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

Mr I Maye )
Mr J Lambe ) Department of the Environment
Mr D Small )

The Chairperson: I welcome Mr Ian Maye, Mr Jackie Lambe and Mr David Small from the Department of the Environment. Thank you very much indeed for coming. We will continue our consultation process. I would ask you to make your opening remarks, and members can then ask questions.

Mr Maye: Before I pass over to the experts on these issues, the Committee raised several issues when we appeared here about two weeks ago. We are just about to put a submission to the Minister with our recommendations on them, and, once agreed, we will put a paper to the Executive Committee. Some issues, for example increased fines and penalties, have to go to the Executive Committee for approval and, in turn, to the Secretary of State as they are reserved matters. However, we will share those papers with the Committee as soon as we send them to the Executive Committee. We had hoped to be in a position to let you know today, but we should know the Minister’s view before the end of the weekend, and we should be in a position to tell you then.

The Chairperson: That is about the level of fines and the stop notices.

Mr Small: Before we continue with the clause-by-clause consideration, a point was raised last week about on whom a stop notice can be served quite apart from the question of how quickly it takes effect. Article 73(5) of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 allows us to serve a stop notice on any person who appears to us to have an estate in the land or to be engaged in any activity prohibited by the notice. The powers are wide ranging and give us broad scope with whom we wish to serve the notice on. You expressed concerns about a particular case, and we fail to see why there was such difficulty in serving the stop or enforcement notice in that case. However, we can look at it in more detail, if you give us more information about it.

Mrs Nelis: I would be happy to do that, and I am glad to hear that you have such widespread powers. However, the problem is using those powers. It is not just that case — I could cite several cases of developers putting a horse and cart through planning permission with conditions, and no attempt was even made to enforce them. When there was enforcement, notice was served on the developers, for whatever reason. That is what planners have been telling councils, and every member of the Committee has had similar experiences.

Mr Small: We accept that enforcement has probably not been as robust as we would like. However, we have made a commitment to changing that. I see no reason for any difficulty in serving a stop or enforcement notice. If we have to be more robust, we will be.

Mrs Nelis: This may come up during consideration of the clauses: you cannot enforce anything after someone chops down a dozen trees. How do you cross that Rubicon?

Mr Small: In certain circumstances we can take enforcement action, and the Bill will give us new powers. Our powers are significantly strengthened when trees are protected by a tree preservation order. There is the level of fine that we can impose and the new powers that the Bill gives us to require the trees to be replaced. That has the effect of removing the development opportunity.

In response to the consultation exercise, Down District Council suggested that the maximum fine that could be imposed by a court in cases where false or misleading statements were made must be made clearer. The Bill states that the level of fine to be imposed will be the statutory maximum. That refers to the standard scale and, although the amount is not stated, the statutory maximum is £5,000, so the level of fine is clear.

With regard to article 83(f) of the Order, the Planning Appeals Commission suggested that the wording should be amended to make it clear that only a Planning Appeals Commissioner can hear an appeal. The difficulty is that the wording used in one or two parts of the Bill suggests that the Planning Appeals Commission may appoint a person to hear an appeal. That is incorrect, and we will make the necessary amendment to make it clear that the Planning Appeals Commission will hear the appeal. We will share that amendment with the Committee when it is drafted.

Coleraine Borough Council suggested that the fine for wilful obstruction is inadequate, one of the issues raised by the Committee that we are considering. We hope to respond next week.

The Chairperson: We hope that the levels are consistent.

Mr Small: Many comments were made about clause 12. Down District Council welcomed the changes but suggested that powers were needed for reinstating a building, or other construction, when unauthorised demolition had taken place. We already have that power under article 77 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order1991.

The Hearth Revolving Fund referred to the need for higher fines to reflect the financial benefit to the developer. As you know, such increased maximum levels are now proposed in the Bill. The Hearth Revolving Fund also suggested that fines should be imposed per property rather than per case. We can do that already. That concern goes back to a case where a judgement was made on legal advice to pursue a case for demolition as a whole rather than per property.

The Historic Buildings Council also suggested that the maximum level of fine in a Magistrates Court should be £1 million. We have already had a lengthy discussion with you about the maximum level of fine in the Magistrates Court and the unlimited fines in the Crown Court.

The Ulster Architectural Heritage Society said that the loss of historic buildings in conservation areas was not addressed separately. The listed building provisions in the principal Order and the Planning (Amendment) Bill are applied to buildings in conservation areas. The Bill deals with that but in a less explicit way than the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society would like. Its other point concerned the maximum level of fine, and that has been dealt with.

The Chairperson: There is a deep concern about losing historic buildings. The situation is becoming quite horrible. In clause 12, which replaces article 44(6) of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, the proposed new paragraph 6(b) says that a person guilty of an offence shall be liable

"on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine or both".

Can you describe a situation in which that would be imposed?

Mr Small: The penalties have been increased for a developer who fails to comply with a listed building enforcement notice. Fines have been increased to a maximum of £30,000 in the Magistrates Court and to an unlimited amount in the Crown Court. Furthermore, custodial sentences have been introduced. The courts will determine the penalty, but the new legislation offers a better range.

The effect of clause 13 is to introduce higher levels of fines and penalties for contravention of hazardous substances notices. Coleraine Borough Council said that the maximum level of fines should be higher. That matter has been addressed separately.

With regard to clause 14, Coleraine Borough Council was concerned about the grounds for appeal, as set out in the proposed new article 82(a) of the Bill. It suggests that they may be misused. We do not accept the council’s concerns. The grounds for appeal are standard and reasonable and, as with all appeals, the Planning Appeals Commission will determine whether they are valid.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds was concerned that not enough tree preservation orders (TPOs) were being imposed. We acknowledge those concerns and are committed to using tree preservation orders more robustly and proactively than in the past.

With regard to clause 15, many comments were made about our use of the new powers and how far they will be extended. We intend to extend the new control over the demolition of buildings in areas of townscape character (ATCs) that are identified in a development plan. The number of ATCs in place now is expected to grow considerably, so that a significant number will be in place offering that new control over demolition. Should the need arise, we will have discretion under the provisions of the Bill to extend that control of demolition to other classes of buildings.

No specific comments were made about clause 16.

The Chairperson: We will stop there to allow members to raise questions.

Mr Ford: I am perturbed by your response to suggestions on clause 14 to the effect that it is not the Department’s function to protect trees. I know what you mean, but the phraseology is unfortunate. There is a suggestion that you only have discretion to allow tree preservation orders for trees on land considered to be under threat of development. What does "under threat of development mean"? Trees are under threat in every suburb of Belfast and on the fringes of every small town in Northern Ireland, so they all appear to meet your criteria for TPOs.

Mr Small: In those circumstances you are right. I refer back to our intention to be more proactive in how and where we serve TPOs. In the past there was a tendency to apply a TPO where development was proposed and the threat was very real. We could look at extending that approach.

Mr Ford: Do you not think that the first sentence at that bullet point — that it is not the Department’s function to protect trees — is perhaps more than unfortunate?

Mr Small: Yes. The intention was to acknowledge our function to protect trees in specified circumstances.

Mrs Nelis: What does specified criteria mean in relation to clause 14?

Mr Small: That was a point made by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It felt that the circumstances in which we would contemplate imposing a TPO needed more specific criteria. I am not clear what is intended by that, but the danger is that it might limit our discretion when making a tree preservation order, and we must maintain as much discretion as we can.

The Chairperson: If the removal of a building is part of a development, could it not be that the removal of trees is part of a development and that the purpose of removing trees is development? Coleraine Borough Council raised that point in the discussion about demolition.

Mr Lambe: The answer is yes. Where there is a current development proposal, it could be argued that the removal of trees is part of that proposal. It is more difficult to see that argument when someone decides to remove trees because he does want them there but has not yet decided what to do with the site, to use it for development or for some other purpose.

Linking the removal of trees to some future development proposal might be difficult to justify and argue in all circumstances. It would depend on exactly when the trees were removed and on whether a development proposal was with the Department or being contemplated by the landowner or developer. People often remove trees simply to reserve their options for the future should they wish to develop a site. Linking the two might be difficult to prove at some future enforcement or court case. I do not know how a court would view that.

There is a strong argument for linking the removal of trees when a firm development proposal is before the Department. A developer might get round that by persuading a landowner to remove trees in anticipation of his disposing of the site, so the developer could not be held responsible for their removal. The Department cannot penalise the developer, who is now the landowner, for removing trees at a time when he had no responsibility for the land.

Mr Small: There would have been no firm development proposals.

The Chairperson: Can any protection be given in law to deal with that problem?

Mr Small: We have debated that with you before, and it was considered that the kind of protection desired would probably require blanket protection against all removing or cutting down of trees. The implications of that for private house owners who simply wanted to remove trees from their private gardens would be considerable. The resource implications for the Department and the costs for individuals would be significant if every individual were required to seek planning permission to do that. We have looked at that and have serious concerns about how it would operate.

Mrs Nelis: The Bill must address the current situation. Developers move in on a Saturday morning and cut down the trees, and nothing can be done then. They then apply for planning permission and give an assurance that they will replace the trees. However, history has shown that they do not replace them. Mr Ford has said that the fauna and flora of the countryside are being eroded by development, and I am concerned that there is a weakness in legislation on this.

Mr Maye: The weakness is more a practical than a legislative one. We should really survey the whole of Northern Ireland, identify trees which should be protected and impose a TPO. That is happening.

The Chairperson: Most of the developers will have the trees cut down by the time that is completed.

Ms Lewsley: Particularly if they hear what the Department is doing.

Mr Maye: If we impose blanket protection on all trees, every householder and farmer in Northern Ireland will have to apply to the Department before he or she can touch any tree anywhere.

The Chairperson: The Committee is asking the Department to see if there is a way to deal with this. It is not going into the situation referred to: that is not the purpose of the Bill. The Committee wants people in councils who can draw up legislation to see whether it is possible. It has been suggested that a new paragraph (e) could be added to the list in clause 15(1). Perhaps that could be looked at.

Mr Small: Clause 17 gives the Department power to decline to determine a repeat application, which is one that is similar to an earlier application that the Department refused. That provision was proposed in the Department’s recent consultation paper ‘Modernising Planning Processes’. In fact, the proposal was made during consultation on the Planning Bill in 1999, so its inclusion in that paper was unnecessary. We are content that the clause should remain part of the Bill.

Clause 18 gives the Department primary legislative powers to introduce more environmental measures linked to environmental impact assessment requirements. The Regulations to implement the EC Directive on environmental assessment were implemented under the European Communities Act 1972, which meant that our legislative provision had to be in keeping with the basic requirements of the Directive. The provision in the clause simply gives us a little more discretion and scope.

Clause 19 gives the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) the power to dismiss appeals in cases of undue delay. Since the Committee consulted with the PAC on the provisions of the Bill, the chief commissioner has told us that he does not have a problem with undue delays and sees no need for such provision. We considered the power to be permissive — the Commission would use it if, and when, it determined it was required. However, given the chief commissioner’s views, we have reviewed this. It may be wrong to include that power when the chief commissioner has said that he does not need it, so we propose to withdraw that clause if the Committee is content.

The Chairperson: Given that the PAC has said that, agreeing to the clause’s removal should not be a problem.

Mr Small: We will also listen to the views of OFMDFM, which sponsors the PAC.

Mr Ford: Why did you introduce the clause if the PAC said that it has no problem with undue delays? The fact that there is no problem now is not necessarily a reason for not introducing it. There might be a problem in five years’ time, and there will not be another Planning Bill for years.

Mr Lambe: The Planning Inspectorate in England was granted the power to dismiss appeals in case of undue delay under the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. When the consultation paper was being produced, the Department gave a commitment to include a range of new enforcement measures in the Bill. One such measure was the power to dismiss appeals in cases of undue delay that was outlined in the 1991 Act. At the time, no one expressed any concern about the power. Thus, we drew up the draft instructions to have it included in the Bill. It is only now, at this late stage, that the Planning Appeals Commission has told us that it does not feel that it needs the power.

Mr Ford: It would be interesting to know about the experiences of the other three jurisdictions, given that they have had the power for 10 years.

Mr Maye: We can find out more about that.

Mr Ford: When I first read clause 17, I did not study article 25(a)(1)(a)(i) very closely. Why does it specifically refer to article 31 alone? Should not repeat planning applications that might adversely affect small neighbourhoods be subject to dismissal as happens with repeat applications that affect large neighbourhoods that were refused under article 31? Are the problems not the same?

Mr Small: Article 31 cases are resource-intensive. The intention was to free the resources that are wasted on processing repeat applications so that other issues can be dealt with.

Mr Maye: We canvassed views on that in the consultation on ‘Modernising Planning Processes’. The majority of respondents said that we should extend the provision to all cases, so that, when repeat applications without material changes are made, the Department need simply not consider them.

Mr Ford: I suspect that those consultees did not include the small group of residents in a particular street who happen to be affected by one issue. If you examine the public concern, as well as the Department’s resource issues, you would find a wider case for extending the provision.

Mr Small: With regard to clause 20 the Housing Executive asked why planning obligations, which would have a wider scope, were not introduced. The Bill’s provisions do that but keep the local term "planning agreements", so what the Housing Executive suggested has already been incorporated in the Bill.

We did not take on board the unilateral aspect of planning obligations. That provision dealt with a specific problem that occurred in England, when a local authority demanded too high a contribution from the developer. They failed to reach an agreement, and the case went to the Secretary of State on appeal. In those circumstances, the unilateral aspect of the provision, which was enacted in England, gave the Secretary of State a unilateral power to agree an appropriate contribution from the developer. In Northern Ireland that power would be given to the Planning Appeals Commission. Given the different legislative and planning arrangements here, where the Department of the Environment is the planning authority, it was felt that the sort of difficulties that led to that provision’s being included in English legislation were unlikely to arise here and that the unilateral aspect was, therefore, unnecessary.

Lisburn Borough Council referred to article 40(A) and suggested that it should be amended to reflect consultation with district councils. We have no plans to change the Bill to include consultation with district councils on a matter that deals with modification to a planning agreement where agreement has been reached between a developer and the Department. There was no widespread comment on, or support for, Lisburn’s proposal. Consultation with district —

The Chairperson: Would that be viewed as too democratic?

Mr Small: No. That was not our thinking. This is part of the process through which a developer and the Department reaches agreement on contribution, and the extra step of consulting district councils would simply delay the process further. Agreeing the terms of a planning agreement can be a long, drawn-out process as it is. We viewed the proposal as another hurdle which would cause further delay. Given that it had no other support, we were content with the Bill’s provisions.

The Chairperson: Giving the impression that the proposal had no other support would be wrong. Perhaps no one else saw the flaw. It was not the case that a proposal to consult with district councils was put to consultees and received no support. That is a completely different view.

Mr Small: I take your point, but not all consultees agreed.

Mr Lambe: Lisburn Borough Council suggested that councils should be consulted when the Department proposes to amend article 40 agreements. It did not suggest that councils need to be consulted when article 40 agreements are originally drawn up. There does not seem to be logic in consulting councils on proposed amendments to agreements and not consulting them when those agreements are first drawn up.

The Chairperson: Are you suggesting that to be consistent?

Mr Lambe: We were not told that district councils should be consulted when planning agreements are first drawn up.

Mr Small: We would need to consider that in a broader sense rather than just on modification purposes.

Mr Ford: The Committee might suggest that.

The Chairperson: It might. It is an important point worth considering. Consistency is also important.

Mr Maye: It fits into the context of councils’ earlier engagement with the Department when the principle elements to be included in planning applications are thrashed out. Article 40 agreements put flesh on the bones. Modifications happen at the detailed stage rather than at the principle stage.

The Chairperson: Councils are usually consulted at two stages when a planning application is being considered: the principle stage and the full stage, so it is surely appropriate to suggest that, if they are consulted at the principle stage, they should also be consulted on detailed amendments.

Mr Ford: I agree. Many site meetings end up haggling over details rather than discussing the principles of an application. It seems entirely consistent that councils should be involved at both stages.

The Chairperson: Yes. Will you take the Committee’s view on board?

Mr Small: The Planning Appeals Commission also raised a point on clause 20, repeating its concern about the wording used when a case is referred to appeal, which we dealt with earlier. It should clearly be an appeal by the Planning Appeals Commission.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said that planning agreements should be secured within a clear strategic planning framework including development plans. Our view is that planning decisions are made in accordance with prevailing planning policies, including the development plan, and reflect that planning framework.

The purpose of clause 21 is to broaden the scope of the definition of advertisements. Two consultees commented on the definition of advertising and specific types of advertising. We are reviewing the enforcement of advertising controls and considering a range of matters. There are no firm conclusions as yet, but there could be a change to the primary or subordinate legislation or to the enforcement procedure. We cannot make progress until that work is concluded.

The Chairperson: I mind your leaving that to be dealt with by another Bill. When will that be? This will go on the long finger with a lack of control in the meantime. I am sure that members have views on that.

Mr Small: We know that, which is partly why the work has been initiated. Any change is more likely to be a change to subordinate legislation on advertising regulations rather than to primary legislation. We are not clear about what form of legislative change will be appropriate, and that is why we are unable to develop proposals.

The Chairperson: We will have to return to that point.

Mr Small: However, we are considering that seriously.

The Chairperson: I spoke to the authorities several times about a hole in a road in my constituency and was assured that men were looking into it. I went to the site and found four men looking into it. It would have been better if one of them had been looking into the hole and the other three were doing something about it. Just because you are looking at something does not mean that you will move on it. However, I am happy to be surprised.

Mr Small: Clause 22 deals with building preservation notices and the Department’s new power to impose such a notice to achieve immediate listing. Down District Council welcomed the new power and said that it should come into force as soon as possible. Such building preservation notices will become effective as soon as they are served. The arrangements for that are set out in clause 22 article 42(a). In urgent cases, the Department has the power to serve a building preservation notice simply by placing a notice on the building, so it can take immediate effect.

The Hearth Revolving Fund asked if building preservation notices can be invoked as a precaution. They can, but there will be compensation provisions in the Bill for circumstances in which the Department imposes a notice but fails to confirm the listing within six months. In such circumstances, any loss suffered during that time may be subject to compensation payment.

Many comments were made about clause 23. The Construction Employers’ Federation referred to the need for consultation with builders and developers. Landowners and those with an interest in land will be consulted prior to the imposition of a tree preservation order.

The RSPB had reservations, of which we are aware, that not enough tree preservation orders were being imposed and referred to the need for specific criterion.

The Ulster Architectural Heritage Society suggested that trees within the curtilage of a listed building should automatically be protected by tree preservation orders in the same way as that power is applied in conservation areas. There is nothing to prevent us from serving a TPO on trees that are in the curtilage of a listed building, but we are concerned about giving automatic protection because of the legal difficulties involved in defining the curtilage of a listed building. Linking automatic protection to those makes the suggested provision difficult.

The Chairperson: Will you ask your legal experts to explain the difficulties? Our legal department has helped us with such difficulties, some of which were not as complicated as they seemed.

Mr Small: We will look at that.

The Chairperson: How is the compensation that clause 22 deals with determined? Will the Department be liable for compensation if notice is not confirmed within six months.

Mr Small: I may have to come back to you on that. I suspect that it will be based on a case in court.

Mrs Nelis: If the owner of a building who is served with a preservation notice says that the building is structurally unsound and therefore unsafe, how will the Bill address the owner’s responsibilities and those of the Department to preserve a building which is not structurally sound?

Mr Small: The effect of the building preservation notice will be to give that building the same protection as that given by listing. The existing listing powers in the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 will apply immediately. That also addresses circumstances in which there is deemed to be a risk.

Mrs Nelis: Is the developer responsible?

Mr Maye: In such circumstances the builder can be served notice to ensure that any remedial work is carried out to return the building to a good condition. There are difficulties with that and with the burden of proof if the builder or the owner presents a report by his independent expert. Sometimes that must be challenged, and there are difficulties in practice. We are satisfied that the legislative provisions give us the necessary powers, but it can be difficult to put them into practice.

The Chairperson: Perhaps it might be best to check to be sure that the guidance is clear.

Mr Small: We shall come back on that. The Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 sets out clearly that the need to do that must be demonstrated.

Mrs Nelis: We want to preserve our lovely buildings, but some are in such a state of disrepair that they constitute a risk.

Mr Ford: With regard to clause 23, the Woodland Trust and compensation payments, what is the position regarding compensation payments for TPOs? How many are there, and what is their sum?

Mr Maye: There are several types of compensation. In two particular cases we are in dispute with the landowner, who has applied for compensation for loss of development value. Those cases are with the Lands Tribunal, but no decisions have been made. There are several other types of compensation. In practice, the landowner requests a valuer to value the compensation payable. We cross-check that with the Valuation and Lands Agency and senior counsel and haggle until an agreed figure is reached. We can come back to you with details of particular types.

Mr Small: The Bill makes provisions to enable the Department to state clearly the compensation allowed. For example, we will be able to make it clear that the development value associated with a site will not be included in any compensation payment. That is really where the difficulty arises.

Mr Ford: That meets the Woodland Trust’s point.

The Chairperson: You will come back on that. That is fine. Let us move on to clause 24.

Mr Small: The explanatory and financial memorandum says that clause 24 means that development plans will have prime importance when planning applications are being decided. Several comments were made, and the general concern was that such provision should be introduced in the absence of up-to-date development plan coverage. We are considering when the new measure will take effect, and we are conscious of linking that to our current development plan programme, which is aiming for full, up-to-date coverage as quickly as possible.

The Chairperson: There is genuine concern because many areas do not have up-to-date development plans.

Mr Small: Clause 25 deals with a range of provisions relating to the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC). The key point raised by the PAC during consultation was that the chief commissioner should be allowed to allocate decision-making on individual appeals to individual commissioners to get greater flexibility in the operational handling of appeals. Our view is that in the Planning Service decisions are made by a minimum of three senior planners. The Department and the Minister are opposed to allowing individual commissioners to determine appeals partly to maintain confidence in the process and partly to protect individual commissioners. We still wish to resist that proposal.

Clause 26 sets out the circumstances in which grants will be payable. There were no specific comments on that.

With regard to clause 27, Coleraine Borough Council suggested that the provision in the Bill should contain examples of bodies and that it should be extended to include grants to Planning Aid and others. Our view is that it is a discretionary power and that each case will be determined on its merits. We would be reluctant to limit our discretion to offer grants by listing specifically the bodies to which we want the new grant-making power to apply.

Clause 28 deals with the circumstances and papers that must be placed on the planning register.

Clause 29 is a provision to put right something that was missed in legislative change in 1992. It is a minor technical amendment, and no specific comments were made.

Clause 30 sets out the minor consequential amendments and repeals that will be necessary because of the main provisions. No comments were made on this.

No comments were made about clause 31.

No specific comments were made about clause 32.

In relation to schedule 1, paragraph 5, representatives of the PAC suggested that article 32(6) should be amended. They suggested that the reference in article 32(6) of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 to applying earlier articles 23 and 24 should be removed. We accept that. Article 32(6) should not refer to the application of articles 23 and 24 because they are not relevant. We propose to make that amendment, which we will share with the Committee.

The Chairperson: In response to Coleraine Borough Council, you said that you were not minded to include any list. Can you give examples of the bodies?

Mr Maye: They would include Planning Aid, Community Technical Aid and several other bodies. Our main point is that we want to retain the discretion so that when new bodies come along, just as Planning Aid has come along in the past 18 months, we can consider them seriously.

Mr Small: We pay a grant to building preservation trusts on an extra-statutory basis because of what the current legislation says. This provision will allow us to give it statutory cover.

Mrs Nelis: I support Coleraine Council’s view that statutory cover should also be given to Planning Aid.

Mr Maye: This will allow us to give that cover.

Mr Ford: I am surprised that the wording of clause 27 includes Planning Aid and Community Technical Aid. It does not appear that they will be entirely covered, and slightly different wording might make it absolutely explicit that they were suitable. I am not suggesting the wording, but no doubt it will take the lawyers several weeks to think it up. The issue is about providing full cover for groups like Community Technical Aid that do not seem to have their principal objectives listed, groups which are there to assist those commenting on such matters.

Mr Maye: We will double-check that.

Mr Small: We will check that. However, it may be covered in some of our existing provisions.

Mr Ford: Clause 25 refers to the PAC delegation. Is the Committee to take it that there was strong representation from the chief commissioner that this should be allowed but that at the moment the Minister does not agree? We had a suggested clause on a previous matter that the chief commissioner said was not needed, and the Minister followed his advice then.

Mr Maye: Our Minister, and OFMDFM Ministers, are involved in that, and they also oppose the changes suggested by the PAC. They see value in continuing corporate decision-making in the PAC to ensure consistence and quality.

Mr Small: The earlier provision relating to dismissal of appeals was a permissive power that we had contemplated giving to the PAC. However, it said that it did not need it.

Mr Ford: I accept that the situation is not entirely analogous.

Mr Small: In this situation it is suggesting a complete departure from the way things operate at present.

The Chairperson: You will be coming back to us again on certain matters. Members will read through the suggestions and concerns in the last part of the Bill, and that will be dealt with next week. We have moved on substantially today.

The Clerk has reminded me about the Minister’s request. It will be dealt with as fast as the Minister’s Department gets answers. Thank you.

Mr Maye: Thank you.

19 September 2002  (i) / Menu / 19 September 2002 (iii)