. I also thank the Committee Clerk and his team. This has worked out well for all of us.

The Chairperson: The Committee greatly appreciated the Department’s listening ear. The responses from the Department were very helpful, and I thank you and your colleagues for that. We got into deep discussions on some occasions, especially with Mr Barr, but I trust that we have arrived at a Bill that is at least helpful for local government. Thank you very much indeed.

12 September 2002  (ii) / Menu / 19 September 2002 (ii)